View source for NHS Trust v Baby X (2012) EWHC 2188 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 99

"The question in this case is whether a baby known as X should be removed from a ventilator and made the subject only of palliative care. As the evidence is that he will almost certainly die within minutes, or at best hours, of such removal, it will be readily apparent that this case is both tragic and difficult. Given the nature of the question, I have thought it right to deliver this judgment in open court but nothing of course may be reported which might reasonably lead to the identification of X or his parents. An issue has arisen over the reporting restrictions order in this case; I intend to deal with this matter quite separately to this judgment." [Detailed summary available.]

==Family Law Week==
{{FLW|NHS Trust v Baby X (2012) EWHC 2188 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 99}}

==Other==
Hearing: 5/7/12

Judgment: 30/7/12

Before: Hedley J

Miss Fenella Morris, QC (instructed by Capsticks) for the Applicant

Mr. Vikram Sachdeva (instructed by Irwin Mitchell, solicitors) for the Respondent

Miss Melanie Carew, CAFCASS Legal for the child

==External links==
{{#bailii:(2012) EWHC 2188 (Fam)}}

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/9441827/Judge-says-religious-couples-brain-damaged-baby-can-be-allowed-to-die.html Martin Beckford, 'Judge says religious couple's brain-damaged baby can be allowed to die' (Telegraph, 31/7/12)]

[http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed99433 Family Law Week - summary]

[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:Detailed summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]