Tragic death of Baby Indi a cautionary tale for government-funded healthcare

by Chris Lange

Chris Lange, FISM News


Indi Gregory, the 8-month-old girl at the center of a legal battle in Britain, passed away in her mother’s arms at 1:45 a.m. Monday, as reported by The Christian Post.  UK Health officials issued a court order to withdraw life support from the baby girl on Sunday against the wishes of her parents. 

The UK’s publicly-funded Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) determined in October that it was in the “best interests” of Indi, who suffered from a rare mitochondrial disease, to be removed from life support. Indi’s parents appealed the decision, launching a desperate fight for their daughter’s life, whom they said responded to their touch.

Justice Robert Peel of the U.K.’s High Court, however, upheld the Trust’s decision in a ruling last Thursday.

Peel also blocked Indi’s parents from accepting an offer from Italy’s government to pay for specialized treatment for their baby in Rome, Christian Concern reported. Italian officials even took the unprecedented step of offering to grant the infant girl citizenship to facilitate her immediate care.

The president of Italy’s renowned Bambino Gesù Paediatric Hospital confirmed that the staff stood ready to assume Indi’s care and had developed a comprehensive treatment plan for the 8-month-old.


Simone Pillon, the former Italian senator who orchestrated the placement for Indi Gregory in Rome, expressed shock and anger at the shocking disregard for Indi’s life.

“We are appalled by the rulings by U.K. courts in this case and the refusal of the NHS Trust to help the family transfer Indi to Rome,” he said in a statement 

Lawyers representing the family then asked the court to at least allow Indi to come home to die, citing Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which enshrines the right to liberty and security of a person.

Peel rejected the final plea. On Sunday, a security detail escorted Indi to an in-house hospice to die.

Indi’s father, Dean Gregory, said in a statement following his daughter’s death that he and Indi’s mother, Claire Staniforth, felt “angry, heartbroken, and ashamed” that the Trust and Peel not only took away his daughter’s “chance to live a longer life,” but also robbed Indi of the “dignity to pass away in the family home where she belonged.”

He said that, while authorities succeeded in robbing his daughter of her body and her dignity, “they can never take her soul.”

“They tried to get rid of Indi without anybody knowing, but we made sure she would be remembered forever,” Gregory said, adding: “I knew she was special from the day she was born.”

Shortly after news of Indi’s death broke, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni tweeted, “We did everything we could, everything possible. Unfortunately it wasn’t enough.”

Indi’s tragic story underscores the extraordinary power wielded by the NHS Trust in determining whether British citizens should live or die. The Trust has made determinations that forced euthanasia is “in the best interests” of thousands of critically ill patients since it was established in 2006, with significant help from the UK’s Supreme Court.


A succession of judges also upheld a 2017 recommendation to end life-sustaining care for 11-month-old Charlie Gard, who, like Indi, suffered from a mitochondrial disorder. The medical team overseeing Charlie’s care determined that removing the baby’s ventilator was in his “best interest.” 

Charlie’s parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, pleaded for a chance to bring their son to the U.S. for promising experimental treatment, even raising $1.67 million through a GoFundMe page set up to pay for his treatment, according to a BBC report.

The courts ultimately sided with an assessment by the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust that experimental treatment was “futile” and that Charlie’s interests would be best served by removing his ventilator. This took place on July 27. Charlie died the following day, exactly one week before his first birthday.


That same year, the parents of 23-month-old Alfie Evans lost their second appeal in a fight to save their son’s life. Alfie, who was born healthy, suffered a series of seizures that resulted in neurological damage, forcing him to rely on a ventilator to breathe, as reported by The Guardian.

As in the case of Indi Gregory, Italian officials stepped in with an offer to treat Alfie and grant him citizenship as his parents appealed a ruling to end life-sustaining care for their child. A judge rejected the offer as well as the appeal. During one of the hearings, Alfie’s father, Tom Evans, told the judge that his son “looks me in the eye,” asking for help. Alfie survived for one week after his ventilator was removed. 


Christian teen Sudiksha Thirumalesh, who also suffered from a mitochondrial disorder, died in September after a court upheld the NHS’s decision to remove her ventilator and end her life-sustaining dialysis. The 19-year-old, who was fully conscious and able to speak, pleaded with the court to allow her to seek specialized treatment in Canada. As in the previous cases, her appeal was denied.

Following the court’s decision, HotAir columnist David Strom excoriated the NHS for embracing what he described as “Soviet” tactics.

“This was exactly the same position that the Soviet tyrants took when they put political dissenters in psychiatric hospitals,” he wrote. “Westerners used to decry that. Now our elite class embraces it with a passion.”


Each year, the NHS removes more than 1,300 patients from palliative care, according to a BBC analysis published in March 2022. 

Between 2018 and 2022, nearly half (47%) of 9,037 patients in England and Wales were denied life-sustaining support following NHS funding reviews.

Attorney Andrew Farley, an attorney who provides legal services pertaining to NHS Continuing Healthcare Funding, conceded that the percentage of patients who lose NHS funding was “exceptionally high.”

He explained that the NHS’s end-of-life assessments are used “often as a cost-saving exercise…designed to withdraw funding from as many people as possible, even where it might not be appropriate.”

The NHS said that its determinations of patient eligibility for palliative care are in line with government rules.