Professional-Life Group: Mom's British authorized battle over life help for 5-year-old lady ends "a tragedy"
One pro-life group described the UK Supreme Court's decision not to hear a mother's appeal for the suspension of life for her 5-year-old daughter as a "tragedy".
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) said Paula Parfitt was "a heroic example of a loving mother" after her legal battle on behalf of her daughter Pippa ended on April 1.
John Deighan, the organization's deputy CEO, said in a statement on the same day: "We supported this case because we believe that all human life is valuable and easy to care for."
“Paula was a heroic example of a loving mother and we want to support her. She rightly expects our society to value everyone regardless of their state of health. "
Regarding Pippa's recent videos with her mother, he added, “I believe the videos show that Pippa's treatment is not unduly stressful and that she gets great benefit from taking care of her mother. It is a tragedy that we are powerless in our courts to keep them alive. "
SPUC said the family was considering seeking asylum in Canada "where treatment is available".
According to the UK media, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said on April 2 that a panel of three judges had refused to give Parfitt permission to bring a lawsuit after considering a written application.
Parfitt, of Strood, Kent, filed her lawsuit in the High Court and the Court of Appeal earlier this year.
Pippa was born in 2015. In December 2016, she became sick and had seizures. Doctors diagnosed her with acute necrotizing encephalopathy, a rare form of brain damage characterized by multiple bilateral lesions.
After specialists at Evelina London Children's Hospital declared that life support should be removed, the case went to the High Court, which ruled on January 8th.
In February, the Anscombe Bioethics Center in Oxford argued that the ethical rationale behind the High Court's decision was "deeply flawed".
In an analysis of the verdict, the center's director David Albert Jones said the case was similar to those of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans, who had their ventilation withdrawn against their parents' wishes.
He said withdrawal from life support could be justified when it no longer serves its purpose or is "excessively burdensome".
"On the other hand, if the treatment had been beneficial and not unduly burdensome, withdrawal from life support is nothing less than discontinuation," he wrote.
“While withdrawal from treatment is warranted, it is important that the decision is made for the right reasons. In the case of Pippa Knight, as in the two previous cases, the ethical reasoning is deeply flawed. "
In February, Pippa's mother urged appellate judges to overturn the sentence, arguing that her daughter should be allowed to leave the hospital and be treated at home on a portable ventilator.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's March 19 ruling.