There is no new principle of law here. It’s established that the patient’s best interests should prevail, regardless of anyone’s wishes. The court recognises that there is a general presumption to prolong life, but not in every case and at any human cost in terms of suffering. Prolonging life must be justified in the patient’s best interests, regardless of whether that delights or dismays anyone else, including the parents and the doctors.
Who decides what happens to Charlie Gard, and why?
Adrian Short
53

Nail - bang - head.

Absolutely spot on. The patient’s needs not the parents’ or doctors’.

And definitely never the wants of some snake-oil salesman who wants to use Charlie Gard as a laboratory guinea pig for absolutely no benefit whatever to Charlie.

Charlie Gard has no hope of improvement and has effectively already died but his body is being kept artificially alive by prodigious amounts of medical intervention for no purpose and with no benefit to Charlie. It’s now unethical treatment.

Even at the best possible 10% improvement outcome guessed from complete nowhere by the snake-oil salesman, Charlie will still be unable to breathe without artificial aids, will still be brain damaged, deaf, blind and unable to move, cry or respond, still with multiple organ failures, and still terminally ill.

In case that doesn’t sink in, that means he’s still going to be dying even after the best possible outcome (which is just a guess anyhow, because it’s an untried untested theoretical possibility that may result in a treatment in a few decades but has never been tried so there’s absolutely nothing whatever to base any claim on).

The whole episode has moved passed sanity and beyond tragedy to a perverse form of inverted reality farce.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated 666molasar’s story.