Archie Battersbee's parents have lost their fight to stop a hospital withdrawing treatment for their son. The 12-year-old was found unconscious at home in Southend, Essex, on April 7.
He has never regained consciousness and Ms Dance said she believed he might have been taking part in an online challenge. Archie, who is at Royal London Hospital in east London, was due to have his life support stopped at 2pm on Monday.
However on Monday a Court of Appeal hearing was convened after the family appealed for the United Nations to step in. It asked for the youngter's treatment to continue while it could look into the case.
A decision has now been announced. It has ruled it will only grant a short stay, or delay, until 12 o'clock tomorrow. After that, his ventilator can be switched off, reports The Mirror.
During the hearing lawyers representing Archie's parents told judges that, unless the withdrawal of his life-sustaining treatment is postponed, the court will be “complicit” in a “flagrant breach of international law”. Hollie Dance and Paul Battersbee made a last-ditch application to the United Nations (UN) Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities last week after their court battle against Barts Health NHS Trust over his treatment ended.
The youngster was due to have his life-support ended after a High Court judge ruled this to be in his best interests and the family exhausted all routes of appeal. However, the UN committee issued a request to the UK Government on Friday, asking that it “refrain from withdrawing life-preserving medical treatment, including mechanical ventilation and artificial nutrition and hydration” from Archie while his case is under consideration.
The Government’s legal department then wrote an urgent letter on Sunday on behalf of Health Secretary Steve Barclay, asking the courts to urgently consider the committee’s request. The Court of Appeal began considering the issues at the hearing on Monday.
In written submissions to the court, Edward Devereux QC, acting for Ms Dance and Mr Battersbee, said the committee’s request was “binding” under international law. He argued that any failure to abide by the committee’s request, made in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities which was signed and ratified by the UK in 2008 and 2009, would amount to a “flagrant, egregious and unacceptable breach of international law”.
Mr Devereux asked the court to grant a stay to prevent the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment until after the committee has had time to consider Archie’s case, but said he didn’t know how long that would take. As an alternative, he asked the court to grant a stay within the next week to give time to seek more information from the committee as to the likely timescale for its decision.
He told the court: “What this court is considering now is whether it is going to be complicit in a flagrant breach of international law.” Mr Devereux also argued that it would be “wholly inappropriate” for the court to reach a decision without the Government being required to provide its views on the committee’s request.
However, Lady Justice King, one of the judges hearing the urgent application, said the Government has chosen not to intervene in the case. Bruno Quintavalle, also representing Archie’s parents at the hearing, said it is “very unfortunate” the Government has chosen not to play any part in these proceedings.
However, Fiona Paterson, representing Barts Health NHS Trust, said the Government has chosen “not to make submissions but instead effectively to seek the court’s guidance”. She told the court there is a “commendable logic” in that decision given that the court has all of the information necessary, having considered the case previously.
She said the UN committee’s request is not binding and added that the matter can be determined by the court and that no further participation of the Government is necessary. The trust had confirmed it would not take any steps to end Archie’s treatment until the Court of Appeal has given its decision on the latest development.
Claire Watson QC, for Archie’s guardian – an independent adviser appointed to represent him – said there has been no change to the guardian’s view that, in light of Archie’s “parlous” condition, it is no longer in his best interests for treatment to continue. Ms Watson also said, in written submissions, that there would be no breach of law by refusing the committee’s request, adding: “The UN Committee’s request to the UK Government to refrain from withdrawing life-preserving medical treatment is purely a request.
“The request is not enforceable and if not acceded to, the consequences for the state party would be criticism and moral censure by the UN committee, and potentially wider international criticism for frustrating the function of the committee.”
For more stories from where you live, visit InYourArea
