Charlie Gard's new chance at life?

Adjust Comment Print

The parents of a Sussex boy who suffers from a similar condition to that of baby Charlie Gard have urged doctors to help Charlie after their own son recently regained some movement in his little body.

Who has the right to decide if a patient, young or old, gets further medical treatment, no matter how unlikely the success?

Previous court rulings have said that Charlie couldn't receive the treatment for his mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a rare genetic disease that left him with brain damage and unable to breathe unaided, and that he should be taken off of life support.

A British court on Monday began re-examining the case of a terminally ill baby whose life support is due to be withdrawn at a London hospital, after Pope Francis and U.S. President Donald Trump intervened in the case.

Lawyers representing Great Ormond Street bosses and a guardian appointed to independently represent Charlie's interests told Mr Justice Francis they were struggling to find any new evidence.

Charlie's parents, from Bedfont, west London, spoke out on Sunday, saying they wanted to respond to what they described as "myths" in their son's case and criticised "misinformation".

Thanks to pressure from President Trump, Pope Francis, and other leaders, a new hearing was set for Charlie Gard.

It ruled the children's hospital could turn off his life support.

I agree that if there is even a small chance on the basis of this evidence then the presumption and legal precedent on these cases is that the judgment ought to be given in favour of preserving and prolonging life - but we don't know precisely what the nature of that evidence is yet.

The treatment - which Charlie's parents said they believe has an "up to 10% chance of working" - is "potentially painful" and "very unlikely" to improve his condition, the hospital said. As I said, these are challenging questions.

An online campaign raising money for Charlie to be taken to the USA for treatment has raised more than £1.3 million (NZ$2.3 million) so far. "They have advocated for him fiercely". As it is being reviewed by the British Supreme Court, Chris and Coney raised money so they can travel to the United States for an experimental treatment.

Newly proposed legislation from two Republican members of Congress would grant lawful permanent status in the United States to Charlie Gard and his family, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) wrote in an op-ed published by Fox News on Tuesday.

Great Ormond Street is convinced that the therapy "would be of no effect but may well cause pain, suffering and distress to Charlie".

Comments