The BBC's Linda Duffin reports

Carol Glass, from Portsmouth, is concerned that hospital staff would not offer life-saving treatment to her son David if his condition deteriorated.

Her family has already taken dramatic action to resuscitate him, by entering a children's ward, blowing raspberries in his ear and massaging his chest.

David, 12, was born with hydrocephalus and suffers from blindness, spastic quadriplegia, and severe learning difficulties.

Ms Glass's court action, against Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, follows a violent incident at St Mary's Hospital in October last year.

Doctors suggested David was dying, and that he be left to "pass away peacefully and with dignity".

But 15 members of David's family entered the children's ward and attempted to resuscitate him.

Much recovered

The court heard on Wednesday that David is now much better, and plays with his sisters, laughs, smiles and responds to light and sound.

However, the trust disputes that the family's actions are responsible for David's improvement.

Ms Glass wants the court to ensure that if David's condition again deteriorates, doctors - at any hospital - cannot refuse resuscitation and lifesaving treatment without her consent.

Richard Gordon QC, representing Mrs Glass, also argued that the decision to give David diamorphine without parental consent was an unlawful act, constituting an assault.

The drug could have hastened his death as well as giving him relief.

'Women blew raspberries'

Dr Mark Ashton, a consultant paediatrician treating David, described the scene when the family arrived in the hospital the next day.

In an affidavit read to the court, he described the atmosphere as "extremely fraught". David as "lay dying", he said.

In normal circumstances, Dr Ashton said, hospital staff would advise the family to hold their dying child and calm him down while he was allowed to die peacefully.

Instead, women members of the family started "blowing raspberries in his ears, banging his chest and rubbing his arms and legs very vigorously, despite being asked not to".

One relative pulled the child from bed, not to comfort him, but to stimulate him to breathe.

Dr Ashton said: "In my own view this was extremely cruel. David should have been allowed to pass away peacefully and with dignity."

He said David "looked distressed" and it was not in his best interests "simply to keep him alive".

Quality of life improved

However, Mr Gordon produced a statement that suggests David is enjoying a good quality of life.

It was made on behalf of the government's official solicitor, who was called in to safeguard the child's best interests in the court case.

It described David sitting up in bed with his sisters, who were chatting and cuddling him, two weeks ago.

Although profoundly disabled, he appeared aware of his surroundings and responding to the people around him, the statement said.

He had also been on visits to shops, local woods, and Blackpool.

Drugs may have worked

Dennis Matthews QC, counsel for the trust, disputed that the family's actions in October saved David's life.

He said that "far from what is being suggested" the diamorphine played a "very significant" part in David's recovery.

Mr Matthews said David received a very low dose of the drug, started after 7pm on 20 October and halved the next morning.

It was stopped altogether early in the afternoon on 21 October.

He said the diamorphine "was very much needed" and was used to relieve the boy's distress.

Legal concerns

And he said a High Court ruling on the issue would be inappropriate - if a problem did arise it should be dealt with in the Family Division of the High Court.

There was further concern that any ruling may make the law too strict.

Andrew Hockton, appearing for the official solicitor, said: "Our concern is that the applicant appears to be trying to impose some kind of legal and procedural strait jacket on an area of the law which has been left, for good reason in many cases, uncertain."