Andrea Williams

The High Court decided on Wednesday 15 March, that life support should not be withdrawn from a baby suffering from spinal muscular atrophy. Mr Justice Holman announced his decision in open court. The hospital had argued that the baby's suffering was intolerable and that it was not in the 'best interests' of baby MB to be kept alive. The family, however, who spend 8 hours a day with baby MB, were adamant he should be kept alive. The decision came out in favour of the parents and in favour of the baby's right to life.

The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship is relieved at the result as a very dangerous precedent would have been set if the court had decided to withdraw the life support. This baby has a right to life, and the court have upheld this right.

Baby MB responds and recognises and enjoys his parents' visits to hospital. He enjoys certain children's films they play for him and nursery rhymes which his brother and sister sing to him. Justice Holman said: "It must be assumed that he processes all of those sights and sounds like any child of his age and gains pleasure from them."

Mr Justice Holman also said: "No court has yet been asked to approve, against the will of parents, the withdrawal of life support with the inevitable and immediate death of a conscious child with sensory awareness and cognition, and no significant evidence of brain damage." The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship welcome this decision .

This case brings to focus the key question of who has the right to decide whether a baby's condition is intolerable or not. The child's father has told the court he did not think it was right for anyone to decide if the baby should live or die. The solicitor for the family said "the court has agreed with the assessment of Baby MB's quality of life by those people who know him best."

Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship said, 'This is a very distressing case and our hearts go out to the doctors and family who have agonised over it. We are pleased that common sense and justice have prevailed in giving baby MB the right to life. Although we are pleased with the result we are concerned that if the 'best interests' test is used to decide on life-saving treatment on the basis of quality of life, then we are in real danger of discriminating against those whose lives are not deemed 'useful' either for themselves or others. More seriously still, we are placing doctors and judges in the position that God alone should occupy.'