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.

I think like the doctors say a hospice would be best. They have everything to hand and facilities to make this poor babies passing as painfree and stress-free as is possible. Never been in a hospice but I have heard they have beautiful peaceful rooms where parents can stay for as long as they wish even when death comes. These parents would have support from the staff who are well used to these terrible tragedies. So so sad....

You have pontificated that it won't make "an ounce of difference" to let the baby die at home. It's not a question of "dead's dead" - it's a matter of what the baby will experience before death. So - what is your evidence that allowing the baby to die at home won't make "an ounce of difference"?

What will the baby experience before death?

Hopefully, with proper care and attention, a minimum of pain and discomfort.

This to me has just been a legal circus, one thing gets decided and then something else is argued about in court right down to where he should be allowed to die. It for me has become a little bit more about the legal side of things than what is actually better for for the poor child.

And thats part of the problem....having to put your trust in what the experts say. Had to make that decision over my late mum .one expert at the hospital saying let her die and another saying a fairly routine procedure will keep her alive. I didnt want our decision to be the end of her life. She had the procedure and lived a few more years but quality of life was vitually nil and it extended her suffering.
More recently ive had to sit in on a hospital tribunal and the cards are stacked in favour of the experts when it comes to convincing the panel.
In charlies case then the right to die at home seems to only be objected on on the grounds of "comfort suffering and pain".if he can be transferred to a hospice to die then i dont see why he couldnot have been allowed home...at some point his life support will possibly be switched off . pain relief i presume can be ministered at home.

Well put, and had there been intervention initially, things may have been very different for little Charlie.

Yes, Dilly has a point or two , and the parents have clung on to every tiny bit of hope and light that they saw. Who on earth can blame them for that ?

I originally thought that Charlie should be allowed home, and still do really, however I imagine the authorities are as much concerned about the aftermath for his parents who I think will need as much support as possible. If they leave the hospital/hospice they probably wouldn't be allowed back for the aid of their own support and recovery.

Time is closing in on them and I imagine it won't seem real, they won't really be able to come to terms very easily particularly after such a long drawn out case. The whole thing makes the heart sink, and I'm so sorry for this little family.

So many problems for the parents to bring him home, not least the simple physical aspect of getting the machines through the house door. Apparently this would be impossible without structural alterations. Even taking him from the ambulance to the door would cause problems and he would have to come off the ventilator for that period.Then there is the absolute requirement for specialist medical staff to be on hand 24/7.
Terribly sad case but I think he should be allowed to die in peace where he is.

My sentiments too Salmon, dare I say I think the parents have been a wee bit selfish with a lot of things being based on what they want, shouting out at hearings and walking out, I don't know what it must be like for them, and they must feel frustrated but throughout those caring for him have felt the brunt of everyone's anger for doing their best, outside influences from the USA and the Vatican have only made things worse and the whole thing is being dragged down to the level of a cheap TV programme, let the poor little mite go in peace without all the upset and demonstrations and be remembered for the little fighter he is.

The demonstrators with their banners and misplaced opinions served to do nothing. They had no acsess to the medical records of the child so they were basically pretending they knew better than they medical profession.
Also I think the legal team for the parents were happy to go for appeal after appeal, more cash in the till ! . Let's all hope he is now left to pass in peace.

Thankfully we have not yet reached the position where decisions like these are based on your presumptions.

I find it extremely worrying that when the courts and medics have given up on keeping the child alive they still seem to take possessive control. The parents have not lost custody, they are not absent, they are the legal guardians.

Charlie is the most important thing in this DD, I really feel for the parents and understand their need to keep him around but surely he should be allowed to pass peacefully , without pain, and obviously with mum and dad and family around. A hospice is well used to these tragedies and have everything to hand and staff to make his passing as best as can be. It must be all about him and think now they should stop fighting and be with him in whatever time he has left. Very hard but let him go as think the medical team know what's best for him . Poor babe.

You know you follow a very sad case like this and then you see on news yet another child murdered by parent. That poor little 2 year old girl smothered by so called mother just to get back at the father!!! Those poor parents of Charlie wanted so much for him to live and yet this monster snuffing out a healthy babys life.Its so wrong, find these cases so upsetting and seem to be happening so much more.

Cools I think I heard this morning that the evil cow got 15 years. Well for me she should be strung up.

So is the hospice shortening or lengthening Charlie's life? Why is a hospice so important? The medical team got it very very wrong, why listen to them?

Nobody know what Charlie is feeling, that is why we have legal guardians to represent them and in this case the legal guardians are being overruled without any reason whatsoever and without any benefit whatsoever by the same people who have already made incorrect decisions on the matter.

Charlie has a very limited life left and very limited understanding as to what is going on, the parents and the rest of the family have to live with this nonsensical affair for a lot longer.

The parents already know that the treatment could have happened in January and on other occasions but was incorrectly denied, the treatment may have made a significant difference to Charlie.

Do you not feel that the parents will have a sense that their baby has been murdered by the withholding of treatment and delays? Its the ultimate pompous insult not to listen to the parents this time after their shoddy treatment so far.

Poor Charlies suffering over now...R.I.P. little one..

Granny

I think from listening to charlies dads speech the other day that they will probably see it in the context of GOSH and the courts denying them a glimmer of hope and possibly rubbing salt into their wounds by not allowing him home to die.
I hope they can feel a degree of pride in at least taking on the fight even though it seems they lost. Heart goes out to them as they watched their little warrior slip away today.

Fish, I'm not sure if you think I made the enclosed statement. I didn't, it was DD.

Firstly, is a shame rent-a-mob got involved.

With response, the treatment intended was experimental and had not been used before, according to one reporter this evening. So there was no medical knowledge to back it up.

The parents have battled as much as Charlie has, and a time had to come for his departure from this world, although they tried to cling on to every special moment and continue to do so for as long as they could. The ultimate decision was made and probably for their benefit too, in some ways. It could not go on indefinitely. I do think they could have maybe had a little longer with him in the hospice, but we don't know the situation fully. Maybe they made the very final decision. I hope they were allowed to.

In this case I now see it as an act of compassion but I doubt the pain will ever truly leave them.

God bless little Charlie, it seems the whole world was with him and his mummy and daddy.