This case has been making Newspaper headlines, and it is not surprising as the content appears quite remarkable. The most recent coverage is of the facility where the young woman's body is being stored. The immediate thought that might come to mind is why the Judge decided to 'approve' this procedure. However, that is the point, the Judge did not approve the procedure.
The article from Family Law Week makes it very clear that the Judge was not deciding what should happen after the young woman's death, but who should make the decision.
The young woman wrote to the Judge and her wishes and feelings were clear. She did not want to die but she knew she was going to, and she hoped that in the future there may be a cure for her cancer and she could be woken up. This was her wish.
Her Mother agreed and her Father objected although subject to some conditions he did eventually agree. The Judge's role was effectively to determine what weight should be given to the young woman's wishes and feelings rather than whether the process was right or wrong.
I have to admit that my view is that cryo-preservation upon death is an empty promise, but if this was the firmly held wish of a dying 14 year old and the Mother was able to facilitate it, then it seems that the Judge made the right decision.
Orders made to secure 14 year old's wish to be cryo-preserved upon deathCourt was not approving or encouraging cryonics: Peter Jackson JMr Justice Peter Jackson has granted an application by a 14-year old girl suffering from a rare form of terminal cancer for orders to secure her wish to be cryo-preserved upon death.