Theresa May and Boris Johnson both REFUSE to step in to help tragically-ill baby Charlie Gard get treatment abroad 

• Charlie Gard was offered treatment at the Pope's own hospital in Rome
• But Great Ormond Street have rejected the offer because 'hands are tied' legally 
• Experts tell MailOnline that doctors still have the chance to change decision
• Mrs May would not be drawn on whether she would intervene in tragic case 
• British legal rulings have condemned the baby with rare condition to death
• President Donald Trump said the US would be 'delighted' to help Charlie
• Charlie has rare mitochondrial condition, known to have affected only 16 people

Theresa May and Boris Johnson have both declined the opportunity to step in to help terminally ill Charlie Gard, as his parents continue to push for his treatment abroad.

The Prime Minister said Great Ormond Street would make the 'best decisions' for the baby, while Foreign Secretary Mr Johnson said it was right that doctors made the choices and had them backed by the courts.

Mrs May said decisions should be left to doctors, though she added that she was confident ' that Great Ormond Street Hospital have and always will consider any offers or new information that has come forward with consideration of the wellbeing of a desperately ill child'.

In a phone call with Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano, Mr Johnson made clear the Government would not intervene as he told his counterpart 'this was a deeply tragic and complex case for all involved, and it was right that decisions continued to be led by expert medical opinion, supported by the courts, in line with Charlie's best interests'.

The Prime Minister is under huge pressure to intervene in the ten-month-old's battle to survive but refused to say if she would help his parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard get him to America or Rome.

Great Ormond Street is holding firm in its wish to end his life and has already rejected an offer of treatment from the Pontiff's own hospital claiming their 'hands are tied'. 

But experts have told MailOnline today that Charlie's doctors do have the chance to change their decision and the ten-month-old could be released within 'a few hours' if they returned to court.

Mrs May today said the decision should be left to doctors and told MPs: 'It is an unimaginable position for anybody to be in and I fully understand and appreciate that any parent in these circumstances will want to do everything possible and explore every option for their seriously ill child.

'But I also know that no doctor ever wants to be placed in the terrible position where they have to make such heartbreaking decisions.' 

Q&A: Can Charlie be saved at the 11th hour? 

How can doctors end Charlie's life against his parents' wishes?

Great Ormond Street (GOSH) took Charlie's case to the High Court and a judge agreed to allow them to end Charlie's treatment because it was not in his 'best interests' after he agreed it will cause him pain and will not improve his condition. 

The Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights all rejected appeals by his parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates, who believe they should have the final say on their son's treatment.

In Britain the rights of the patient override the wishes of the parents if doctors disagree. For example there are several cases where Jehovah's Witnesses are given a blood transfusion by doctors despite religious objections from parents.

Can the doctors change their mind and not turn off his life support?

Yes. Great Ormond Street could go back to the High Court to stop the order they fought for this year. 

The process of gaining a Consent Order could be done on an urgent basis and completed in less than two hours. 

Experts have told MailOnline this is the only way Charlie could travel to America or Rome for treatment because his parents' appeals appear to have been exhausted.

Can the hospital stop his parents taking him to America without permission?

Yes. If doctors believe that any parent will cause suffering to their child, police can be called in to arrest them using Powers of Protection legislation.

In the case of young cancer sufferer Ashya King his parents faced a European Arrest Warrant after absconding with their son who was in hospital. 

Charlie is on a ventilator so would require a team of medical staff to move him and his equipment.

Why won't the hospital let Charlie die at home?

Connie Yates and Chris Gard say doctors have denied their 'final wish' to take Charlie home to die. Travelling to a hospice was also denied. While judges ruled that his treatment should end, there is nothing in the judgments that says the little boy cannot be outside the hospital. Great Ormond Street refused to tell MailOnline on what basis that decision was taken.

If parents still refuse to accept treatment should be withdrawn, can the hospital end it anyway?

Yes. Police could be called in to facilitate treatment being ended if parents were violently preventing it - although it is highly unlikely this would happen. Doctors are more likely to try to 'persuade' parents to let it happen.

If the parties remain at loggerheads for a long period the hospital could go back to court for an injunction and ask a judge to set a deadline for treatment to be withdrawn. 

