View source for A Local Health Board v Y (A Child) (2016) EWHC 206 (Fam)

{{Case
|Date=2016/02/08
|NCN=[2016] EWHC 206 (Fam)
|Other citations=[2016] MHLO 8
|Court=High Court (Family Division)
|Judges=Baker
|Parties=A Local Health Board, Y, Y's father, Y's mother
|Sentence=Death
|Summary="In all the circumstances, therefore, I conclude that the course proposed by the clinicians is in Y's best interests. In accordance with the parties' ultimate agreement, I therefore conclude that (1) It is lawful and will be in Y's best interests for him to be extubated at the point where the clinicians, following discussion with Y's family, consider that his condition is optimal for extubation, and that "optimal" for these purposes is likely to mean when (a) he remains on minimal ventilation: (b) he has a body temperature of less than 37.5 and (c) that he has not required CPR for the previous 12 hours; (2) Upon extubation, it is lawful and in his best interests not to re-intubate him if he is unable to support his own respiration. (3) Upon extubation, it is lawful and in his best interests not to receive CPR (save for stimulation, which may be provided) or ventilation or inotropes."
|Subject=Medical treatment cases
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2021/10/11 02:30:48 PM
}}