Parents’ agony as court says Charlie should be left to die
THE parents of Charlie Gard sobbed in court yesterday as it ruled that life support should be withdrawn from their sick ninemonth-old son so he can die.
Connie Yates and Chris Gard wanted the Court of Appeal to overturn a ruling in the High Court last month that Charlie should be allowed to die with dignity.
However, three appeal judges upheld the High Court decision after taking expert medical and legal advice.
Charlie has a rare genetic condition that saps energy from his muscles, lungs and other organs. He cannot see, hear, make any sound or move, and is kept alive by a ventilator.
The hospital told the Appeal Court he was brain damaged and terminally ill with no prospect of recovery, and that he could be suffering in silence.
But Miss Yates, 31, and Mr Gard, 32, have fought to give him experimental treatment in the US as his ‘only hope’.
Their plight prompted a flood of public support, with well-wishers donating more than £1.3million to a fund to pay for the treatment.
Clutching one of Charlie’s soft toys yesterday, Mr Gard put his head in his hands and shook his head as the three appeal judges ruled unanimously that Charlie should just receive palliative care.
Lord Justice McFarlane said: ‘The sole principle in these cases is that the best interests of the child must apply. There is no viable alternative treatment for poor Charlie.’
Lady Justice King praised the parents’ ‘dedication and stoicism’ and said they would have to support each other ‘to face the dark days ahead’.
Following the decision yesterday, Charlie’s parents asked doctors to delay withdrawal of life support so they
‘Face the dark days ahead’
could have the case considered by the Supreme Court.
But Great Ormond Street Hospital insisted it would be ‘positively unethical’ to keep him on life support any longer, and said the court could not order it to keep treating someone if it was not in the patient’s best interests. Its lawyers said doctors wanted to begin talks with Charlie’s parents about withdrawing treatment and allowing him to die within days.
Richard Gordon QC, representing Charlie’s parents, said they hoped a hearing could be arranged at the Supreme Court by mid-June.
But he told the court that, in an email, Great Ormond Street Hospital had said it was not prepared to wait. He added: ‘It effectively says we will not agree to a stay of any kind, not even to allow you to go to the Supreme Court.’
Susanna Rickard, for the hospital, said doctors treating Charlie already thought they were acting ‘at the borders of what is ethical’ after the High Court ruled in April that ongoing life support was not in his best interests.
She said: ‘Charlie’s best interests were determined several weeks ago by the High Court judgment and those decisions stand.
‘His condition has already worsened. He is terminally ill and there is no alternative treatment available for him.
‘By agreeing to date not to act, the clinicians have considered themselves to be at the borders of what is ethical … to extend would be positively unethical.’
After Lady Justice King said the hospital should wait until the parents had exhausted their legal options, it agreed to continue life support until midnight on Wednesday so judges could consider whether the case should be heard by the Supreme Court.
After the hearing, a friend of Miss Yates, a carer, and postal worker Mr Gard said: ‘Losing this appeal is a devastating setback. Despite this judgment they simply won’t let him die. They will continue to fight to take him to the US.’
A Great Ormond Street spokesman said: ‘Charlie is a terminally ill child with an exceptionally low quality of life. Our priority must always be to protect the best interests of the child.’