An important test case, the trial brought to public attention the dilemmas for doctors in treating severely disabled newborn infants.
[2] The outcome of the trial confirmed that 'nursing care only' is an acceptable form of treatment, and that administering a drug to relieve suffering is not an offence, even if it accelerates death.
Ambiguities remain, however, about what is legally permissible in the treatment of disabled infants: if a doctor or anyone else intentionally kills a child, however disadvantaged, this would still be considered to be murder.
[5] He did National Service on the front line in Korea, as a medical officer in support of the Durham Light Infantry.
[7] When he was suspended from work after his first court appearance, a petition with some 19,000 signatures, including three Derbyshire MPs, called for his reinstatement.
The child died three days later, on 1 July 1980, the cause of death being identified as bronchopneumonia as a result of Down's syndrome.
[11] His defence did call other distinguished expert witnesses though, such as Sir Douglas Black, then President of the Royal College of Physicians, who said: I say that it is ethical, in the case of a child suffering from Down's, and with a parental wish that it should not survive, to terminate life providing other considerations are taken into account such as the status and ability of the parents to cope in a way that the child could otherwise have had a happy life.Carman argued in his closing remarks: He could, like Pontius Pilate, have washed his hands of the matter.
[13] During the trial the Daily Mail newspaper published an opinion article about euthanasia by Malcolm Muggeridge, and was tried for contempt of court.
Although the Mail was aware the trial was taking place, their defence was that the article was a discussion of public affairs under section 5 of the newly enacted Contempt of Court Act 1981.
[15] Arthur had admitted to the police that the effect of the drug given, apart from being a sedative, was also to stop the child seeking sustenance and that this had been intended by him.
The judge made no mention of this potential homicidal intent during the summing up however, something which has been criticised, amongst others, by Gerald Wright, QC.