Deadline passes for baby Charlie's parents

CHARLIE GARD'S parents have returned to court in a desperate bid to bring him home to die in his own cot.

The judge said Great Ormond Street bosses had indicated that there were practical difficulties.

"If they are seeking care that will hurt their child, then doctors must ask that the state step in both with a guardian and with court review", he continued.

The heated commentary has prompted the judge to criticize the effects of social media and those "who know nearly nothing about this case but who feel entitled to express opinions". A "global conversation has now been ignited" about the rights of parents, not governments, to determine what's best for their children.

Yates was in court for the hearing before judge Nicholas Francis.

On Monday, heartbroken Chris and Connie gave up their legal struggle to let little Charlie leave the United Kingdom for a trial treatment overseas because it was "too late" to help him.


Charlie's plight captured global attention after his mother Connie contacted Dr. Michio Hirano, a neurologist at Columbia University Medical Center in NY, who offered to perform experimental therapy on the child.

The fight to save Charlie Gard, the British infant at the center of a worldwide debate about parental rights and medical treatment, is coming to a close.

Previous court hearings have witnessed moments of tension and anger between GOSH's lawyers and Charlie's parents, but Yates said they had never condoned any threatening or abusive remarks towards the hospital's staff.

They went back to the High Court to beg to be allowed to spend four days of "tranquillity" with their son before withdrawing his life support.

But they said Charlie's parents were still in dispute with doctors over the detail of care plans.

"Our son has an extremely rare disease for which there is no accepted cure, but that does not mean that this treatment would not have worked, and it certainly does not mean that this shouldn't have been tried".


In comments to CNA July 25, Benjamin Harnwell, founder of the Rome-based Dignitatis Humanae Institute, said he thought that "the hospital - and the courts - crossed a totalitarian line in refusing to hand the baby over to his parents at their request, so that they could seek further medical attention in the US, for which they had secured the funding".

The London hospital where Charlie has received all his treatment believed there was no medical evidence to support claims the therapy could work.

They said practicalities were of the "greatest importance" but that Charlie's parents had proposed no clear plan. "That remains its view of his welfare". And it noted that Hirano had told the court that he "retains a financial interest in some of the. compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie". "On one hand they are saying they are not standing in the parents' way, and on the other are putting obstacles in the way which can be surmounted".

There is no love like the love that a parent has for their child.

Kennedy contests that while parents' views concerning what is best for their child should "usually" be honored, society should "intervene", via the judicial system, if experts disagree.

Afterwards, an unnamed family friend said: "The hospital have set the bar so high that in terms of clinical team for Charlie's end of life nothing seemed good enough for Gosh".



Popular

CONNECT