The Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the CIUSSS de l'Estrie in a case of relentless therapeutic measures on a one-year-old child in a state close to coma and whose parents “wish for a miracle” by requesting the treatment without time Actively continue limitation.
Despite the suffering of a father and mother, the court ruled in favor of the medical staff based on the best interests of the child.
In a ruling by the Honorable Johanne Brodeur, the CIUSSS received approval to give a one-year-old child a treatment plan, despite the parents' refusal and clearly stating the spiritual and religious reasons that motivated them.
The judge relied in particular on Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects the freedom and security of a person, including during the transition to death.
Palliative care
Shortly after birth in 2023, the medical team presented a poor neurological prognosis, indicating that palliative care was the appropriate option.
The parents then understand the severity of the attack, but hope for improvement.
A year later, the care team decided that “unfortunately the child’s situation will never improve.”
In the absence of parental consent, the CIUSSS filed an application for court approval, as the parents still wish to maintain comprehensive active care.
An understandable rejection
“The parents' refusal to consent to the proposed treatment plan is understandable under the circumstances, but is neither justified nor in the best interests of the incapacitated minor,” the decision states.
The tests show a condition somewhere between coma and what is described as a permanent neurovegetative state.
Even today, parents still visit their child every day. Their presence is valued by the care team, who describe them as loving, caring and experienced parents.
In the decision, the judge emphasized that the parents suffered great suffering, but the parties were unable to reach a compromise.
“This is not about treatment that leads to death, but rather about the implementation of a treatment plan that offers support in the event of breathing difficulties that respects human dignity and the safety of the person in the transition to death,” the judge said in the statement also writes.
“The child suffers”
In this delicate situation, the Supreme Court makes it clear that it is not the parents' place to decide for them.
However, the treatment plan is consistent with good medical practice, even if there is a risk that it may indirectly lead to the death of the child. The courts said the parents' refusal was neither appropriate nor justified.
Judge Brodeur refers to the Supreme Court, which recalls that the child has the right to respect for his freedom and security, even during the transition to death.
“The court is of the opinion that there is an urgent need for action because, on the one hand, the child is suffering and, on the other hand, the current treatment is completely useless. It represents a therapeutic intransigence that runs counter to the child’s best interests.”
Can you share information about this story?
Write to us or call us directly at 1 800-63SCOOP.