A less stringent deadline for Charlie's life support machine to be shut off was at Midnight last Wednesday, but this has lapsed to allow his parents and loved-ones to say goodbye.

MailOnline understands GOSH has twice postponed ending his treatment - once last Friday and again on Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Referring to interventions by Donald Trump and Pope Francis Mrs May said: 'I am confident that Great Ormond Street Hospital have and always will consider any offers or new information that has come forward with consideration of the wellbeing of a desperately ill child'.

His parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates are at Charlie's bedside today and still believe they can win the battle with his doctors.

Great Ormond Street is under increasing pressure to change its mind about ending the ten-month-old's life and has already delayed his death twice, MailOnline understands. 

Miss Yates said: 'The support from the Pope and the President has given us hope. They are traditional men who believe in the family. They believe in our case and understand why we believe it is right to continue fighting so hard to save Charlie.'

Experts have told MailOnline that their only hope is that doctors change their minds.

Solicitor Trevor Tayleur, Associate Professor of the University of Law, said: 'If the doctors decided to change their minds about stopping treatment they would have to ask the High Court to set aside their order'.

He added: 'This could be done in just a few hours'.

Dr Kim McGuire, a Senior Lecturer at Lancashire Law School, said: 'The hospital could perhaps seek further medical opinion on the likelihood of success of alternative treatment, for Charlie, and of travel to obtain this - bearing in mind the best interests of the child'.

She added: 'The hospital will argue that it has huge expertise in mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome'.

Family lawyer Zoë Fleetwood, from Dawson Cornwell, said: 'If doctors agree that Charlie Gard can go to America or Rome a consent order would be needed'.

But others are more pessimistic. 

Sarah Jones, a human rights lawyer at Slater and Gordon, said: 'The legal question of what can be done has been taken away from the doctors, who referred the case to court for an independent decision on what is in his best interests.

'The doctors felt that continuing treatment – both conventional and experimental - was cruel. The court has made its decision by assessing all of the evidence, including the parents' wishes and independent medical evidence, and they agreed with the doctors. Every other court has agreed.

'It must be incredibly distressing for Charlie's family, but it would be unimaginable that the treating team would now change their minds'.  

Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano also called his counterpart Boris Johnson to urge him to intervene and let the ten-month-old travel to Rome - or America - to prolong his life. 

But the UK Foreign Secretary told his Italian counterpart that it is 'right that decisions continued to be led by expert medical opinion, supported by the courts' in line with Charlie Gard's 'best interests'. 

Pope Francis's spokesman has also vowed to 'overcome' British legal rulings, which have condemned the baby to death.  

Donald Trump has said Charlie will be treated for free in the US and the Pope's own hospital in Rome says it will do the same.

Theresa May is also being urged to make a 'moral intervention' and allow Charlie's parents to make final decisions about his care. 

But according to La Repubblica Great Ormond Street claims that its legal battles to have to right to end Charlie's life means they cannot change their minds. 

Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano said: 'Our ambassador has already spoken to the management of the Great Ormond Street Hospital and their answer was that their hands are tied by two judgments to be respected.

'(Today) I will have a telephone conversation with my counterpart Boris Johnson and I'll talk with him'. 

But Mr Johnson has told his Italian counterpart it is 'right that decisions continued to be led by expert medical opinion, supported by the courts'.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: 'Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Italian Foreign Minister Alfano held a long-scheduled telephone call today to discuss a range of foreign policy issues.

'They covered the UK proposal for EU citizens' rights post-Brexit, migration, Afghanistan, and the upcoming Western Balkans conference being chaired by Italy.

'Minister Alfano also raised the case of Charlie Gard and the Pope's recent offer of treatment in Italy.

'The Foreign Secretary said this was a deeply tragic and complex case for all involved, and said it was right that decisions continued to be led by expert medical opinion, supported by the courts, in line with Charlie's best interests.'

Mariella Enoc, President of the Bambino Gesu – which is owned by the Vatican and known as the 'Pope's hospital' – said: 'I was contacted by Charlie's mother - a very determined lady who asked me to investigate the possibility of care is - our doctors are investigating this possibility. 

'But the British hospital told us that for legal reasons they may not transfer the child to us'. 

