Baby Indi dies in UK after long legal battle over life support

A terminally ill baby at the centre of a legal battle involving her parents, British health officials and the Italian government has died, a group supporting her family said on Monday.

Christian Concern said Indi Gregory died in a hospice on Monday morning after her life support was withdrawn.

Her mum held her for her final breaths.

The 8-month-old baby had suffered brain damage as the result of a rare genetic condition known as mitochondrial disease, which energy-producing cells from working properly.

Her doctors said her life support should be removed to allow her to die at a hospital or hospice. Her parents, Dean Gregory and Claire Staniforth, fought to continue life support in hopes that experimental treatments might prolong her life.

The hospice transfer followed a ruling made by Court of Appeal judges on Friday that her life support could not be removed at her home.

The Italian government had sought permission for her to be treated at Bambino Gesu Children’s Hospital in Rome and even granted the baby Italian citizenship.

Italy’s Primer Minister Giorgia Meloni posted on X, formerly known as twitter, following Indi’s death.

” We did everything we could, everything possible. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough. Have a safe trip little Indi,” she said.

Doctors argued that Indi had no awareness of her surroundings, was suffering and should be allowed to die peacefully. Repeated legal attempts, backed by Christian Concern, were rejected by British judges.

The case is the latest in a series of legal wrangles in the UK between parents and doctors over the treatment of terminally ill children. British judges have repeatedly sided with doctors in cases where the best interests of the child take precedence, even if parents object to a proposed course of treatment.

On Friday, Court of Appeal Justice Peter Jackson said doctors caring for Indi and other critically ill children had been put in an “extremely challenging” position by the legal tussle and decried what he described as “manipulative litigation tactics” designed to frustrate orders made by judges after careful consideration.