A hospital in rural New South Wales has won a court case giving it
permission to give life-saving cancer treatment to a teenager against
her parents' wishes.

The Supreme Court intervened in the case earlier this month at a time
when the girl's parents refused further treatment for acute lymphoblastic
leukaemia.

The girl, who is nearly 15 and suffers from developmental and epileptic
encephalopathy, severe developmental delay and Autism Spectrum
Disorder (ASD) level 3.  A professor told the court her development age
is between 18 months and 3 years and she had up to six seizures a day.

The mother would prefer there to be no treatment for the leukaemia.
She would prefer her daughter receive palliative care and be allowed
to die at home.  Her wishes are not based on any religious or cultural belief.

The presiding judge who made the decision, Justice Elkaim told the court
his decision was "difficult but that did not mean it should not be undertaken. 
We're faced with the stark reality that she will die if life-saving treatment is
not performed, which has a good prospect of a long-term cure".

—So the question is: who has the moral or ethical authority in order
    to make this life-defining decision for a person unable to do so?

A court, or the person's parents?  In my opinion, in this specific case, it
has to be the parents.  End of story.

I have worked for quite some time in a hospice.  I don't believe we should prolong a person's suffering.  This young girl is definitely suffering.  Her quality of life is poor.  There is no compassion in continuing with treatments that will never make a difference to her suffering.