The United Nations had asked to delay plans to stop the brain-damaged 12-year-old’s treatment while they look into his case at the request of his parents. Archie’s family had turned to the UN after the High Court ruled it was in Archie’s best interests to switch off life support and all avenues of appeal had been exhausted. The UK Court of Appeal rejected the UN’s request on Monday, saying doctors would be able to stop the treatment from midday on Tuesday. This short delay will allow Archie’s parents to make any further application to the High Court, a judge said. Doctors initially planned to stop Archie’s treatment from 2pm on Monday, but agreed to wait for the decision before taking any action. Archie Battersbee is at the center of a legal battle over life-support treatment (Hollie Dance/PA) (Average PA) Archie has been in intensive care since April when he suffered brain damage during an incident at home, which his mother believes could be linked to an online challenge. Doctors want to stop treating the child, who they believe is dead from his brain stem, but his parents want his life-sustaining treatment to continue. Court of Appeal judge Sir Andrew McFarlane described Archie’s condition on Monday, saying: “In short, his system, his organs and ultimately his heart are in the process of shutting down. “The choices before the court were always stark.” Sir Andrew said these were previous cases of either stopping treatment immediately – resulting in Archie’s death shortly afterwards – or allowing him to die sometime in the coming weeks, allowing Archie to die sometime in the coming weeks while he was receiving treatment, which his parents describe as a time “chosen by God”. Archie Battersbee suffered brain damage at home in April (Hollie Dance/PA) (Average PA) He added: “The choice, horribly, is about how he dies. There is no other choice. That’s how he dies in the next few weeks.” All three appeals judges ruled unanimously on Monday to reject the UN’s request to delay hospital plans to turn off life support while the Commission on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reviewed the case. The chief judge said there was “really nothing substantial or meritorious” in favor of a “stay”, which would have prevented the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Edward Devereux QC, the barrister representing Archie’s family, had told the court he would be “complicit in a flagrant breach of international law” by rejecting the UN request. But this argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the relevant international treaty had not been incorporated into domestic law. Claire Watson QC, barrister for Archie’s guardian – an independent counsel appointed to represent him – said it had not changed her client’s view that it was no longer in his best interests for treatment to continue given his “disturbed” condition Archie. Sir Andrew said the case was “very strongly in favor of refusing a stay” considering the 12-year-old’s welfare. “Every day that he continues to receive maintenance treatment is against his best interests,” she ruled. The Court of Appeal judge concludes that “no further stay should be granted other than a short stay now for the parents to take stock and consider whether they wish to apply further to the High Court”.
