Sun Sentinel Palm Beach Edition
Legal battle comes to an end
The parents of baby Charlie Gard tearfully say it is time to let their son die.
LONDON — The parents of Charlie Gard, whose battle to get their critically ill baby experimental treatment stirred international sympathy and controversy, dropped their legal effort Monday, saying tearfully that it was time to let their son die.
At an emotional court hearing, a lawyer for the baby’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, said the couple was withdrawing a bid to have Charlie sent to the United States, where a doctor had offered to try to treat his rare genetic condition. The decision came after new medical tests showed the 11-month-old, who has brain damage and cannot breathe unaided, had irreversible muscular damage.
Both parents wept in the packed courtroom at the High Court in London as lawyer Grant Armstrong made the announcement, his voice breaking.
“This case is now about time,” Armstrong said. “Sadly, time has run out.”
Outside court, Chris Gard said that Charlie “won’t make his first birthday in just under two weeks’ time.”
“We are about to do the hardest thing that we will ever have to do, which is to let our beautiful little Charlie go,” he said.
Gard and Yates, who are in their 30s and from London, have fought ferociously for their son, who was born in August 2016 with mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a rare genetic disease.
The baby has been treated at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, one of the world’s leading children’s hospitals. Doctors there say Charlie is in pain and further treatment would only increase his suffering. They have sought permission from the courts to switch off his life support and allow him to die peacefully.
His parents have resisted, arguing that an experimental treatment could extend and improve Charlie’s life.
The case gained international attention after Charlie’s parents received support from Pope Francis, President Donald Trump and some members of the Congress.
On Monday, the Vatican said Pope Francis was praying for Charlie and his parents, and urged the faithful to join him in prayer so that the baby’s parents “may find God’s consolation and love.”
Charlie’s parents thanked the hospital Monday for the care it had given their child.
Some commentators portrayed the case as a clash between family and the state, and U.S. conservatives used it to criticize Britain’s governmentfunded health care system — even though the case was never about money.
Judge Nicholas Francis criticized those “who know almost nothing about this case but who feel entitled to express opinions.”
At its heart, the case pitted the right of parents to decide what’s best for their children against the authorities’ responsibility to uphold the rights of people who can’t speak for themselves.
Under British law, children have rights independent of their parents, and it is usual for courts to intervene when parents and doctors disagree on the treatment of a child.
British courts and the European Court of Human Rights all ruled against Charlie’s parents and in favor of Great Ormond Street.
The case returned to court this month when the hospital asked the judge to reassess the possible benefits of a treatment pioneered by Dr. Michio Hirano, a neurology expert from Columbia Medical Center in New York.