Re Gard (A Child) (Child on Life Support: Withdrawal of Treatment)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice McFarlane,Lady Justice King,Lord Justice Sales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWCA Civ 410 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 24 May 2017 |
[2017] EWCA Civ 410
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Lord Justice McFarlane, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Sales;
In re Gard (A child) (Child on Life Support: Withdrawal of Treatment)
Where a child was receiving life-supporting medical treatment and the medical team considered that treatment should be withdrawn, the question of whether the child should instead be permitted to undergo alternative medical treatment proposed by his parents was to be determined by the court applying the normal test of which course would be in the best interests of the child. The court would not prefer any particular option just because it had been proposed by the parent.
The Court of Appeal so held when allowing an application for permission to appeal, but dismissing the appeal by the parents, Constance Yates and Christopher Gard, of a nine-month-old child, Charles Gard, against the decision made pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court by Mr Justice Francis sitting in the Family DivisionUNK([2017] EWHC 972 (Fam)) to grant the application by Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust for a declaration that it was lawful and in the child's best interests for his artificial ventilation to be withdrawn, for his treating clinicians to provide him with palliative care only and for him not to undergo nucleoside therapy in the US as his parents desired.
Mr Richard Gordon, QC, Mr Gerard Rothschild and Mr Grant Armstrong for the parents; Ms Katie Gollop, QC, and Ms Susanna Rickard for the NHS trust; Ms Victoria Butler-Cole and Mr Benjamin Tankel for the child, by his guardian.
Lord Justice McFarlane said that the authorities were entirely clear. The court did not evaluate the reasonableness of the parents' case or, as the authorities indicated, introduce any other factor or filter, before it embarked upon deciding what was in the best interests of the child.
When thoughtful, caring, and responsible parents were putting forward a viable option for the care of their child, the court would look keenly at that option. The court evaluated the nittygritty detail of each option from the child's perspective. It did not prefer any particular option simply because it was put forward by a parent.
The judge decided what was in the best interests of the child by looking at the case entirely through eyes focused on the child's welfare and focused upon the merits and drawbacks of the particular options that were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- An NHS Foundation Trust v M and Others
-
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v William Verden (by His Litigation Friend, The Official Solicitor)
...as an individual human being” 111 More recently, in Yates and Gard v Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 410, McFarlane LJ observed: “As the authorities to which I have already made reference underline again and again, the sole principle is that t......
-
Tafida Raqeeb (by her Litigation Friend XX) v Barts NHS Foundation Trust
...best interests in cases of this nature, a situation expressly deprecated by the Court of Appeal in Great Ormond Street v Yates and Gard [2018] 4 WLR 5 at [94]. Within this context, the Trust contends that, once a disagreement as to what is in a child's best interests has coalesced, it is f......
-
E (A Child)
...for their view of what his attitude would be.” 49. In Yates and Gard v Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 410, McFarlane LJ observed: “As the authorities to which I have already made reference underline again and again, the sole principle is that ......
-
Popular Names Index to UK Cases and EU Legislation and Cases
...Publishing Ltd v Papathanasiou [1993] EMLR 306 Charlie Gard Case Re Gard (A Child) (Child on Life Support: Withdrawal of Treatment) [2017] EWCA Civ 410; [2018] 4 WLR 5 Gard v United Kingdom Application No. 39793/17 (2017) 65 EHRR SE9 Charter of Fundamental Rights Codification of rights deri......
-
Futile Care, Experimental Treatments, and the Right to Try Movement: Could the Charlie Gard Case Happen in America?
...the general desire to have the freedom to make medical decisions for ourselves and our children. (1.) In the Matter of Charles Gard [2017] EWCA (Civ) 410 [49], [2018] 4 WLR 5 (Eng.) (discussing why court determined ending treatment proper in Charlie Gard (2.) See Matt Pickles, The Ethical L......