HomeoldCourts turn down appeal of British parents to be allowed to take...

Courts turn down appeal of British parents to be allowed to take their critically ill child home to die

Published on

Editor’s Note: I have just been informed of a decision by the UK Court of Appeals that is, unfortunately, rather disheartening. The three justices rejected the request of parents Dean Gregory and Claire Staniforth to remove their critically ill 8-month-old daughter Indi Gregory from life support at home.

In a remote hearing on Friday, Lord Justice Peter Jackson delivered a ruling in which he stated that the grounds of appeal were entirely without merit.

In a statement provided by Christian Concern, a group supporting the family, Gregory said that Claire and he were once again disgusted by the judges’ one-sided decision.

“This latest setback is particularly distressing, and we will continue to advocate for our daughter’s right to live until the end,” he added.

Indi Gregory is afflicted with a rare mitochondrial disease, which impairs the production of cellular energy. She has been on full life support since early September, according to a report by Kylie MacLellan for Reuters. Her physicians have indicated that she is experiencing significant pain and distress, and that there is no point in continuing treatment. On Wednesday, a judge ruled that the patient’s life support should be removed, either in the hospital or at a hospice.

The parents contested this decision, asserting that the patient should be permitted to undergo treatment removal at home, a course of action that had previously been ruled inadmissible by the court due to the deterioration in her condition. This information was provided by MacLellan.

The final decision may have been reached today, although it was foreshadowed last month when England’s High Court ruled that it was in the infant’s “best interests” to be taken off life support.

Furthermore, they also declined to do so.

a request from her parents to be allowed to take her to the Vatican children’s hospital in Rome.

Earlier this week, the Italian government granted her citizenship in a further move aimed at preventing doctors from taking her off life support and allowing her to be transferred to Italy.

Jackson said on Friday that the idea that Italian authorities were better placed to determine the baby’s best interests was “completely misconceived” and that, although not the subject of Friday’s appeal, Gregory’s father had accepted that decisions about her treatment would be made by British courts.

Indi’s parents attempted a range of strategies, including an unsuccessful appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

The judge was Mr Justice Peel. On Wednesday, Mr Justice Peel ruled against Indi’s parents, concluding that withdrawing treatment at home would be ‘too dangerous’, reports Brian Farmer.

Those with expertise in the field have recommended that treatment be discontinued in a hospice or hospital setting. Justice Peel has endorsed this recommendation.

The parents’ final appeal was heard today by three Court of Appeal judges at an online hearing. There was a discussion regarding the precise content of Judge Peel’s remarks to the parents.

Barrister Bruno Quintavalle, who represented Mr Gregory at the appeal hearing, told Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Moylan and Lord Justice Peter Jackson that Mr Justice Peel had originally made an order stating that Indi’s parents could decide whether “extubation” would take place at home, in hospital or in a hospice.

He said in a written summary of the case that Mr Justice Peel had “amended” that order. “The effect of the amendment is to remove the parents’ right to take Indi home for extubation,” Mr Quintavalle told the three appeal judges.

“The option of home transfer for extubation was one of the options offered to the family by the doctors and then chosen by the family.”

Mr. Quintavalle informed the appeal judges on Friday that: “While the original dispute has been resolved, this new decision has the same detrimental effect on the parents.”


Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.

With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.

Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.

Order Now!


Latest articles

The EU’s plans for the abolition of the secrecy of digital letters

Surveillance of private chats without suspicion could soon become mandatory in the EU. This...

Lloyd’s: Government behind Nord Stream sabotage

About a month ago, Zug-based Nord Stream AG filed a lawsuit against its insurers....

More like this

Biden urges hostage deal

US President Biden has called on Qatar and Egypt to do everything possible to...

Trump trial: ex-president rushes from court to campaign trail

Update, 11:00 a.m.: In the U.S., experts are surprised that Judge Juan Merchan has...

Donald Trump Ignores Court Gag Order

Trump can't talk about those involved in the New York trial. The ex-president can,...