Nucleoside Therapy Case Summary

DISCUSSION: Legally under English laws, when a patient is not competent and lacks the capacity to make decisions, they must be made on his behalf, in his best interests. This was evident in the case of Charlie. According to (Children’s Act 1989), the parents presumes the authority to decide on the best interests of their minor and make decisions on behalf of their children. It was rightly so to have led to believe that the nucleoside therapy was not invasive and caused no severe damage to the TK2 deficient patients to whom it had been administered. In that case, why not give Charlie that chance and what could he possible loose from the treatment. However, it was prudent to realise the rationale of best interests in the
More so, it was difficult to establish If Charlie was experiencing any pain due to the severity of his condition. Doctors did not have a positive reason to continue ventilation unless it served a greater purpose, that is to reverse his condition and quality of life. Merely being alive was not sufficient. Although it is a legal and moral duty of the parents to make informed decisions on the treatment pursued for their child’s best interests. If it appears, however, that the proposed course of action can endanger and are contrary to the child’s best interests, it is a moral responsibility of the medical team to intervene. The medical team at GOSH were observing the principle of non-maleficence to avoid any harm to Charlie due to his deteriorating condition which was only worsening by keeping him
Butler-Cole concluded that “it is not in Charlie’s best interests to travel to America to receive nucleoside therapy. This is not pioneering or life-saving treatment, but purely an experimental process with no real prospect of improving Charlie’s condition or quality of life” (Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates and others [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam) [117]). GOSH had also asserted that funding was never an issue and if it considered nucleoside therapy was of any benefit to Charlie, it would have pursued the treatment. This was contrary to the view of many who believed that due to single payer healthcare systems in the UK, the state failed to support and exercise the rights of the parents in pursuing the treatment of their