This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/parents-anguish-as-high-court-says-doctors-should-not-artificially-prolong-boys-life-a7036281.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Parents anguish as High Court says doctors should not 'artificially prolong' boy's life Parents' anguish as High Court says doctors should not 'artificially prolong' boy's life
(about 4 hours later)
The parents of a “profoundly neurologically disabled” two-year-old boy have said they are “devastated” by a High Court ruling allowing doctors only to provide him with palliative care.  The parents of a “profoundly neurologically disabled” two-year-old boy have said they are “devastated” by a High Court ruling allowing doctors only to provide him with palliative care.  
A High Court judge ruled the boy's life should not be “artificially prolonged” after NHS hospital bosses, with responsibility for the boy’s care, said limiting treatment to palliative care would be lawful and in his best interests.A High Court judge ruled the boy's life should not be “artificially prolonged” after NHS hospital bosses, with responsibility for the boy’s care, said limiting treatment to palliative care would be lawful and in his best interests.
The boy suffered from an incurable and unidentified neurological disorder and specialists said his condition was deteriorating. Nurses said he had stopped smiling and no longer giggled when tickled.The boy suffered from an incurable and unidentified neurological disorder and specialists said his condition was deteriorating. Nurses said he had stopped smiling and no longer giggled when tickled.
“Further invasive intervention,” specialists said, would be traumatic and arduous for the boy and he would only have a negligible therapeutic benefit.“Further invasive intervention,” specialists said, would be traumatic and arduous for the boy and he would only have a negligible therapeutic benefit.
The child’s parents were against only providing palliative care and implementing an “end-of-life” plan, insisting all treatment options should be available.The child’s parents were against only providing palliative care and implementing an “end-of-life” plan, insisting all treatment options should be available.
They said Mrs Justice Parker's ruling "effectively condemns their son to death".They said Mrs Justice Parker's ruling "effectively condemns their son to death".
The judge oversaw the case at a public hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London and made a ruling on Wednesday.The judge oversaw the case at a public hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London and made a ruling on Wednesday.
She said ‘artificially prolonging” the boy’s life would not be in his best interests and bosses at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust had asked her to make a ruling.She said ‘artificially prolonging” the boy’s life would not be in his best interests and bosses at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust had asked her to make a ruling.
Additional reporting by Press AssociationAdditional reporting by Press Association