the treatment is experimental with “no real prospect of improving Charlie’s condition or quality of life.”

This is what our fear of death leads to - people who should be set free to die painlessly are kept alive regardless of facts.

All they are doing is prolonging his suffering, he has absolutely zero chance of living a long and pain-free life. It is understandable that the parents are finding it hard to accept the inevitable, and I sympathise with them, but to reproach the justice system for putting the child and his dignity first is being…

But the problem is... he won’t live? I mean, yes he’ll be alive in as much as his heart beats and his brain does the minimum functions required to instruction organs to function but... that’s it? The treatment won’t reverse anything. It’ll just prolong the inevitable and as others have commented, its seems the child…

If they move him, they are crossing the line from care to experimentation on a minor. Since there is no hope this treatment will cure him or provide increased quality of life, this is experimentation for the sake of the parents’ inability to handle grief. This is not in the best interest of the minor patient.

This isn’t something like cancer that might be cured. Even the US doctor who wants to treat him agrees that Charlie is terminal. All this will do is extend his life a little bit longer and make him a little more responsive to external stimulation. This won’t save the child, it will just give the parents a couple more…

Because this child is suffering and the treatment has absolutely no chance of “curing” the child, and only a slight chance of extending their life. The court has a duty to look out for the best interests of the child, rather than the interests of the parents.

The child cannot advocate for himself, so the court is acting as his advocate. He can’t be saved; he can only live in pain for a little while longer while being essentially an experiment. It’s an awful position to be in all around, whether you’re the parents, the court, or the poor little boy that should probably be…

Medical professionals seem to feel they’re getting awfully close to the line between “heroic measures” and “unethical science experiment”. The court absolutely has a right to step in.

But it’s not what you want, it’s what’s best for the kid. Prolonging a child’s suffering because you can’t let go is never right

The poor baby has serious, serious brain damage... He can’t breathe on his own, he can’t eat, I remember reading in another news article that he can’t move or control his muscles. He’s dead. There’s nothing his parents can do to help him and keeping him “alive” is just cruel.

The hospital is charged with acting in the best interest of the patient, not in simply doing what the parents tell them to do. They’re probably counter-claiming that the parents aren’t making decisions in the child’s best interest to keep them from prolonging his suffering.

My guess is that the medical staff doesn’t want to participate in furthering his suffering.

The courts have shown enormous empathy for the parents - the entire process has been intentionally incredibly gentle to them, given they’re already going through hell. This case has been covered for a long, long time in the UK: this article is a... slightly slanted view of events. You can read the chain of rulings -…

I imagine because the hospital’s lawyers are arguing that they’re not acting in the best interest of the patient, so they are counter-claiming that the parents aren’t objective enough to make a decision against medical advice.

His brain is damaged. You don’t come back from that. This experimental treatment will only prolong is life and allow for more brain damage. Doesn’t the child’s suffering matter to you at all?

And if all an experimental procedure is going to do is keep your child alive, on a ventilator, just a little bit longer than without (as this would,) are your emotional needs more important than not prolonging the suffering of your child?

Oof. They have my deepest sympathies.

This isn’t about the child. That child is likely in excruciating pain, is suffering continued brain damage (which will be permanent), and would be better off out of misery. But they can’t handle it. It’s unfair to them! Their feelings!

I have a chronic illness that is nowhere near as debilitating as this poor child. No. Let him go. You do not have the right to make another human being live in excruciating pain because you can’t let go. I understand their position, I really do - I have a child and would be absolutely devastated if we had to heal…