Do you know about Indy Gregory?
Veronica Rubio
Secretary General at Association of European Coeliac Societies (AOECS)
I learned about this case by accident as it hasn’t appeared in any major newspaper that I am aware of. This lack of plural source of information has made it difficult for me to cross verify information at the level I would have wished, but I think is still worth sharing some reflections.
Indi Gregory is a seven or eight-month-old baby girl who was diagnosed with a rare mitochondrial disease, which seem to be incurable.
It seems that she is in paediatric intensive care at Nottingham's Queen's Medical Centre (QMC) maybe since her birth.
According to the articles I have read, in October 2023, Mr Justice Robert Peel ruled that it was in the best interests of eight-month-old baby Indi Gregory to have her life-support removed. Indi’s parents disagreed and decided to appeal the decision.
Indi’s father, Dean Gregory has supposedly declared that: “The doctors painted a terribly bleak and negative picture of Indi’s condition during court proceedings. (…) During her short life Indi has proved everybody wrong and deserves more time and care from the NHS rather than seeking to end her life as soon as possible” (…) “We know she is disabled, but you don’t just let disabled people die. We just want to give her a chance”.
I read once and more these words and I see a very simple and genuine expression of human love; from a parent to his child.
However, the story is far from being simple and has become an unprecedented legal battle that to me, unveils the deep value crisis in which Europe is submerged.
I am wondering about which part I am possibly missing of the story, because I would like to be able to make an independent judgement without falling in either mainstream thinking or manipulative sentimentalism, but here want I have found.
The first thing that I notice is that it seems the UK judges have decreed Indy’s death against their parents’ will and more importantly to me, despite the offer from the “Bambino Gesu Children’s Hospital” in Rome to provide treatment to Indi.
Indeed, The?Bambino Gesù Paediatric Hospital?in Rome has agreed to accept Indi for treatment and to carry out the right ventricular outflow tract stent procedure that has been put forward by medical experts. Furthermore, it also seems that the Italian government has offered to fund the treatment at no cost to the NHS Trust or UK taxpayer.
Nevertheless, apparently NHS Trust and UK courts have refused to allow the move of Indi to Rome, or work on a risk-assessment with a specialist Air-Ambulance service. I have been unable to cross verified this information. It seems, though, that in a written judgment, Mr Justice Peel may have denied the application to move Indi to Rome alleging that there was “no compelling new medical evidence" to justify him revising his decision to allow life-support to be withdrawn.?
"There is nothing to suggest that Indi Gregory's prognosis would be beneficially altered by the Italian hospital's treatment," he has supposedly said.
?
I find these statements extremely interesting. They give me the impression to be based on the “believe” that treatment given in the UK cannot be enhanced by treatment offered in Rome. The judgement seen to be closed to the possibility that alternative treatments may exist beyond those offered in the UK.
?
Even if that was the case, I wonder if that can be a legitimate reason to prevent a person from accessing those offered alternative treatments.
?
Isn’t precisely in this type of extreme cases, where “human genius” and “medical art” can seek beyond statistics and not only safe the life of an individual person at imminent risk, but also advance treatments, and made discoveries that may benefit the entire humanity?
?
I fully understand the need to avoid therapeutic obstinacy, but wisdom should help us discern between trying to keep alive a person clearly at death’s doors and putting our best efforts at the service of saving human lives, being free from trends and preconceptions as every person can react to treatments in a unique way.
?
Afterall, history is full of episodes where determined, courageous people who challenged “mainstream positions” have eventually proven them being wrong.
It also seems that the judge has decided against parents' preference for treatment to be withdrawn at home, alleging that Indy’s best interest is for her life-support being removed at the hospital.
In practices, the combination of these two legal decisions seem to result in that Indi Gregory must die, and must die at the hospital, against her parents’ will.
领英推荐
I cannot imagine Indi’s parents feeling of impuissance.
