Beyond resources: denying parental requests for futile treatment
2017; Elsevier BV; Volume: 389; Issue: 10082 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31205-9
ISSN1474-547X
Autores Tópico(s)Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
ResumoThe difficult case of the British boy Charlie Gard 1 Dyer C Doctors can withdraw life support from baby with rare genetic disorder, says judge. BMJ. 2017; 357: j1857 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar is the latest in a series of court cases in the UK when parents and doctors have disagreed about medical treatment for a child. 2 Rennie J Leigh B The legal framework for end-of-life decisions in the UK. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008; 13: 296-300 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar Charlie Gard is a 9-month-old boy with the rare neurodegenerative disorder severe encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. He is dependent on life support and has been in intensive care at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London, UK, since October, 2016. In such disputes, typically, doctors regard life support treatment as "futile" or "potentially inappropriate". 3 Wilkinson DJC Savulescu J Knowing when to stop: futility in the ICU. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011; 24: 160-165 Crossref PubMed Scopus (134) Google Scholar , 4 White DB Pope T Medical futility and potentially inappropriate treatment. in: Youngner S Arnold RM The Oxford handbook of ethics at the end of life. Oxford University Press, Oxford2016 Google Scholar Parents, by contrast, want treatment to continue. In the current case, High Court Judge Mr Justice Francis has recently rejected the request of Charlie Gard's parents for him to travel to the USA for an experimental medical treatment, nucleoside therapy. 5 Judiciary of England and WalesDecision and short reasons to be released to the media in the case of Charlie Gard. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/gard-press-summary-20170411.pdfDate: 2017 Google Scholar On April 11, 2017, Justice Francis ruled that it would be lawful and in Charlie Gard's best interests to withdraw artificial ventilation and provide palliative care. 5 Judiciary of England and WalesDecision and short reasons to be released to the media in the case of Charlie Gard. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/gard-press-summary-20170411.pdfDate: 2017 Google Scholar Charlie Gard's parents have appealed this ruling. 6 Forster K Charlie Gard's parents launch fresh appeal over ruling doctors can withdraw life support from brain-damaged baby. The Independent. May 2, 2017; Google Scholar Is it in Charlie Gard's best interest to die?On April 11, 2017, the High Court in London, UK, ruled that it is in Charlie Gard's best interests to stop treatment and die. High Court Judge Mr Justice Francis explained: "although the parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child's best interests".1 9-month-old Charlie Gard has mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome and the court ruling, which is being challenged by his parents,2 allows withdrawal of life-support treatment. Full-Text PDF
Referência(s)