The Supreme Court has determined that the identities of physicians involved in two end-of-life scenarios can be disclosed, following requests from the parents of two children who expressed their desire to “share their story.”

The cases of Isaiah Haastrup, who was 12 months old, and Zainab Abbasi, aged six, were at the forefront of disputes regarding life support treatments at the High Court in London prior to their deaths in 2018 and 2019, respectively.

Initially, court orders were established that prohibited the public revelation of the names of the doctors involved in the children’s treatment indefinitely.

In delivering the verdict, Lord Reed, the Supreme Court President, stated that any restriction on freedom of speech must be “demonstrated convincingly,” which the NHS trusts failed to do in this instance.

Isaiah experienced severe brain damage due to oxygen deprivation at birth and passed away in March 2018.

After the ruling, Isaiah’s father, Lanre Haastrup, remarked that the decision would serve “the public good.”

“The court has clearly stated that no doctor can remain in hiding,” he said.

Zainab’s parents, Rashid and Aliya Abbasi, had expressed their concerns regarding the care their daughter received at the Great North Children’s Hospital in Newcastle.

Zainab was born with a “rare and profoundly debilitating” inherited neurodegenerative condition and died in September 2019.

Dr. Aliya Abbasi indicated, “If there are mistakes made, one should acknowledge, ‘Yes, something has gone wrong.'”

She added, “I can’t fathom the amount of NHS funding that has been utilized for this legal battle.”

Dr. Rashid Abbasi remarked, “The story will be shared.”

In 2023, a ruling from the Court of Appeal that permitted the naming of the clinicians was contested by the two NHS trusts involved, located in Newcastle and London.

The Supreme Court heard the matter in April 2024 and unanimously rejected the appeal.

In their written decision, Lord Reed and Lord Briggs commented, “While it is crucial to protect medical staff in public hospitals from baseless allegations and related harassment, the court must also recognize that patient care in these institutions is a legitimate public concern.”

Additionally, the justices declined a request from the trusts to extend the existing injunction by another 21 days.

Lords Reed and Briggs noted, “A reasonable timeframe would last until the conclusion of the proceedings, with a cooling-off period if they ended with the child’s death or a favorable declaration.”

The court concluded that the rights of the doctors could not be claimed on their behalf, emphasizing that the clinicians must file such claims personally.

The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust expressed its ongoing condolences to Zainab’s family and stated it would take time to reflect on the judgment.

“Throughout these proceedings, our aim has been to act in the best interests of patients while safeguarding our staff’s rights to conduct their professional responsibilities and personal lives free from the risk of abuse or harassment,” the trust commented, adding that the ruling confirmed the appropriateness and reasonableness of its actions.

King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has been approached for a statement.

Additional reporting by PA Media.