Charlie Gard can be saved, says US doctor called in by White House
AN AMERICAN professor telephoned Great Ormond Street Hospital at the request of the White House offering dramatic new evidence in the fight to keep Charlie Gard alive.
The High Court heard yesterday how the eminent doctor – who cannot be named for legal reasons – was contacted by Donald Trump’s staff a day after the president tweeted his support for the 11-month-old baby.
Mr Justice Francis, who ruled in April that Charlie’s life support should be switched off, yesterday asked the physician if he would now be prepared to fly to London to examine the baby if the case was adjourned for a few days.
The doctor replied: “Yes, if necessary, I would love to do that.”
The neurologist told the court that analysis of a study of nine children with a disease similar to Charlie’s but not nearly as severe showed five of them – equivalent to a 56 per cent success rate – had improved after receiving experimental treatment.
One child, who had been breathing on a ventilator for eight hours a day, no longer needed one at all.
Charlie suffers from a rare form of mitochondrial depletion syndrome. Unlike the children in the doctor’s study, the illness affects not only his muscles but also his brain. But the doctor said he could see no evidence from scans that Charlie had suffered irreversible brain damage.
The possibility that the judge may now be open to allowing an assessment threw an extraordinary lifeline to Charlie’s parents Connie Yates, 31, and Chris Gard, 33.
Charlie’s case has become a worldwide cause célèbre and with tensions running high, Mr Justice Francis also spoke of his deep concern that doctors treating Charlie at Great Ormond Street had been “subjected to the most vile abuse” and threats.
He issued a warning that perpetrators who were caught would be punished and said it “was grossly unfair” that staff had been targeted. “I don’t know how anybody can think they are helping the parents’ case,” he said.
Outside the court, pro-life demonstrators denounced the hospital over its handling of the case.
During yesterday’s hearing, Katie Gollop QC said while cross examining the doctor via a video link with the US: “You had a discussion with Great Or- mond Street at the request of the White House on July 4.” The telephone call led to the hospital going back to the High Court to reassess the case in light of alleged new evidence from the doctor, prompting new hearings this week.
The hospital maintains that there is no dramatic new evidence that should reverse the decision made by Mr Justice Francis and upheld in the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the European courts. The same doctor had given evidence in April in support of experimental treatment but at the time admitted the chances of Charlie’s condition improving was “highly unlikely”.
Via video link, he said yesterday – nine days after the White House intervention – that Charlie was merely “unlikely” to improve.
Victoria Butler-cole, a lawyer acting for Charlie’s legal guardian, questioned why he suddenly thought Charlie’s chances had improved after three months, during which time his head had not grown, indicating brain damage. She said: “What I am struggling with is how come you concluded a future better than the one given in April?”
The professor had earlier told the court: “I estimate the chance of meaningful success [of the treatment] to be at least 10 per cent.”
He said there was a small but significant chance of improvement in brain function, adding that he had “overreached” when he had said at the April hearing that it was likely Charlie’s brain damage was irreversible.
During yesterday’s hearing, Charlie’s parents stormed out of court, furious at the judge for saying: “[The couple] has not been fighting to retain what he has now but fighting for a chance to give him the treatment to possibly improve.”
At this, Mr Gard stood up and said: “I thought this was supposed to be independent,” before walking out.