Pope Francis has sent a message of hope to Chris Gard and Connie Yates and tweeted about the sanctity of life - a plea for Charlie's life not to be cut short.

The Vatican is keen to intervene and its Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin said yesterday: 'We will make every effort to overcome the legal obstacles that prevent the transfer of Charlie Gard'. 

Interference from the Vatican and Donald Trump in the case of Charlie Gard is 'extremely unhelpful and very cruel', Professor Robert Winston has said. 

The renowned scientist and genetics expert Lord Winston criticised attempts to transfer the 10-month-old from the central London hospital.

'I think, first of all, one has to accept the loss of a child is about the worst injury that any person can have and, secondly, I think the autonomy of parents is probably sacrosanct because a child can't give approval, can't give consent,' he told ITV's Good Morning Britain.

'But having said that, these interferences from the Vatican and from Donald Trump seem to me to be extremely unhelpful and very cruel, actually, because this child has been dealt with at a hospital which has huge expertise in mitochondrial disease and is being offered a break in a hospital that has never published anything on this disease, as far as I'm aware.' 

Lord Winston said the 'risk of prolonging life in very, very difficult circumstances is probably most cruel for the parents', who have previously fought to take Charlie to the US for experimental treatment. 

He agreed with presenter Piers Morgan that courts and doctors should not be interfering with the parents' wishes.

But he added: 'I think the end result is still an unhelpful interference because the probability here is this will be even more tragic and even more disturbing for this child to be travelling to Italy, or wherever it goes.' 

The torment of Charlie Gard has brought promises of help from around the world.

President Donald Trump that the US would be 'delighted' to help the desperately ill 11-month-old boy.  Pop stars also lobbied Theresa May to take a stand. 

As the fate of their child touched hearts across the globe, Charlie's parents Connie Yates, 31, and Chris Gard, 32, were thought to be discussing their options behind closed doors. 

CHARLIE'S CONDITION

What is Charlie's condition?

Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome stops the body's cells producing enough energy. There is no accepted cure. Charlie is the 16th known person in the world to have a strain called RRM2B. The other 15 have all died.

What is the US therapy?

It is a drug called nucleoside bypass therapy. It replaces deoxynucleosides, which are naturally produced in healthy people, to repair DNA.

Is that what saved US boy?

Yes. But six-year-old Art Estopinan has the TK2 strain, a variation of Charlie's condition, and is one of 83 recorded cases. While the therapy has kept him alive, he is still severely disabled.

Would it work for Charlie?

It has never been tried on anybody with RRM2B. The US doctor who has offered to treat Charlie said it would not repair brain damage, but might prolong his life.

Why do UK doctors object?

They don't think the therapy will work and they believe Charlie – who they say is brain damaged – is likely to be feeling pain.

Do his parents agree?

No. They say Charlie is not brain damaged and is growing stronger.

Who decides his 'best interests'?

Lawyers for Charlie's parents say it is no one's business but their own. But the guardian appointed by the High Court recommended death. The judges backed the doctors.

Why can't they take him to the US alone?

Charlie is in intensive care and cannot be moved without doctors' help. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Charlie suffers from a rare mitochondrial condition, which is only known to have affected 16 people in the world. His parents want to take him to the US for experimental treatment, and have raised £1.3million from the public.

However his life support was due to be withdrawn last Friday after the family lost several court battles against doctors who insist his genetic condition is both painful and incurable. He has irreversible brain damage and his lungs cannot function without a ventilator.

His parents' wish to take him abroad has been blocked by the High Court, Appeal Court, Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights, which backed doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital who say there is no hope and he should be allowed to die. 

But after the boy's parents were given the weekend to say their goodbyes, 'Charlie's Army' of supporters exerted pressure on the hospital to change its stance.

In the Vatican's third intervention, its Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin yesterday declared that the Holy See will do everything possible to help. 'Overcome these problems? If we can do it, we will do it,' he said.

The Pope has himself tweeted: 'To defend human life, above all when it is wounded by illness, is a duty of love that God entrusts to all.'

And yesterday Mariella Enoc, the president of the Bambino Gesu – which is owned by the Vatican and known as the 'Pope's hospital' – tweeted that the pontiff's words backing Charlie 'sum up our mission'.

