A BEREAVED family who claimed their baby’s life support was turned off without consent has received damages from a North-East hospital trust.

In October 2012, Darlington woman Sian Hill had labour induced at Darlington Memorial Hospital, with her baby Ivy rushed to resuscitation straight after a traumatic birth.

Shortly afterwards, Miss Hill and her partner, James Towers, were given the devastating news that their little girl would not survive.

Ivy lost her life shortly afterwards from organ failure, with the couple claiming that doctors told them she had died as they were bringing her to her parents to allow them to say their final goodbyes.

However, when studying pathologist reports months later, the couple say they discovered hospital staff had taken the decision to end life support against their wishes.

They embarked upon a five-year legal battle that concluded recently with the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust paying out an undisclosed sum ahead of a court date.

The legal case also alleged that the hospital had been at fault for Ivy’s death due to a failure to induce her mother at an earlier stage in her pregnancy.

Miss Hill had repeatedly raised concerns after she experienced abdominal pains and had not felt her baby move for long periods of time when she was beyond 37 weeks pregnant.

She was not referred to a consultant and was eventually induced at 41 weeks and 5 days, on October 4 2012, with Ivy born weighing 10.8lbs.

Miss Hill says that the loss of her daughter and the circumstances in which she lost her life have left her angry and feeling “completely let down and lied to” by health professionals.

The Trust denied any responsibility for Ivy’s death, with medical notes stating that Miss Hill and Mr Towers wanted active treatment on their baby to be discontinued and her brought to them.

The couple strongly deny that that was the case, with Miss Hill saying: “Ivy was taken away and we understood that this was so she could be fully resuscitated.

"We were obviously extremely worried at that stage and I desperately wanted to see Ivy to see how she was doing, but the nurses kept telling me not to worry and that she would be brought back to me once she was breathing properly.

“When we were made aware that Ivy was not responding well to resuscitation and that the life support may need to be switched off both James and I made it very clear to the doctors and nurses that we wanted to see Ivy as soon as possible, and while she was still alive.

“When they brought Ivy into the room she had died and was in a wicker basket. They said she had died when they were bringing her to us, no mention of switching anything off.

“It was only when we were reading a pathology report months later that we saw the word ‘extubated’ – which meant they had ended life support – that we began asking questions.

"We were furious and it was then we turned for legal support.

“That process has revealed that Ivy would probably still be with us now, alive and well, had she been delivered a couple of weeks earlier. I still find that hard to think about.”

Miss Hill said that she would never be able to come to terms with what had happened and the emotional distress she had suffered, adding: “Ivy’s death was worsened by the way the situation was handled by the hospital staff once it became apparent Ivy was not going to survive.

“She was three hours old when they switched off her life support and in that time we had not been able to see her alive.

"I never saw Ivy, or held her, or even touched her when she was alive.”

Miss Hill, now 26, said she had been made to feel she was wasting people’s time when reporting concerns during her pregnancy.

She is now urging other young mothers to speak out and seek help if they are worried about their babies.

Miss Hill said: “Looking back we feel so angry and so let down. I was only young at the time, just 20 and it was my first pregnancy, and I feel my concerns were dismissed.

“Instinctively I felt something was wrong when I had the reduced movements.

"As a mum you know your body and you know what feels right and what feels wrong, but I was being told everything was ok and in many ways I was made to feel daft for calling in again and asking for more checks.

“I felt at times like I was wasting peoples’ time and being a typical first time mum by worrying too much.

"It was almost so bad that I doubted myself and felt awkward raising my concerns.

“I’ve since been told that the pains in my abdomen were a sign of potential infection, yet still they didn’t take immediate action.

"Had I been given all of the facts and told to have an induction earlier I would of course have done it. It was presented to me that there was no risk.

“That makes me very angry now and I want other young mums to always speak out and keep going back again and again if they are worried. They should be fully examined and see specialists if their concerns continue.”

Helena Wood, medical negligence specialist at Hudgell Solicitors, represented the family and criticized the trust, saying that the couple were adamant that they had not agreed to Ivy’s life support being turned off.

She added: “It was the opinion of independent medical experts that there was a clear failure to act on the increased risk to Ivy given Sian experienced a second episode of reduced movements.

“The defendant trust dragged this case out for five years, refusing to enter any settlement negotiations or make any admissions until almost two months before a trial was due.

“This has made it a further harrowing experience for Sian and James, and brought extra avoidable costs to the public purse.

“We hope many lessons have been learned, from the care provided during pregnancy to the support and empathy for bereaved parents after they lose a child at birth. In this case, little or no empathy has been shown.”

A spokeswoman for the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, said, “The Trust wishes to extend its deepest sympathy and condolences to baby Ivy's family for their loss in this extremely sad case.

“A settlement in this case has been reached, which is not indicative of any admissions in relation to the care provided to Ms Hill or baby Ivy, but which is on terms that are acceptable to both parties.”