London hospital to face High Court for allegedly refusing to resuscitate disabled girl
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
BMJ
A hospital's alleged "unlawful refusal" to resuscitate a disabled 10 year old girl with severe breathing difficulties is to be challenged in the High Court in London. The case, which has far reaching implications for the NHS, could become a test case for the rights of disabled people to have the same life preserving treatment as those who are able bodied.
Mr Justice Newman gave the girl's mother permission to seek a judicial review last June, saying that the case raised fundamental questions of human rights.
The health secretary, John Reid, and the Disability Rights Commission will make submissions as interested parties—reflecting the importance of the case.
The commission has already begun discussions with the BMA, the General Medical Council, and the Royal College of Nursing about greater safeguards for disabled people, in the wake of concerns about the use of "do not attempt resuscitation" orders.
The mother of the girl, known only by her initial N, claims that doctors at the Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, refused to resuscitate her daughter, now aged 11, in October 2002 after a chest infection developed into pneumonia and she experienced severe breathing difficulties. The girl has epilepsy, asthma, and developmental delay.
In a statement before the court, the mother said that doctors told her there would be "no point" in putting her daughter on a ventilator because the same thing would only happen again.
Meanwhile nurses had resuscitated the child and put her on an adult ventilator. It was eventually agreed that she should be allowed to remain on the adult ventilator and the specialist would do her best to find somewhere that would treat her.
"However, she said that she would make it clear that this should only be done for 48 hours and then the ventilator would be turned off. If N was unable to breathe without assistance at this point then no further assistance would be given and I would have to say goodbye to N," said the statement.
Eventually a place was found for N at Guy's Hospital, London, where she was ventilated for two weeks, and she remained in hospital for about three months.
Lawyers for Barts and the London NHS Trust said the facts of the case were in dispute and argued that even if there had been a "do not attempt resuscitation" decision, the child had experienced no harm and the case should not proceed to a full hearing because it was now "academic."
But in the new era of human rights, the judge said, "part of the integrity of society" depended on the right to have a declaration by the court if one's rights were infringed. "Wherever there is an infringement found to a right, harm has been done," he added.(Clare Dyer, legal corresp)
A hospital's alleged "unlawful refusal" to resuscitate a disabled 10 year old girl with severe breathing difficulties is to be challenged in the High Court in London. The case, which has far reaching implications for the NHS, could become a test case for the rights of disabled people to have the same life preserving treatment as those who are able bodied.
Mr Justice Newman gave the girl's mother permission to seek a judicial review last June, saying that the case raised fundamental questions of human rights.
The health secretary, John Reid, and the Disability Rights Commission will make submissions as interested parties—reflecting the importance of the case.
The commission has already begun discussions with the BMA, the General Medical Council, and the Royal College of Nursing about greater safeguards for disabled people, in the wake of concerns about the use of "do not attempt resuscitation" orders.
The mother of the girl, known only by her initial N, claims that doctors at the Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, refused to resuscitate her daughter, now aged 11, in October 2002 after a chest infection developed into pneumonia and she experienced severe breathing difficulties. The girl has epilepsy, asthma, and developmental delay.
In a statement before the court, the mother said that doctors told her there would be "no point" in putting her daughter on a ventilator because the same thing would only happen again.
Meanwhile nurses had resuscitated the child and put her on an adult ventilator. It was eventually agreed that she should be allowed to remain on the adult ventilator and the specialist would do her best to find somewhere that would treat her.
"However, she said that she would make it clear that this should only be done for 48 hours and then the ventilator would be turned off. If N was unable to breathe without assistance at this point then no further assistance would be given and I would have to say goodbye to N," said the statement.
Eventually a place was found for N at Guy's Hospital, London, where she was ventilated for two weeks, and she remained in hospital for about three months.
Lawyers for Barts and the London NHS Trust said the facts of the case were in dispute and argued that even if there had been a "do not attempt resuscitation" decision, the child had experienced no harm and the case should not proceed to a full hearing because it was now "academic."
But in the new era of human rights, the judge said, "part of the integrity of society" depended on the right to have a declaration by the court if one's rights were infringed. "Wherever there is an infringement found to a right, harm has been done," he added.(Clare Dyer, legal corresp)