The High Court has directed that a six-year-old boy who received a serious brain injury in a drowning incident over four years ago, should not be resuscitated if his condition deteriorates.
The court granted an order sought by a hospital that he should not be resuscitated if an acute deterioration requiring invasive treatment occurs, if the medical advice is that not resuscitating him would be in his best interests.
The boy suffered a near drowning incident in August 2007 when he was 22 months old.
The incident resulted in cardiac arrest and irreversible brain damage.
He has lived in a children's home with specialised facilities since January 2008.
High Court President Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said the boy was an energetic and bright child before the accident.
He now has severe cerebral palsy, is incontinent and has no method of communication, although he does appear to be soothed by contact with his parents.
He also suffers from regular seizures and has developed chronic lung disease. He has no prospect of recovery.
The court was told that the boy's father believes he would benefit from foetal stem cell transplantation and has identified a doctor from the US who offers this treatment in the Dominican Republic or Mexico.
However, the boy is unable to travel by plane. Doctors say there is no evidence the treatment would help his condition and that the long distance travel could prove life threatening.
Mr Justice Kearns said it was a tragic case and the misfortune that had befallen the boy and his parents was of the gravest character.
The judge said the medical evidence was unanimous that re-ventilating him if his condition deteriorated would not be in his best interests. He said the evidence was that it would cause unnecessary pain and discomfort and be futile.
He said ultimately it would appear that such treatment would prolong the boy's suffering without any long-term benefit to him.
The judge said that in determining whether life-saving treatment should be withheld, the paramount consideration must be the best interests of the child.
He said the courts could never sanction positive steps to terminate life. But he said the courts would in exceptional circumstances authorise steps not being taken to prolong life.
The judge said he accepted the boy's parents were dealing with a difficult situation and that they honestly hoped it was in his best interests to be ventilated if his condition worsened.
He said they had demonstrated to the highest degree their great love and affection for their child.
He said he did not believe that the option of stem cell treatment offered any real prospect of changing his condition, even if the boy was capable of travelling to avail of it.
