Court allows new hearing in case of terminally ill baby

BRITAIN: A British court yesterday gave the parents of 11-monthold Charlie Gard a chance to present fresh evidence that their terminally ill son should receive experimental treatment.

The decision came after an emotionally charged hearing in the wrenching case, during which Gard’s mother wept in frustration and his father yelled at a lawyer.

Judge Nicholas Francis gave the couple until Wednesday afternoon, local time, to present the evidence and set a new hearing for Thursday in a case that has drawn international attention.

But the judge insisted there had to be ``new and powerful’' evidence to reverse earlier rulings that barred Charlie from travelling abroad for treatment and authorised London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital to take him off life support.

``There is not a person alive who would not want to save Charlie,’' the judge said. ``If there is new evidence I will hear it.’'

Charlie suffers from mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a rare genetic disease that has left him brain damaged and unable to breathe unaided. His parents want to bring him abroad for experimental therapy, which they say offers their son a chance of improvement.

But British and European courts have sided with the hospital’s decision that his life support should end, saying therapy would not help and would cause more suffering.

The re-opening of the case at London’s High Court may allow Charlie to receive the experimental treatment at his current hospital or abroad.

Great Ormond Street Hospital applied for another court hearing because of ``new evidence relating to potential treatment for his condition’'.

The evidence came from researchers at the Vatican’s children’s hospital and another facility outside of Britain.

The application came after both Pope Francis and President Donald Trump fuelled international attention to the case, with hospitals in Rome and the US offering to provide Charlie the experimental therapy.

The case pits the rights of parents to decide what’s best for their children against the authorities with responsibility for ensuring that people who can’t speak for themselves receive the most appropriate care.

Under British law, it is normal for courts to intervene when parents and doctors disagree on the medical treatment of a child – such as cases where a parent’s religious beliefs prohibit blood transfusions.

The rights of the child take primacy, rather than the rights of parents to make the call.

Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have received wide public support, while rightto-life groups have intervened in their cause. –AP