Written by 
A 2-year-old Edmonton girl who had been in a coma for more than three months has died after her mother asked the Supreme Court of Canada to step in and prevent her daughter from being taken off life support.
But the high court dismissed the motion and upheld an Alberta Court of Appeal ruling that leaving the toddler on life support was not in the girl’s best interest.
The girl, who cannot be named under child welfare laws, was found in cardiac arrest by paramedics at her parents’ home on May 25, 2012. Paramedics managed to resuscitate her after 40 minutes of CPR, but not before the girl suffered a severe brain injury.
The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed Wednesday with a lower court’s ruling that keeping the toddler, who doctors said had an irreversible brain injury and could not breathe or eat on her own, on life support would not have been in her best interests.
Her parents face charges of aggravated assault, criminal negligence causing bodily harm and failing to provide the necessities of life. They are alleged to have beaten and starved the girl and her twin sister, who is now recovering. An older brother who was also found in the home, but wasn’t injured, is now in foster care.
While the parents signed a “do not resuscitate” order if the girl’s heart should stop, they had asked that any treatment that would keep their daughter alive be continued.
In an affidavit, the girl’s father said his religious beliefs prevent him from consenting to a withdrawal of treatment.
“As a devout Muslim and loving father I find it unthinkable to agree to limit or withdraw medical treatment for (the girl). I ask that the court honor my beliefs that the ultimate course of (the girl’s) life not be made by doctors limiting or withdrawing treatment,” he said.
But the three-judge appeal-court panel agreed with the decision made by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice June Ross, who had been asked by Alberta Children and Youth Services to determine the course of the girl’s medical care in place of her parents.
Ross agreed with the recommendation by the girl’s medical team that she be withdrawn from life-sustaining treatment. The judge noted that the parents are in a conflict of interest because they could face more criminal charges now that the girl has died.
“Even assuming that (the girl’s) parents think that their decision is motivated by religious beliefs and love for (the girl), I am left with a concern that their decision may in fact be affected by self-interest,” Ross wrote in her Sept. 14 ruling.
The appeal court panel was of the same opinion.
“The sanctity of human life is one of the core values of our society and our legal system. But life is not without end,” wrote Appeal Court Justice Frans Slatter. “Upon review, we cannot see any error of principle in that decision which would warrant interference by this court.”
The appeal court did, however, grant the parents their request for a final visit with the girl, which it ordered must occur within 24 hours.
Timothy Caulfield, a professor and health law expert at the University of Alberta, said the case highlights the difficult role the courts play in balancing religious freedoms with patient rights.
“In determining what is in the best interest of the child, the judge said, ‘I don’t just consider medical facts. I should take into consideration religion, values, and world view. However, in this circumstance, given that this is a child that has yet to adopt a religion, I’m not going to give it a lot of weight’,” Caulfield explained. “I think Justice Ross handled this very well.”
Original article >HERE<
–
