The UK Supreme Court has decided that doctors involved in two end-of-life cases can be identified, following the wishes of the parents of two children who expressed a desire to share their experiences.

The cases pertained to Isaiah Haastrup, who was one year old, and six-year-old Zainab Abbasi, both of whom were embroiled in legal disputes over life-support treatment at the High Court in London before passing away in 2018 and 2019, respectively.

Initially, orders were issued during the proceedings to keep the identities of the physicians involved in their care confidential indefinitely.

In a written judgment, Lord Reed, the president of the Supreme Court, emphasized that limitations on freedom of speech must be “convincingly established,” a requirement that the two NHS trusts failed to meet in this situation.

In their principal judgment, Lord Reed and Lord Briggs acknowledged the importance of safeguarding medical staff in public hospitals from unsubstantiated allegations and potential harassment. However, they stressed that the treatment of patients in these settings is a matter of significant public interest, and that healthcare professionals are considered public figures under the [European Convention on Human Rights], which allows for broader permissible criticism compared to private individuals.

In 2023, Zainab’s parents, Aliya and Rashid Abbasi, alongside Isaiah’s father, Lanre Haastrup, successfully contested in a court of appeal to have the professionals named, a decision that faced opposition from the relevant NHS trusts in Newcastle and London. Following a hearing in April 2024, the UK’s highest court ruled that naming the clinicians was permissible.

Isaiah sustained severe brain damage due to oxygen deprivation at birth following an emergency cesarean section, while Zainab was born with a rare and significantly debilitating neurodegenerative condition.

During the appeal, Mr. Abbasi expressed the couple’s wish to “tell their story” publicly and to identify the NHS personnel involved.

Outside the Supreme Court post-ruling, Abbasi remarked, “After six years of legal battles, we can finally share our story.”

Haastrup indicated that the doctors had been “excessively protected,” stating, “Justice delayed is preferable to injustice. It feels rewarding that Isaiah’s life has meaning.”

The court rejected a request from the trusts to extend the injunction for an additional 21 days, without making a determination on the specifics of how and when the naming should occur.

The judgement concluded that injunctions preventing the identification of doctors should be temporary.

The Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust mentioned that its actions were intended to prioritize patient welfare while also safeguarding staff rights to perform their duties and lead private lives without fear of abuse or harassment. They noted the need to reflect on the judgment and expressed continued condolences to Zainab’s family.

A representative from King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust stated their acceptance of the Supreme Court’s ruling and pledged to support their staff during this transition, also extending heartfelt sorrow for the circumstances surrounding Isaiah’s birth.

Dr. Ben White, Deputy Medical Director at the Medical Protection Society (MPS), commented on the challenging decisions faced by doctors in pediatric end-of-life care, describing the loss of a patient as devastating for everyone involved. He added, “It’s challenging to see how publicly naming individual clinicians benefits anyone,” highlighting the importance of patient confidentiality and the difficulties physicians face in addressing criticism or concerns.

*The PA news agency contributed to this report.*