She said she had asked the facility's health director to check with Great Ormond Street Hospital about 'an eventual transfer of Charlie to our hospital'. She added: 'We know that the case is desperate.' But she said Great Ormond Street was currently blocking the move, citing 'legal reasons'.

She said: 'I was contacted by the mother, who is very determined and doesn't want to be stopped by anything.'  

Chiara Paolini's son Emanuele is nine despite doctors telling her he would be dead by the age of one.

She told The Sun: 'I often speak to Charlie's aunt, his dad's sister. 

'What I would say to Charlie's parents is keep fighting. I have said this to his aunt as well, I know it must be difficult for them but they have the support of so many people across the world.

'He should not be allowed to die simply because the doctors and judges say so, he should be allowed to live and have a chance of life.' 

Doctors at Great Ormond Street have said everything is geared towards Charlie's 'best interests'.

Among those urging Great Ormond Street to drop their case and allow Charlie to fly to the US is pop star Cher, who tweeted the Prime Minister directly and said: 'If the US can save precious Charlie Gard then send him to us!'

Charlie's British doctors believe that any attempt to treat him is futile. They say he is in pain, and draw a distinction between the US approach – to allow experimental treatment if the parents wish it – and the UK approach to do what is in the patient's 'best interests'.

Mr Trump has tweeted: 'If we can help little #CharlieGard... we would be delighted to do so.' More than 111,000 people have 'liked' the President's tweet.

Critics have accused Mr Trump of offering 'false hope' to Charlie's family.

Dr Sarah Wollaston, Tory chairman of the Commons health committee, said the President was 'wrong' to offer assistance. She claimed it was a 'political decision' as Mr Trump tries to dismantle his predecessor's Obamacare.

CAN PRESIDENT TRUMP HELP CHARLIE GARD?

As Donald Trump weighed in on the fight to save British baby Charlie Gard on Monday, Theresa May is facing pressure to intervene.

Her spokesman said yesterday it would be 'inappropriate' to discuss the 'delicate case'. 

Without her support the US president would not have the authority to go over the European Court of Human Rights to try to keep the boy alive.

Charlie's parents have been told by Europe's highest court that his life support must be switched off soon, a decision they have been desperately fighting to avoid. 

Great Ormond Street doctors would have to change their minds about letting him travel to the US. 

On Monday, White House officials revealed that a doctor and hospital in the US has offered their services to the boy if his parents can get him here. 

While the president himself has not spoken to the family, members of the administration have and they have been aided by the UK government which has taken a hands-off public approach to the subject. 

DailyMail.com understands that if the boy is able to arrive in the US with his family, the treatment will be carried out free of charge. 

The answer to whether or not this is a reality lies in the UK. 

The first factor is that London's Great Ormond Street Hospital is allowed to withdraw his care (i.e. turn off the ventilator keeping him alive) when it sees fit. Following the European court's decision, the hospital's doctors said they were in no rush to do so and were giving the family more time together. 

If the US is to intervene, it will have to do so before those doctors turn off Charlie's ventilator. 

The second issue is that of the legal ramifications his family will face if they flout the European court's rulings. It is not abundantly clear where the jurisdiction lies with punishing Mr. and Mrs. Gard. 

Solicitors for the family were working with British officials and the White House on Tuesday to try to untangle find an answer to this question. 

The family's ordeal reignites the debate on who should have final say over a sick child's life.

It was an issue which sparked global debate in 2014 when another the parents of five-year-old British boy Ashya King removed him from Southampton General Hospital against doctors' advice to seek alternative therapy to treat his brain cancer in Prague. 

Brett and Naghemeh King wanted Ashya to undergo proton beam therapy which was not available in the UK.

The couple was arrested in Malaga, Spain, and were accused of neglect. They later had the charges dropped and were allowed to take their son the Czech Republic to receive the treatment. 

He is now cancer free and back at school. Three proton beam therapy centers, funded by Proton Partners International, are now under construction in the UK and will accept both private healthcare and NHS patients.  

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Fighting on, brave US boy like Charlie whose parents wouldn't give up 

An American boy with a similar genetic condition to Charlie Gard was giving hope to the British child's parents last night.

Six-year-old Arturito Estopinan is fighting his condition with the pioneering drugs therapy that is being denied to 11-month-old Charlie.

