A fight in the courts over whether to keep treating a seriously ill baby boy has ended with the child’s death. The High Court, in London, ruled that it was in the baby’s best interests to withdraw "life-sustaining treatment". The child, called "Baby OT" by the court, and thought to be the child of Muslim parents from Afghanistan, had a rare metabolic disorder which caused severe brain damage and respiratory failure.

Through their lawyer the couple told the media that "During his short time with us, OT became the focus of our lives. We were present during his last moments, together with [his] extended family. He died peacefully. We will miss him greatly and wish to say that we are proud to have known our beautiful son for his brief life."

It is hard to assess from media reports whether this was a case of the withdrawal of burdensome treatment in the best interests of the baby, or of withdrawal of futile care in the best interests of the hospital. Apparently the child was often in pain.

The judge, Mrs Justice Parker said: "OT is a unique human being. His life is valuable. But OT does not have the right to be kept alive in all circumstances. OT has the right to life. OT does not have the right to be kept alive."

The British Medical Association and some Christian professional associations supported the first interpretation. The Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, Peter Smith, commented: "We must not kill an innocent person under any circumstances, there is no moral justification for that. But when it comes to the end of life, we wouldn't take a vitalist view, and say somebody has got to be kept alive by most extraordinary means."

However, a BBC report supported the second interpretation: "Doctors treating him had said the boy's life was intolerable and his disability was such that his life had little purpose.

The parents are considering lodging a complaint with the General Medical Council and perhaps suing the hospital. ~ Daily Mail, Mar 22; BBC, Mar 21