Starved girl can be taken off life-support

The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld a ruling Wednesday to removea childfrom life-support over the objections of her parents who areaccused of beating and starving her.

The threejudges also rejected a request tostay their decision to give the parents time toappeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Justice Frans Slatter, whoread the unanimous decision, said the sanctity of life is a core value in society,"but human life must end."

The childcould be taken off life-support in the next couple of days, giving enough time for the parents to visit her.

Each parent willget a chance to visit the girl at her hospitalbedfor 20 minutes within thenext 24 hours.

The visits must be doneseparately andunder police guard.

Kept alive by ventilator, feeding tube

The two-year-old, who can only be identified by her first initial,"M," is being kept alive by a ventilator and a feeding tube.

"For those who say the merciful thing is to let'M' die, I would like to remind everyone that we don't condone euthanasia in Canada," Lydia Bubel, the lawyer for thechild's father, argued beforethecourt earlier in the morning.

She argued thatgiving the courts the power to decide over the child's life would "take sanctity of life away from families and put it in the court's hands."

"This case is horrible," she told Justices Keith Ritter, Frans Slatter and Myra Bielby. "It's horrible any way that you look at it."

Parents charged with assault, negligence

Since the child's parentswere arrested in May, they have been in jail on charges of aggravated assault, criminal negligence causing bodily harm and failing to provide the necessities of life.

They have beenbarred fromspeaking with each other or visiting the hospital, and they argue that has limited their ability to discuss their daughter's care.

Last week, a Court of Queen's Benchjudgeruled the parents' desire to keep M alive out oflove or religious beliefs is not necessarily in the child's best interest.

The judge also noted that if the child is removed from life-support and dies, the couple could be charged with her death.

Justice JuneRosssided with doctors, who told the court thatthe girl's brain damage is so severe that she will never regain consciousness.

Case could have wide-ranging effects

Tim Caulfield, an expert in health-care law with the University of Alberta, says he wasnt surprised that the ruling was upheld.

"I think the court of appeal came to a logical conclusion to this sad tale," he said.

Caulfield says the case could have wide-ranging effects on future cases. It shows that the court has jurisdiction to step into similar matters, and sets the precedent that taking someone off life-support can be in their best interest.

He also thinks the case could clarify the law when religious beliefs conflict with medical advice.

The parents had previously argued that taking the girl off life-support was against their religious beliefs.

"I think the judge handled the religious aspect carefully, noting that it can be a factor and something that should be considered," Caulfield said.

"But not in a case like this when youre talking about an infant that hasnt adopted a religion yet and hasnt adopted a culture."