FD24P00611 - [2025] EWHC 1042 (Fam)

I am dealing with an application by the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) made on the 9 December 2024 for a declaration that it is no longer in MG’s best interests to receive life sustaining treatment; that the treatment is futile and burdensome; and that it would be lawful for the treatment to be withdrawn. The Trust is represented by Peter Mant KC.

That application is opposed by MG’s parents, ZG (father) and KG (mother). They have been represented by Michael Mylonas KC and Naomi Madderson KC.

The application is supported by MG’s court appointed Guardian, Lauren Doyle of Cafcass, who has been represented by Christopher Osborne.

As I shall set out below MG has experienced significant injury to his brain from a stroke in May 2024. He requires intensive care to support his life, which includes continuous mechanical ventilation and an external ventricular drain (EVD) which has been inset (at one end) in his brain.

I have heard oral evidence from three doctors:

I have read statements from Ms C (sister in paediatric intensive care), Ms D (physiotherapist) and second opinions from Dr E (a consultant paediatric neurologist) and Dr F (a paediatric intensive care consultant).

Further I have heard oral evidence from the parents. I have read the report of the Guardian, Ms Doyle. No party wanted to question her.

I record at the outset that this has been a very respectful hearing. The doctors acknowledge that the parents love MG enormously. The parents recognise that the hospital has done an excellent job caring for MG.

Sadly, the medical evidence all reaches the same conclusion, namely that I should make the declarations sought and that treatment should not be continued.

When I asked Mr Mylonas as to his case at the beginning of the hearing, he was clear to me that the parents want treatment to continue because they are hopeful of a miracle. In his written submissions, which I received at the beginning of the case, he urged on me the following question (the wording here is mine):

In his closing it is fair to say that the question had a slightly different emphasis, such that it became clearer that the importance of sustaining MG’s life was because the parents thought that while MG was alive there was a chance that his condition might change. In this judgment it will be necessary to consider these arguments.