Questions in the case of Indi Gregory
by Andrea Williams, Artillery Row:
A series of judicial decisions has led to the tragic death of little Indi Gregory this Monday night, and they have a number of deeply disturbing features.
Mr Justice Peel has described the medical evidence as “unanimous and clear” in saying that Indi’s condition was hopeless. However, that unanimity and clarity were achieved artificially by excluding any dissenting expert evidence. Indi’s father was refused permission to instruct his own medical experts. He and his lawyers nevertheless obtained opinions of several eminent experts, including those with experience and expertise in Indi’s extremely rare mitochondrial disease which Queens Medical Centre lacked. They disagreed with the hopeless prognosis given in Nottingham.
Having examined all medical records, a cardiologist expert said that Indi’s clinical problems were caused by her treatable heart condition. They could be fixed by a non-invasive, pain-free procedure: a right ventricular outflow tract stent, which would enable her to live without life support. A neurologist — the only neurologist who considered the case — agreed that “the existing damage to Indi’s brain is not such as to deprive her of a reasonable quality of life”. All that evidence was summarily brushed aside. The Courts even refused to admit it, on the grounds that it already had the evidence of the treating consultant, who had widely consulted with those he thought appropriate, so the opinions of any external experts were “unnecessary”. This view of fair trial (strongly endorsed by the Court of Appeal whilst refusing permission to appeal) reduces the role of the Court to a mere formality of rubber-stamping the decision of the treating doctor.
The Courts have once again usurped the parental right to choose the doctors for their sick child. Nobody was trying to force the doctors in Nottingham to act contrary to their judgement. However, a different — and more expert — paediatric hospital, Bambino Gesu in Rome, proposed an alternative treatment plan, fully funded by the Italian government, which gave Indi a chance to survive and improve. The Courts decisively refused that, in favour of withdrawing treatment and an inevitable death in Nottingham. The question raised in the case of Charlie Gard six years ago, and a number of families since, remains unanswered: what right does the British state have to interfere in the parental choice of a hospital for their child at all, let alone to do so with the inevitable consequences of enforcing death?
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
