Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

This is a very sad case; I am sure the judge would not have found it easy to reach such a conclusion. Just because they are the child's parents, it does not mean that they are making decisions based on what is, fundamentally, in the child's best interests. They are clearly devoted to him, and love him very much. Like any parent, they want to do the right thing...but what the right thing is in their eyes is not necessarily the right thing in reality. They are not medical professionals. The evidence overwhelmingly states that the treatment in America is experimental, and has very little chance of working. Why treat him like a guinea pig? Why put an innocent child through that? Why make him, potentially, suffer more? GOSH has been demonised on social media. The decision to take court action must have been reached with a very heavy heart, yet motivated by a sense, from their point of view, of doing the right thing for the child and not the child's parents. There are no winners. People are questioning why the courts have the ability to be involved in such a matter. It's the fact that, with all the very best of intentions and love for their child, parents don't always make rational decisions for their children because of the emotions involved. These cases are very rare. I think it is important that the last resort is the courts, which can make decisions in the best interests of vulnerable people, based on the evidence in front of them and, as best as they can, take all emotion out of it. The judge was very sympathetic to the parents, but I think he made the right decision for Charlie. My heart goes out to his brave parents. They have tried to do the very best for Charlie, and for that they cannot reproach themselves. Anonymous 08.48, I do not believe the judge felt he was acting as God, and no murder is being committed. Somebody had to make a final decision, and sadly the judge was tasked with that heaviest of burdens. I think it would be sensible to read the judgment before making such inflammatory, ignorant comments.

Your details

Cancel