Report comment

@ Anon 08.48

Perhaps if you took time to read the summary from the court, you would understand the court's logic and reasoning.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/gard-press-summary-20170411.pdf

"Some people may ask why the court has any function in this process; why can the parents not make this decision on their own? The answer is that, although the parents have parental responsibility, overriding control is vested in the court exercising its independent and objective judgment in the child’s best interests. The Great Ormond Street Hospital has made an application and it is my duty to rule on it, given that the parents and the hospital cannot agree on the best way forward...

... "It seemed, at the outset of this hearing, that there might have been a lone voice in the USA that was offering what has been described in some reports as “pioneering treatment”. Understandably, Charlie’s parents have grasped that possibility, they have done all that they could possibly have done, they have very publicly raised funds. What parents would not do the same? But I have to say, having heard the evidence, that this case has never been about affordability, but about whether there is anything to be done for Charlie. At one stage GOSH got as far as deciding to apply for ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy, a treatment that has never been used on patients with this form of MDDS. But by the time that decision had been made, Charlie’s condition had greatly worsened and the view of all here was that his epileptic encephalopathy was such that his brain damage was severe and irreversible, that treatment was potentially painful but incapable of achieving anything positive for him.... I was aware that I was to hear evidence from the doctor in the USA who was, reportedly, offering what had been referred to as pioneering treatment. Before he gave evidence, I encouraged the treating consultant at GOSH to speak with him, which she was able and willing to do. I am truly grateful to these experts for the time that they have given to this case. The outcome of that discussion is illuminating and the doctor in the USA said the following:

“Seeing the documents this morning has been very helpful. I can understand the opinions that he is so severely affected by encelopathy that any attempt at therapy would be futile. I agree that it is very unlikely that he will improve with that therapy. It is unlikely.”"

Therefore, even the US doctors confirm that the proposed treatment is futile. The court had to ensure that it acted in Charlie's best interests, in accordance with established legal principles.

This was a very difficult and highly emotive decision to make and the court had to balance all competing arguments. This is not about judges and doctors playing God - it is about humans making decisions on behalf of the most vulnerable humans in their best interests.

Clearly there will be arguments that the hospital and court shouldn't interfere and that the State should leave parents to decide what's best for their children. But with respect, this misses the fundamental point - the court must and has a duty to act on behalf of those that can't represent themselves. Ugly and abusive language saying that they are murderers and acting like God does nothing to help the families' case (and whose arguments were not in fact based on religion or illegal state-endorsed judicial killing).

My thoughts go out to all involved in Charlie's treatment, as this type of medical decision is not one that is reached lightly, and has a profound impact upon the clinicians involved. But most of all, my thoughts go out to Charlie's parents - for the way in which they have handled their tragedy being played out in a very public manner, and for the way in which they fought their case - with utmost dignity and compassion - to do right by their son. Whatever steps they now take, I hope that they spend as much time with their son as possible and create and hold those memories dear.