London judge allows doctors to remove baby's life support against parents' wishes

A London judge has ruled that doctors can remove the life support of an eight-month-old baby against the wishes of the parents.

Following the analysis of the case at a private hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London, Justice Russell ruled that the doctors could withdraw the life-support treatment of an eight-month-old girl whose heart did not develop properly. On Feb. 6, she concluded that it would be in the baby's best interest to stop the "invasive" treatment, Metro reported.

The specialists had diagnosed the baby's condition prior to birth and suggested that the parents abort the girl. The parents refused, and the baby had heart surgery two days after she was born. However, the procedure did not save the life of the infant, and the doctors predicted that she had few weeks to live.

Russell said that the officials at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London asked her to decide what would be in the baby's best interest.

The parents accepted that the baby would die soon, but argued that no one was sure exactly how soon. They said there were "positives" in the baby's life and that she should be allowed to "continue to enjoy life."

The judge, who referred to the baby as "MK," argued that it would be wrong to inflict more pain and distress on her, adding that she had "already suffered so much."

"MK is very likely to feel fear and to be frightened by the procedures being carried out," said Russell, according to The Guardian.

"The most that they might achieve is to delay her death by a very short time but in doing so she will be made to suffer very considerably when she could, and should, be allowed to end her life in as comfortable, pain-free and comforted condition as it is possible to achieve," she added.

Russell said that the decision was reached following a meeting of physicians and medics who were responsible for the care of the infant and after a review by specialists at other units.

Former MP John Hemming criticized Russell for hearing the case in private and said that she should have overseen it in public.