Tragic baby will be allowed to die
The father of tragic "right to life" baby RB has withdrawn his opposition to a High Court plea by doctors and the little boy's mother for permission to switch off his life support machine. The decision came on the seventh day of an emotionally-charged...
The father of tragic "right to life" baby RB has withdrawn his opposition to a High Court plea by doctors and the little boy's mother for permission to switch off his life support machine.
The decision came on the seventh day of an emotionally-charged Family Court hearing.
Mr Justice McFarlane said it was a "sad but in my view inevitable outcome" and the "only tenable one for RB".
The judge had faced the formidable task of deciding whether chronically disabled one-year-old RB should be allowed to live or die in peace after withdrawal of his ventilation.
Lawyers for the health authority caring for the baby in intensive care told the judge: "All of the parties in court now agree that it would be in R's best interests for the course suggested by the doctors to be followed."
Declaring that such a course, with palliative care, would be lawful, the judge paid tribute to the young estranged parents who had been "exemplary" in attending to their son at his hospital bedside every day during his short life. As the judge summarised the tragic case, both parents wept and the mother at one point left the court in tears but returned to hear his tribute to them and the doctors and nurses caring for their son.
The hospital authority had sought a court order allowing RB to die with dignity rather than continuing to live what doctors described as a "miserable and pitiful" existence. The father initially opposed the application, arguing his son showed signs of "purposeful" movement when presented with toys and should have the chance to live, even though chronically disabled.
Baby RB was born in October last year with what is thought to be congenital myasthenic syndrome (CMS), a rare neuromuscular condition which severely limits the ability to breathe and move limbs.
Expert medical witnesses des-cribed him as having a normal brain locked inside an immobile and "non-communicative" body. Their principle concern was that he was unable to show, by facial expression or bodily movement, when he was in pain during the stressful treatment he had to undergo, including regular "suctioning" of his airways to remove fluid.