And yet, on 6 November, the Italian government has supposely granted Indi Gregory Italian citizenship, giving the case a new and unprecedented legal dimension.
On 8 November, at the request of Indi Gregory’s family, the Italian consul in Manchester,?Dr Matteo Corradini, in his capacity as guardianship judge for the eight-month-old baby, issued an emergency measure recognising the authority of the Italian courts in this case.
If the information is correct, this emergency measure assumes protection of Indi Gregory and authorizes:
·????? the immediate transfer of Indi to the?Bambino Gesù Paediatric Hospital in Rome
·????? the adoption of the Italian hospital’s specialist treatment plan and appoints its general manager,?Dr Antonio Perno,?as Indi’s guardian.
According to the articles I have read, the Court Order was communicated by the new guardian to the managing director of the Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham to facilitate constructive collaboration between the Italian and English health authorities in order to avoid legal questions over conflict of jurisdiction.
However, on 9 November, it seems that Indi’s Italian guardian has to make an urgent application to the UK High Court calling on Mr Justice Robert Peel to cede jurisdiction of the case to him under?Article 9§2 of the 1996 Hague Convention.
According to most senior judges in the UK the Italian intervention in Indi Gregory’s case under the Hague Convention is?“wholly misconceived”?and?“not in the spirit of the convention”.
Furthermore, it seems that Lord Justice Jackson may have expressed "profound concern" about the developments in the litigation.
Presumably, he said that doctors caring for Indi and other critically-ill children had been put in an "extremely challenging" position and that "manipulative litigation tactics" designed to frustrate orders made by judges after "anxious consideration" would not be tolerated.
Assuming that the information I have read is correct, I can’t avoid wondering about the course of these decisions and under which spirit they have been guided.
Decisions are not good or bad depending on who has taken them, but rather depending on whether or not they serve to superior non-negotiable Good. ?
Judges are not invulnerable to the mainstream thinking which unfortunately does not give any more an absolute value to human life.
From the utilitarian perspective we live in, human life has a “relative” value because human beings are not “beings” but rather “have” lives. When life is perceived as an “attribute” (something that I have) rather than the very “essence” of existence (what I am), then, one can get easily deceived into the conclusion that certain lives are not “worth living”; that “quality of life” is more important than life itself, and sadly, that external bodies or institutions can have the power to decide which life or quality of life is worth living.
Whether we are aware or not, this very popular mind-set is incompatible with humanitarian laws and the concept of universal human rights because they surrender human life value to whatever changeable opinion is currently in fashion.
The brilliant legal system that Western Society developed over centuries, which was based on the protection of human life as a fundamental cornerstone, can do nothing but collapse, when it is governed by a utilitarian and relativist mind-set. This is because decisions are no longer aiming at preserving “common good”, but rather are guided by the “best interest” concept, which is adaptable at the circumstances, and sculpted by opinion leaders or influencers.
At the time I am writing this article, I am not aware of the final outcomes and whether or not Indi Gregory will have the chance to get an alternative treatment in Rome.
But if this case serves to shake our conscience and impulse us to take coherent actions to bring back legal and medical systems to their essence, then, I believe the life and suffering of Indi and her family will have not be in vain. God bless them.
Some sources read:
?
?
?
Marketing guru, relationship driver, people connector, sales superstar, bad-ass writer, rare disease champion, surreptitious data geek. $2MM Fundraiser for Rare Disease with Children's Hospital Colorado.
1 年Veronica- I do not know you- nor do I know that I have any medical insight on Baby Indi. I do know that Mitochondrial Disease is a terrible, terrible disease that we know little about. Having lost two children to mito, I also know that when you have this disease, and you are on life-support, you will not recover. There is no cure, no magic is in Italy.....mitochondrial disease is a fatal condition. My heart goes out to the family - I still grief for my Littles. I hope money will be spent on finding a cure, not trying to change what is inevitable. Peace and love to all involved