His father, Art Snr, said: 'We feel very fortunate to be American and not British – because if we lived in the UK, Arturito would surely be dead by now.

'We are beyond shocked that doctors in the UK are saying Charlie should 'die with dignity'. How insensitive, when there is a treatment which could save Charlie's life and eminent doctors in the US who are willing to help him.'

Art Jr has the TK2 strain of mitochondrial syndrome, which is similar to Charlie's. He was given two months to live in 2011 and could only move his eyes, but six years later he can move his hands, fingers, feet and arms and is a 'strong and happy boy'. Mr Estopinan, 51, a government consultant from Baltimore, said he and his wife Olga, 43, 'know first-hand the battles' that Charlie's parents – Connie Yates, 31, and Chris Gard, 32 – were fighting. They had also been told there was no treatment or cure for Art.

Although Art still needs artificial ventilation and round-the-clock care from a team of nurses, his father added: 'He is truly a blessing in our lives and words cannot express what a tremendous joy it is to have him.'

Mr Estopinan appeared on ITV's Good Morning Britain yesterday and was involved in a row with the show's GP Dr Hilary Jones, who said: 'Sometimes real parental love is letting go.' A furious Mr Estopinan replied: 'Charlie Gard is a human being who deserves the chance to live', adding: 'What right do you have to play God?'

The two families are in close contact and Miss Yates said: 'Art's extraordinary and inspirational story shows that there is hope for Charlie. The support his parents are giving us is helping us find the strength to carry on fighting for Charlie too.'

Both boys have mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a debilitating condition which saps energy from the muscles and organs. Arturito has a rare type called TK2, of which only 83 cases have been recorded worldwide. Charlie's type is even rarer and he is the 16th known sufferer. The other 15 have died.

Both boys need artificial ventilation because their lungs are too weak, and are fed through tubes, but Art is growing stronger with the treatment.

There is no accepted cure for mitochondrial disease, but doctors in the US are trialing a treatment called nucleoside therapy. In Art's case, it has given him a new lease of life, and his parents hope his growing strength will lead to him being able to survive unaided.

When Art was admitted to hospital and put on a life-saving artificial ventilator, his parents desperately scoured the internet and eventually stumbled across the nucleoside drug therapy.

Within days, Art became the first person in the US to have the therapy – and after a year he was well enough to return home.

 

Is it time to let Charlie go? Tragically, yes. Sometimes true love means saying goodbye, not holding on no matter what, says JAN MOIR  

Should he live to see his birthday, Charlie Gard will be one year old in one month's time. And if he does make it that far, what does the future hold for him and for his parents?

Let us be frank. The outlook for all concerned is bleak. Charlie was born with a rare, inherited mitochondrial disease. One that leaches energy from his organs and muscles and has left him with little brain function. Unable to breathe without a ventilator, his tiny lungs will never work properly and his prognosis is not good.

Throughout most of his short life, Charlie's future has been the subject of a legal battle that has gone all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. 

Last week, it rejected an appeal by his parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates that their critically-ill baby should be allowed to undergo experimental treatment in the U.S. Now there is little anyone can do, except let nature take its terrible course.

Yet, however distressing and deeply sad this might be, I can't be alone in thinking that it is the right thing to do.

When doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) first suggested back in the spring that further medical intervention would not be in Charlie's best interests and he should be moved to palliative care instead, his father and mother disagreed. Passionately. Many parents would have done exactly the same, and who could blame them?

They fought back, they refused consent to withdraw his life-support machine, they accused doctors of lying about his condition and not caring about their son. They were raw, desperate, wounded and grieving. They vowed to fight until the 'bitter end' to keep him alive, and the ensuing legal battle has made Charlie Gard a cause celebre.

More than £1.8 million has been raised for his putative treatment in an online GoFundMe! campaign, including many generous contributions from Daily Mail readers. Protesters have marched in London, President Trump has made a vague offer of help, a children's hospital in Rome has offered to keep him alive, even Pope Francis has intervened, stating that the defence of vulnerable human life was the duty of everyone.

Indeed it is. And in this terrible situation, everyone involved deserves sympathy and understanding. However, with the best will in the world, isn't it time to let go of this tortured little soul and let him rest in peace?

