View source for Re OT (2009) EWHC 633 (Fam)

''OT, a nine-month-old baby, required continuous ventilation to live, and sometimes required further intensive medical treatment; the trust wanted to discontinue ventilation and treatment on the basis of the distressing and futile nature of the treatment; the parents wanted all steps to be taken to sustain life. (1) Although the application itself was made in an emergency as a result of a sudden deterioration in the child's condition, the parents had a fair opportunity to prepare their case both before and during the hearing; there was therefore no flaw in the process breaching Convention rights. (2) The provision or withdrawal of treatment for a child without parental consent, save in exceptional cases, is unlawful without a court declaration.* (3) Declarations were made permitting the clinicians to treat OT according to their clinical discretion (including not escalating treatment) and to cease ventilation immediately.''

==Notes==
<nowiki>*</nowiki>The issue of Gillick competence was not relevant to this case.

==Related judgments==
[[Re OT (A Child) (2009) EWCA Civ 409]] (unsuccessful appeal)

*[[Re OT (2009) EWHC 633 (Fam)]]

==Other==
Judgment: 19/3/09

Before Parker J

Miss C Harry Thomas QC (instructed by Weightmans LLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant

Mr N Bowen (instructed by Kaim Todner LLP) appeared on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. T

Miss C Wood (instructed by CAFCASS Legal) appeared on behalf of OT

==Thanks==
{{thanks|Solicitor, A|Weightmans LLP}}

==External links==
{{#bailii:(2009) EWHC 633 (Fam)|no}}

[[Media:Re OT (2009) EWHC 633 (Fam).doc|Transcript]] - courtesy of parents' solicitors
[[Category:Judgment available on MHLO]]

[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2009 cases]]