Parents of critically-ill British baby Charlie Gard return to London High Court

Who can blame the parents, it's their child, and like any decent, loving, parent anywhere, they are going to fight to the end for the life of their child.

If he has even a tiny chance, then let them go! My thoughts are with them and hope they win this fight!

"Like them we have been shocked by some of the public response to this case and agree with them that it is disgraceful that doctors have received death threats."

Not shocked by it at all. Online death threats seem to be de rigueur, these days. Unfortunately.

I wish the parents well in their endeavours.

I feel for the parents but their case has been hijacked by groups and individuals more interested in pursuing their own aims, including religious zealots from the US and anti-abortion groups. It's these hangers on who are responsible for death threats and harassment of staff and families and even going onto hospital premises causing distress to children and their families.

I know when you are desperate you clutch at straws, but the child is suffering with no hope of getting better. Let him go in peace.

including religious zealots from the US and anti-abortion groups.

Again, sadly, not surprising. Look how the opposition to same sex marriage in Ireland was funded by hardcore Christian organisations. Anyway; it didn't work - the referendum passed and the rest is history.

The parents of this child, I imagine, are that desperate that they would take any help. It's hard to know, to even fathom their heartache. Which makes for some odd and dubious supporters. A tangled, tragic mess.

I know when you are desperate you clutch at straws, but the child is suffering with no hope of getting better. Let him go in peace.

Easy to say when one is not a parent or it's someone's else's child.

This whole saga has been a complete waste of scarce hospital resources. While I feel the utmost sympathy for the parents, his condition is not curable, even if he were to have the very experimental treatment and the most optomistic predictions were achieved (very unlikely) the improvement will still only be marginal. It's time to let go and allow the poor little scrap to die with a modicum of dignity.

The specialist from Columbia University is quoted as saying that he estimates a 10% chance for a good outcome with his suggested treatment. Given the alternative, most (if not all) parents would jump at the chance.

Hard to believe the nanny state can take priority over the parents' decision on what to do with their sick child.

Britain is a police state.

The specialist from Columbia University is quoted as saying that he estimates a 10% chance for a good outcome with his suggested treatment. Given the alternative, most (if not all) parents would jump at the chance.

But it seems that folks here would rather see the child die than be given that chance.

This whole saga has been a complete waste of scarce hospital resources.

So you play God and determine who gets treatment, special, experimental, or otherwise. I hope YOU are never faced with the choice for yourself or a loved one.

While I feel the utmost sympathy for the parents, his condition is not curable,

No you don't, you care about the waste of hospital resources.

The return to our only to begin cursing and screaming, followed by storming out...only to return again days later, repeat the cycle again, followed by storming out...only to return again days later, repeat the cycle again, followed by storming out...

Hard to believe the nanny state can take priority over the parents' decision on what to do with their sick child.

Perhaps you should find out about the case rather than post a knee jerk reaction.

The hospital referred the case to the High Court, as they are legally obliged to do, when they and the parents could not agree on the Charlie's treatment. Not only do the hospital and the parents have representation in court, so does Charlie who is automatically appointed representation by the Solicitor General. The case isn't about the NHS or the child's parents - it's about Charlie and what is best for him. If that is a 'nanny state' then I'm all for it.

Both the hospital's medical evidence, as well as that as by the independent medical team appointed by Charlie's solicitors, say that his condition is untreatable, he's in distress and he needs palliative care to enable him to die pain free and with dignity. The expert brought in by Charlie's parents can only say he may give Charlie a 10% chance of any kind of improvement - not a cure or treatment - and essentially wants to use the child as a guinea pig. Again, if the medical experts and the UK and European courts don't agree with using the child in this way then I'm all for the 'nanny state'.

It's about Charlie NOT his parents and NOT the NHS.

It's just been reported by UK media that Charlie's parents have withdrawn from the legal action.

The case isn't about the NHS or the child's parents - it's about Charlie and what is best for him. If that is a 'nanny state' then I'm all for it.

By all accounts the parents are well educated about Charlie's condition. They - in consultation with their doctor - are the ones most capable of deciding what is best for their own child - not a government bureaucrat who is also contending with issues other than Charlie when making the decision to end his life. Does anyone truly believe that anyone other than the parents care more about Charlie's suffering than they do? Some of the people involved in making the decision have not even seen the child in person. That is the 'nanny state' and anyone with Charlie and their parents interests at heart would fore square against it.

Both the hospital's medical evidence, as well as that as by the independent medical team appointed by Charlie's solicitors, say that his condition is untreatable, he's in distress and he needs palliative care to enable him to die pain free and with dignity. 

The family got another opinion that says otherwise. I thought Progressives believed in science? I guess not if it threatens the bureaucracy's control. The family procured outside funding to pay for his care yet the NHS wants to end the boys life anyway. Why not give the boy a chance? It doesn't affect anyone else to do so. Just because he may not live long and would not be fully functioning doesn't mean his life is worthless. There are many disabled people who live lives much different from our own but they should not be allowed to die because of that fact.

This way of thinking goes back to the Progressive era's eugenics theories that inspired forced sterilizations, institutionalization, and the current day push to abort disabled children - as if their lives are worth less than that of non-disabled people.

It's about Charlie NOT his parents and NOT the NHS.

Sounds more like a death panel to me. Wouldn't want them making medical decisions for me or my family members. In the 'nanny state' your life is subject to the whims of the government. No thanks.

