Gard. This sad case of the poor child and his parents is heartbreaking. But our medical profession and all the courts have said his life support should now be switched off. But now the Pope and Donald Trump are trying to step in. Do you think they are right to be interfering? A terrible situation for the parents who seem to want as anyone would any glimmer of hope. So sad.

Impossible to make a judgement on this. Heart breaking it is and little Charlie is 10 months old now, they have grown to love him and feel his pain,so an even harder decision .

After the Judges decision the parents only asked for him to be able to go home, and I don't understand why that was denied. If he had been allowed home, it could have saved this now continuing agony.

These distraught parents needed him to be at home if only for a short time, just to do all the little things so that their natural parental dreams can be realised, and act as a cushion to the final blow.

As an after thought, I'm not sure I can agree with an experimental drug from USA. Nobody would know what the side effects might be and Charlie would be unable to show any discomfort, feeling of sickness etc. Can we imagine feeling absolutely shit and not being able to even move or let anyone know ?

This is very sad and I can't imagine what his parents are going through. Sometimes I think the marvel of medical science these days is somewhat of a curse in cases like this. It's easy for me to say not being involved and I know I would be the same as them hoping for a miracle but years ago this little one would have died almost at birth and tragic as that is he would have been spared the suffering. I don't think the Pope or Trump should interfere surely the doctors know best. Very sad indeed.

As soon as the UK medical profession said there is no hope for Charlie, the experimental drug should have been permitted provided it had the blessing of the parents - why not? It might have helped Charlie and most certainly would have helped research for other kids.

I'm not saying that every terminally ill baby should be used as a guinea pig but if that is the will of the parents and they get no financial benefit from the use of the drug and there is evidence that it may help I'd consider it immoral not to allow the use of that drug even its its know their may be fatal consequences.

I still agree with euthanasia to prevent suffering though, unfortunately in cases like this it is very difficult to decide who should have the ultimate say. Why animals have more rights in this aspect than humans is crazy.

If a man or more often a woman can decide to terminate the life of their unloved and unborn child with the help and legal backing of the country why shouldn't a couple try and do everything and explore all avenues to try and give their born and loved child a chance no matter how small.
(sorry if offended anyone ..just written in a moment of anger)

Quote DD
"I'm not saying that every terminally ill Baby should be used as a guinea pig but if that is the will of the parents and they get no financial benefit from the use of the drug and there is evidence that it may help I'd consider it immoral not to allow the use of that drug even its its know their may be fatal consequences."

Immoral? Mmm, wouldnt have put it that strongly . Think I might be thinking more along the lines of

a) (Setting aside the unborn here as a separate issue) Our law doesnt even allow parents to correct our children by smacking - yet here we are thinking about granting parents to have permission for a small child to be used like a vivisection animal , in an untried radical experiment when results and side effects are unknown.

b) There was a woman interviewed the other day whose child had similar problems to Charlie and she agreed to experimental treatment. The child died anyway, but that is not what haunts her, she wishes she could turn the clock back and say NO to the treatment because it actually caused the child to suffer more than had been anticipated , and die in pain and distress. She remains anguished and guilt ridden .

c) Its thought that at best ,in Charlie's case, experimenal treatment MIGHT just make Charlie survive and gain a bit more awareness . What if it achieves that ?- the poor little guy has no say , but to be condemned to live a life wholly dependant on others. He would still be blind, deaf, immobile , still have a hugely damaged brain -- but hey - he'd be alive and a bit more aware !!!!

This aspect doesnt seem to have been mentioned by the authorities , and I think its massively important . Keeping Charlie alive might be the parents sole aim now , but I fearif he survives, they may be devasted at the emotional cost later when they see the lack of quality this little figure of humanity will have as he grows up - thanks to their decision. We cant know how a deaf ,speechless, blind, immobile ,massively brain damaged child will feel with his gifted awareness - but is it fair to be able to gamble and decide for someone else with all those severe disabilities, that what he will or wont experience is ok ?

Not exactly sure myself (yet again) what is right here - harking back to our other discussion about extending life until maybe a cure comes along - how can we be sure that in 10 years a new sight and hearing technology and brain cell re-activation operation wont come along which could enrich Charlie's life sufficiently to enable him to have some enjoyment and quality?

Truly an enormous decision in no way straightforward. Feel desperately sorry for the poor parents as well as little Charlie.

My basic take on it is .... If I was ether on my last legs or about to become incapacitated to an extremely low quality of life and there was an experimental or even low probability treatment available I'd think "why the hell not?". There would be even more re-assurance if I was on life support that could be switched off.

I can see only possible benefits for me or others, I can't see anything negative in that decision.

Whether its me, someone else or a baby I can't see how that changes anything.

I don't agree with the NHS funding treatment to extend life in the hope that a new treatment comes along, that argument has never ending consequences.

Even now, after all this couple have suffered there is still a disagreement as to whether or not little Charlie can go home for such brief period of time.

Heart breaking !

As heartbreaking as it is surely to move the poor little mite, would cause him more distress, the poor little soul has been a football between the parents and the courts, no one can say what they would do given such a situation, but the thought must be to give him his last days in comfort and where he can be cared for with the facility to ease his discomfort, his parents can be with him, so very sad for all concerned.

The poor little kid only got days to live and the Hospital and courts still denying his parents their final wish. Not going to make an ounce of difference to let the poor baby home to die. I bet the parents never knew the hassle they would have to go through when they first took him into hospital for help.

Little Charlie can now be allowed to slip away peacefully and with all the love and care to make it as easy as possible. Let's now hope the media can now give his family a little peace to deal with what they have to face in the coming days and weeks.

Evidence please.

Deads dead no matter where it happens doesnt require evidence other than a walk around any cemetery

There is no evidence either way to suggest that moving him would cause discomfort, however who must make that decision? those qualified to do so? or the parents? in all honesty would the parents wish him to suffer just to take him home, with the very best of intentions it would be a selfless act to spare him what might be a trauma for the poor little wee one.