![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> X (A Child), Re (Rev 1) [2015] EWHC 2778 (Fam) (02 October 2015) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/2778.html Cite as: [2015] EWHC 2778 (Fam) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
FAMILY
DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT AND IN THE MATTER OF A CHILD
X
(AGED 11)
![]() |
B e f o r e :
(In Public)
____________________
AN NHS TRUST | Applicant | |
- and - | ||
W (Father) and W (Mother) | ![]() | |
- and - | ||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2nd ![]() |
____________________
Miss Jacobs and Miss Stirling appeared on behalf of the Respondent
father, Mr W.
The Respondent
mother Mrs W was not present nor
represented.
Mr. Chisholm appeared for
X
through his
Children's
Guardian.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR. JUSTICE BODEY:
[Judge's note: In view of the extreme urgency (since the father wishes to go to the Court of Appeal) Counsel have over the weekend produced a note of my ex tempore Judgment, which I have now approved. I consider it is sufficient for its purpose and that to obtain an official transcript as well would run the risk of creating confusion. This version should therefore be treated as definitive and no other transcript need or should be bespoken.]
Four days after X's
admission to the First Hospital, an operation was performed on 3rd August
2015.
Both the left and the right sides of
X's
heart needed devices and the pulmonary artery had to be occluded. The fitting of the heart devices mandated anti-coagulation to prevent clotting. On 13th August, a Berlin Heart was provided on the right side. This is a longer lasting device. At all times after the first operation,
X
suffered extraordinarily severe bleeding in his chest. Several chest explorations therefore followed, as did aggressive transfusion. The chest had to be left open (an infection risk) and closure prompted further massive haemorrhage. During the course of these explorations and other interventions,
X's
lungs became unable to provide sufficient oxygen. He was converted to ECMO; the Berlin Heart was
removed
and an Oxygenator was put into the right side. A number of adjustments were then performed to
remove
blood clots and to inflate the left lung. Notwithstanding these, the left lung was not inflating and so a stent was inserted on 7th September
2015.
Since then, the right lung has deteriorated.
X
is
reliant
on the Oxygenator in the ECMO circuit for oxygen, whilst cardiac function is dependent on a "Heartware" device in the left heart. A CT scan on 10th September
2015
showed a large collection of blood in the left chest. This clot surrounds the left lung and occupies the space between the chest wall and heart. It is compressing the lung and airway and explains why attempts to inflate the left lung have been unsuccessful. Kidney function is deteriorating. Fluids are being
restricted
but, at the same time as suffering muscle wasting,
X
is swelling (although the extent of this is disputed) because his body cannot process fluids properly. I am satisfied from hearing Dr. A that
X's
kidney function has deteriorated.
On the 7th October 2015 the Court of Appeal dismissed an application by the parents for permission to appeal.