Two weeks before what would be his first birthday, the parents of Charlie Gard in the UK have made the decision to end the legal battle to save his life.
Chris Gard and Connie Yates have been fighting for permission to let Charlie undergo treatment in the US, as the boy suffers a rare and fatal mitochondrial disease that leads to brain damage and immobility.
But the doctors treating Charlie in the UK labelled the US treatment “experimental” and said it would lead to further suffering if they were to transport Charlie between countries.
Though the couple took the case to the courts, and then to the European Court of Human Rights, their appeals were denied, with the Court of Human Rights declaring the case “inadmissable” at the end of last month.
Now, in a statement delivered to press outside the UK High Court, Chris Gard has said “too much time has been wasted” and that the latest MRI and EEG scans show Charlie’s illness has deteriorated “to the point of no return.”
“We are now going to spend our last precious moments with our son” – father of terminally-ill Charlie Gard https://t.co/w9iKxj2X3k pic.twitter.com/aFrvW9cEnm
— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) July 24, 2017
Top Comments
Heartbreaking.
How heartbreaking for those parents. To have a 'potential' treatment to save their son taken away must be devastating. I don't think a court should be able to make that choice. Only a parent can. You can't tell me that with modern medicine Charlie could not have been kept comfortable to fly to the US. Now he will die anyway when he may have been saved and may have provided answers to a rare condition that could have saved others. What a shame. My heartfelt sympathy to his mum and dad.
The real question is, why couldn't the doctor who promised them successful treatment make the trip to the UK to see Charlie in person and examine him or at the very least meet with doctors in the UK. The crowd funded money was sufficient to bring the Doctor over. The doctor was invited over and didn't come. You expected a hospital to send a sick boy on an international flight to have a treatment that is not proven to work? I completely empathesize with the parents here but the human rights court agreed with the hospitals decision.
The doctor who proposed this treatment never examined the child, his scans or test results. He had never used this 'proposed' treatment on a human before, nor had he received (or indeed) sought approval from the FDA to use it for Charlie Guard, plus the doctor had a financial stake in the company producing this 'miracle' cure. There is hope and then there is false hope. The baby was intubated and on 24/hr artificial respirstion, had multiple seizures etc. I doubt the doctors at GOSH would have applied for Guardianship on a whim, nor to spite the parents, but would have had done so for the baby's best interests.
The baby was born with a catastrophic, terminal condition. I think the American doctor is unethical and immoral for giving this poor couple false hope when he hadn't even reviewed his file, let alone examined Charlie. The courts don't take these decisions lightly. And the 2 million pounds they raised, that would've last about a New Yrork minute in the US medical system, particularly for an infant dependent on life support, and you can guarantee once the money ran out, the Gards would've been abandoned and left with an enormous medical debt.
Saved him to live what sort of life, exactly? Parents are not always right, they are not doctors, and sadly, love makes them blind.