Parents ask court to let them take their baby home to die
- Author: Aubrey Nash Jul 28, 2017,
Jul 28, 2017, 0:21
Charlie's mother, Connie Yates, left the courtroom in distress before the judge announced his decision.
Could ventilation be maintained on the way? A ventilator would not fit through their front door.
The Telegraph noted Armstrong, who leads the couple's legal team, suggested to the judge that hospital bosses were placing obstacles in Charlie's parents' way.
The deadline for Charlie Gard's parents to come to an arrangement with their son's doctors over his care has now passed.
At the high court on Wednesday, the parents said they would instead seek to move him to a hospice, hopefully for "a week or so".
The hospital disagrees. It says Charlie had suffered irreversible brain damage by January as a result of a series of seizures, and his responsiveness has not changed since then.
The hospital says in a statement that it's not in a position to know what might have happened six months ago and that it can not know if Charlie would have responded to the experimental therapy.
The judge said he envisaged Thursday's proceedings being "the final hearing", in a case which has been going through the courts for five months.
But so far attempts to find agreement have failed.
"It is in Charlie's best interest to be moved to hospice", the judge said.
The time had come for a...
The child suffers from permanent brain damage and can not breathe on his own. The London children's hospital opposed that, saying it would not help and would cause Charlie suffering.
His parents - Yates and her partner, Chris Gard - have battled for months to take Charlie to the United States for an experimental treatment they believed would improve his condition.
Doctors at Great Ormond Street said the therapy would not help.
British courts and the European Court of Human Rights have all sided with Great Ormond Street, one of the world's leading children's hospital, in its bid to remove life support and let Charlie die naturally.
The case has triggered a heated global debate in the press and on social media about who should decide a child's fate, and has drawn comment from USA president Donald Trump and pope Francis.
While even several Catholic ethicists remain divided on how to care for Charlie, some secular ethicists like Peter Singer (who consistently argues against the Catholic ethos) have argued positively for this child to receive medical treatment.