It's just been reported by UK media that Charlie's parents have withdrawn from the legal action.

The family says they missed they window of opportunity to help their son. They bureaucrats stalled them just long enough to get want they wanted after all.

No you don't, you care about the waste of hospital resources.

No, I care about those sick children for whom there will not be the resources to treat them because it has been spent on an unnecessarily dragged out court case.

englisc aspyrgend: No, I care about those sick children for whom there will not be the resources to treat them because it has been spent on an unnecessarily dragged out court case.

So what Mr. Noidall says is pretty much correct. There is basically a limit that can be spent on each patient and if it gets too expensive, they get cut off. Very humane indeed...

You cant expect people close to this case like parents & family to be able to act/think rationally so I have ZERO beef with them.

The rest who are pushing for this tiny chance of a perhaps SLIGHT improvement, .....sorry that is seriously messed up.

This poor child has already been put through far far too much, sometimes dying with dignity is better than clinging to life, but living in hell.

This has become a religious political fiasco all the while the child continues to suffer, whats next do we let Jehovah witness kids die needlessly, really, this is a horrible situation, but relatively easy to figure out, that many cant is rather sad.

I know when you are desperate you clutch at straws, but the child is suffering with no hope of getting better. Let him go in peace.

The name is appropriate. Medicine has advanced since the dawn of time. And the well respected and fully qualified neurologist says there is a chance, although only 10%, that treatment WILL make him better. Not perfect, but better. And the parents wish to spend money collected by donations to give their child a chance. Why not allow it?

This whole saga has been a complete waste of scarce hospital resources.

And the only reason those resources have been wasted is because the hospital and courts won't just let them take him to the US for treatment. If they had let the parents take him, then the hospital would have had NO more resources wasted. But the hospital chose to spend those resources.

it's about Charlie and what is best for him.

So it is better for Charlie to die with no hope at all, rather than give him a 10% chance? Really?

say that his condition is untreatable

And some things that were untreatable even a decade ago are now commonly treated. New treatments are being developed every day and if the doctor's who develop those treatments aren't allowed to use them because they are new then medical science will stagnate.

No, I care about those sick children for whom there will not be the resources to treat them because it has been spent on an unnecessarily dragged out court case.

And the HOSPITAL dragged it out.

*Wolfpack** So what Mr. Noidall says is pretty much correct. There is basically a limit that can be spent on each patient and if it gets too expensive, they get cut off. Very humane indeed...*

Well that's a daft thing to say. The NHS is not an insurance based medical service and does not cut patients off for financial reasons. The court case is about putting the child's wellbeing above any other considerations.

Nobody's done anything to be criticised for. The parents were desperate to save their child and the GOSH doctors wanted to spare the baby's suffering. One things for sure, no-one has got what they wanted.

The NHS is not an insurance based medical service and does not cut patients off for financial reasons.

I agree they aren't an insurance based service. But I disagree about cutting patients off for financial reasons. The NHS has a limited budget, limited equipment and limited personnel. They are constantly making life or death decision with those limits in mind. If it is the belief of their experts that their resources would be better used for other patients then they will cut someone off. Oh sure, they don't just send them away but your care will be at the bottom of the priority list. And with the limited equipment and personnel that is akin to a death sentence. Does it happen often, no. But it does happen.

SwissToni: Well that's a daft thing to say. The NHS is not an insurance based medical service and does not cut patients off for financial reasons. 

NHS specifically stated that they wanted to unplug the child. So yes, they do wanted to cut him off - literally cut him off from the health services that sustained his life. Their delay in dragging his case out ensured that he had no chance to get alternative treatment within the window needed to be effective. I do not understand the rationale of fighting against the parents when the NHS would not have been impacted in any way by the parents taking little Charlie to the US for treatment. It made no sense to fight against that. It's as if they were trying to prove a point by ensuring his death.

I sure hope the US never gets a single payer government run system like this that rations care to those it deems deserving. Let the patients and doctors decide - not a government paper pusher.

Wolfpack, the GOSH doctors decision to withdraw life support was a medical one, they didn't want the baby to suffer any more. There were no paperpushers in that decision and it wasn't made for financial reasons.

Leveraging the suffering of this baby to make a point against social healthcare is morally repugnant. The UK NHS is far more efficient, cheaper and has better outcomes for more people than the US insurance based system. It provides care on the basis of need not the ability to pay. And it does not run out.

Why not give the boy a chance? It doesn't affect anyone else to do so.

Because this experimental 'treatment' does not 'give Charlie a chance' - it simply prolongs his suffering. A 10% chance of 'improvement' (not a cure, mind) is a 90% chance of no improvement, i.e. continued suffering. According to the GOSH team, the treatment would leave Charlie in a 'condition of existence'. Not life. Existence.

Leveraging the suffering of this baby to make a point against social healthcare is morally repugnant.

Absolutely. Reading the view of posters who can only see things in terms of their own profit-based health services is quite an eye-opener. No wonder Obama and the Clintons has such a battle trying to help Americans. I assume the posters are sincere in their beliefs, but if this is really what they believe, then America has no chance of ever having a half-decent heath service.

Some of the people involved in making the decision have not even seen the child in person

Neither had the 'well respected and fully qualified neurologist' who wanted to experiment on him, until last week. And it would have been an experiment, not a 'new treatment'. Little Charlie would have been a guinea pig, nothing more.

I'm sorry he's going to die, and I feel for his poor parents; but he shouldn't have to go on suffering.