Parents of terminally ill British baby Charlie Gard agree to let him die

Go peacefully little guy!

The worst thing in all of this is two parents going through the stages of grief were cynically used by politicians from Rome to DC. 

I can't imagine the turmoil they faced, and to have the whole world chime in is terrible. I couldn't imagine making any decision in those conditions. Even if they sought the attention, their child is dying, of course they are going to go to the trenches.  

The best thing we can all do is stop running in and telling them what to do, offering false hope, or making it a policy debate. I always loathe how we intervene in euthanasia cases.

A very sad case. Although I have sympathy for the parents, the opinions of the doctors can't be ignored. I have to accept they know better than the rest of us.

Sad. On the bright side, CRISPR gene editing technology, which has been completely authorized in the UK, is supposed to be able to permanently cure these types of rare genetic diseases. Hopefully this is the last case we hear of this

The final judgment of Mr Justice Francis can be read here. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/gosh-v-gard-24072017.pdf

Put a lot of light on the case. Makes a change from all the heat from social media.

How terrible that these parents and their grief were used like this. The experimental treatment wasn't going to give him a normal life, and though their desire to hope that it would is understandable, they were misled by professionals who should know better. A very sad story.

It appears that Hirano, the doctor who claimed he could treat Charlie when every other expert said it wasn't possible, has a financial interest in the drugs he wanted to prescribe. He also said he could treat Charlie before examining him, looking at scans or reading the medical notes.

Charlie's mother says the government and courts have delayed their child's opportunity for alternative treatments since last November - effectively ensuring his death. Although his situation was dire the government wasn't willing to let his parents seek non-approved treatment even when the government was not on the hook to pay the bill. Why? Do they have a greater interest in the child's suffering than the well informed parents? Of course not. The NHS is so detached from Charlie's fight for survival that they have lost all compassion for his one chance at life.

Sure his chances were slim, but aren't we always in awe of people who battle all the way against very severe diseases such as cancer. If there is chance to survive we admire their courage and bravery by squeezing every minute out of life they possibly can. But for some reason it has been so easy for people to deny this child his one and only chance to live - even if for just a short time longer. That makes no sense to me.

Those wanting to pull the plug on Charlie seem to believe that they must defend the NHS decision to remove his life support. It's as if exceptions to government guidelines are somehow a threat to a sacred government program. The failure to bring compassion and humanity to this case only shows how cold and uncaring a system based on government guidelines and faceless authorities can be.

Yet another commentator misunderstanding how the NHS and the justice system works in the UK. But don't let facts get in the way for your agenda.

the government wasn't willing to let his parents seek non-approved treatment even when the government was not on the hook to pay the bill. Why?

Maybe because it wasn't a question of paying the bill, but of doing the best for the child?

Compare that with the US doctor who wanted to experiment on Charlie, who it turns out has a financial interest in the drug he wanted to use on the little boy.

Do they have a greater interest in the child's suffering than the well informed parents?

A greater interest? No. Better information than the (understandably) ready-to-clutch-at-any-straw parents? I would imagine so.

The NHS is so detached from Charlie's fight for survival that they have lost all compassion for his one chance at life.

Little Charlie had at most, under the very best scenario, a very slim chance of what the US doctor called 'clinically significant improvement', and a much, much greater prospect of continued suffering.

how cold and uncaring a system based on government guidelines and faceless authorities can be.

You have no idea what you are talking about Care under the NHS is not 'based on government guidelines and faceless authorities'. It is implemented by some of the best, most compassionate medical staff in the world - who do not see everything in terms of $$.