Savannah Laurent summarises a judgment for Family Law Week. Peel J made a final 'best interests' decision about where 8-month-old Indi Gregory should be extubated in line with her care plan.
By an earlier judgment of 13 October and an order of 16 October, he had authorised the cessation of invasive treatment for critically unwell Indi in line with her care plan.
According to the care plan:
Parents should be supported to decide where compassionate care would be best delivered. Options include a hospice, the hospital, or home.
By the time the care plan came to be implemented, clinical opinion was that the invasive treatment could only be withdrawn at a hospital or hospice. Indi’s parents sought for Indi to be extubated at home.
Peel J set out the basis on which he approached the question before him. He treated the issue as a best interests decision, and did not accept the submission put on behalf of Indi’s father that “the Trust must demonstrate a material change of circumstances to justify a change to the care plan” (NHS Trust v AF (by his Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) and SJ  EWCOP 55).
After considering the evidence from Indi’s treating clinicians and any necessity for other expert evidence, he authorised the NHS Trust to arrange for the extubation at the hospice, unless the parents elected that it happen at the hospital.