Families lose haemophilia battle
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Four haemophiliac boys yesterday lost their fight in the High Court to try to force health authorities to fund treatment which is generally considered most effective by doctors.
The judge, Mr Justice Jowitt, rejected claims by the families of the boys that three North West health authorities had unlawfully imposed a blanket ban on funding treatment with an expensive blood-clotting agent because of the cost.
In what was believed to be the first case of its kind, the boys were taking action against three health authorities after they decided that they would no longer be treated with a purer, artificial form of the clotting agent Factor VIII, but a cheaper plasma-derived version which carries a higher risk of viral infection.
The judge said he could see "no useful purpose" in granting the families permission to challenge the decisions by South Lancashire, East Lancashire, and Bury and Rochdale health authorities. He said the authorities were entitled to adopt certain policies - and the parents would only have an arguable case if they could show the authorities had failed to consider whether their children had "special needs".
Ann Alexander, a solicitor representing one of the families, said after the hearing: "We have lost the battle but won the war. The judge refused us leave to proceed to judicial review but made it quite clear that he accepts that families can go along to the health authorities and express individual grounds which would justify having this treatment. If they can justify that their case is special then the health authority must listen to them."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments