In Marseille, the administrative court called for the continuation of care for a baby plunged into a coma, thus granting the parents’ request.
In Marseille, justice ordered the Timone hospital to continue the care of a one-year-old baby plunged into a coma while awaiting an expertise. The administrative court of Marseille thus acceded to the request of the parents, who demanded further investigations before taking any decision.
Before deciding on whether or not to stop treatment, “an expertise will be carried out entrusted to a college of three doctors made up of two neurologists and a pediatric neurologist, appointed by the president of the court”, decided the court, which considers that “many uncertainties remain on the initial pathology of the child, on the sequelae from which she is affected, on the examinations carried out and on her current state”, reports AFP.
Lightning virus
The baby’s parents, who launched a petition that collected more than 70,000 signatures on the internet, interpret the baby’s movements, connected to machines, as signs that she “is aware, moves and (them) recognizes”. But “the doctors think that she will never be able to breathe on her own and believe that this is sufficient reason to disconnect her within a week”, according to the couple who had seized the administrative court in summary to request the continuation of care.
Marwa was admitted to the Timone hospital on September 25 for a devastating virus and placed in an artificial coma. On November 4, doctors at the Timone hospital had decided to stop the therapeutic treatment and to disconnect the respiratory system keeping the child alive.
In their report justifying their decision, the hospital doctors had noted that the baby’s “state of consciousness” “is difficult to assess but the behavior and the diffuse damage observed on MRI suggest that it is probably greatly altered. “.
“Deviating” indications
The administrative court accuses the hospital of not having communicated the entire medical file. “The record of traceability of decisions taken in a collegial manner has a very incomplete motivation”, he underlines, and “divergent indications” were given by the hospital.
Within two months, the experts will have to “pronounce on the irreversible nature of the neurological lesions of the child, on the clinical prognosis and on the interest or not to continue or to implement active therapies”, indicates the court.
.
