Baby Charlie ‘will not be going home’

HEALTH: Terminally ill baby Charlie Gard is unlikely to be allowed to spend his final days at home with his parents, a High Court judge has said.

Mr Justice Francis said he will today make a decision about where the 11-month-old boy should spend the remainder of his life after his parents gave up their long fight to save him.

The key obstacle is the reality of invasive ventilation. Barrister Katie Gollop QC, who leads Great Ormond Street’s legal team.

TERMINALLY ILL baby Charlie Gard is unlikely to be allowed to spend his final days at home with his parents, a High Court judge has said.

Mr Justice Francis said he will today make a decision about where the 11-month-old boy should spend the remainder of his life.

Doctors caring for Charlie at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London said they want to fulfil the “last desire” of his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates. But they said there were practical difficulties in providing the intensive care Charlie needs outside a hospital, and the judge said the chances of him being able to spend his final days at home were “small”.

Charlie’s parents have become embroiled in a fight with doctors over the circumstances of his death, a day after abandoning attempts to persuade a judge to let him travel to America for experimental treatment.

Mr Justice Francis presided over the dispute at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London yesterday. The hearing was scheduled to resume at 2pm today.

The judge said the dispute cried out for settlement, but he said if a solution could not be agreed he would decide.

Barrister Grant Armstrong, who leads the couple’s legal team, suggested to Mr Justice Francis that hospital bosses were placing obstacles in Charlie’s parents’ way.

“The parents wish for a few days of tranquillity outside of a hospital setting,” Mr Armstrong said.

“The parents had hoped that Great Ormond Street would work with them.’’

He added: ‘’The parents’ primary position is that Charlie’s final days of palliative care ... should take place at the family home.’’

Mr Armstrong said Great Ormond Street doctors thought that moving Charlie to a hospice was the best plan.

But he said the couple felt there was a ‘’brutality’’ to taking Charlie to a hospice.

He told the judge: ‘’We struggle with the difficulties which the hospital is placing in the way.’’

Barrister Katie Gollop QC, who leads Great Ormond Street’s legal team, said staff were not creating “obstacles”.

She said nothing could be further from the truth – she said staff had “moved heaven and earth” for Charlie.

But she said the couple’s needs had to be balanced against Charlie’s best interests.

“The care plan must be safe, it must spare Charlie all pain and protect his dignity,” said Ms Gollop.

“At the same time, the plan must honour his parents’ wishes about two matters in particular, namely the time and place of his passing.”

She said finalising an end-oflife care plan was the “most delicate and difficult task”.

“Charlie’s parents want him to be with them and ventilated at home for several days before receiving palliative care,” she said.

“Above all, Great Ormond Street wants to fulfil that last wish.”

She added: “The key obstacle, and one which the hospital cannot see a way around, is the reality of invasive ventilation that Charlie requires.’’

Ms Gollop said such invasive ventilation was only provided in a hospital.

She said Great Ormond Street had been unable to find a specialist prepared to oversee such intensive care at Charlie’s home, but they had found a hospice which would give the family the space and privacy they needed.