Charlie was born in August last year, a summer baby, the very much wanted first-born of Chris and Connie from Bedfont, Middlesex. As the gravity of his medical condition became clear, they underwent the heartache of adjusting to a future that wasn't what they had planned and the limitations of a son who could never fulfil their dreams.

What a terrible blow, what a thunderbolt of dark sorrow for any young couple to face.

When the day came for doctors to tell them there was nothing more they could do, Chris and Connie refused to consent to switching off their son's life support. They found a U.S. doctor willing to treat Charlie, although there were no promises of a cure.

A three-month legal battle began, as doctors and parents argued in court over what was right for the baby. Judge after judge agreed that further medical intervention was not in Charlie's best interests, but the parents could not accept their verdicts.

Perhaps it hasn't helped that the father of a six-year-old boy treated by the same U.S. doctor offering to help Charlie has just come forward to insist: 'If my son was in the UK, he'd be dead.'

Art Estopinan from Baltimore claims that his son Art Jr has a similar condition to Charlie's and was given just two months to live in 2011. Back then, he could only move his eyes but has since improved. What right, says Mr Estopinan, do the judges and doctors have to play God?

However, it is important to remember that while Art Jr's illness may be similar to Charlie's, it is not the same — and it is those disparities which are always the key clinical issues.

From day one, it has seemed obvious that everyone at GOSH has done their absolute best for Charlie, right down to the thoughtful nurses arranging a rooftop picnic for the Gards hours before they were to learn whether the European Court would hear their appeal. A touching gesture to give this blighted family a chance to make some happy memories together.

All rallied round Chris and Connie, even when, capsized by grief, their actions sometimes seemed not to benefit their child.

That is not a criticism, for this situation is no one's fault. Yet now that we have reached that impasse where the latest developments in medicine meet the implacability of incurable disease, perhaps it is time to say the unsayable. There is no hope for this child. There is no evidence of hope for this child.

Charlie's brain, muscle and ability to breathe are all severely affected, as are his heart, liver and kidneys. He has congenital deafness and an epilepsy disorder. His eyelids cannot stay open, he will never develop the ability to see. He cannot move his arms or legs or breathe unaided. He is a catastrophically ill baby, and now his parents must prepare themselves for what lies ahead.

In a way, the legal machinations have not helped in an emotional sense, because they have given Chris and Connie the illusion of a battle they can fight, perhaps even win. It has pitted them against the hospital and provided them with an enemy in clear sight — an enemy that is easier to oppose than the unwinnable situation that is the reality of their position.

Their anger, frustration and desperation are focused on the system, yet they cannot escape the fact that Charlie is being artificially kept alive — at a basic cost of £1,200 a day, even though the money is irrelevant.

If by some miraculous fluke his physical condition could be improved upon, his dismal quality of life would not alter.

For Charlie to live would mean for him to be kept on a life-support machine for ever.

Those who campaign for him to be kept alive no matter what, those who march on Downing Street with their Give Charlie A Chance posters, those who turn this tragedy into a political football should perhaps reconsider.

Their activism is noble, but are they going to be there in 30 years' time, when adult Charlie, still attached to his machine, needs to be turned every 20 minutes to prevent bedsores? Will they be on hand to help drain the secretions from his lungs and wipe away the tears from his sightless eyes?

If an elderly person had a catastrophic stroke or was in the last gasp of a degenerative disease, many would not wish to condemn them to a medical demi-life; hooked up, plugged in, barely sentient. Yet all the fashionable arguments for quality of life get turned upside-down when applied to a child.

The entire narrative transmutes into a cry for clemency and a life at all costs, no matter how awful that life might be.

Surely now everyone must think about poor Charlie Gard in a sensible, detached but wholly compassionate way. Exactly what his parents don't need at this moment are yet more hysterics and emotion.

At the centre of this furore is a baby in a crib, one who is so locked inside his own world that no one can know the depth of his suffering — only that he suffers and it is never ending.

The impulse for Chris and Connie to do something — anything — for their child is only human. However, now that there is limited time left, I hope they put their issues to one side and focus on their baby and the time they have left together. They did everything they could, but sometimes true love means letting go, not holding on no matter what. 

 

Is it time to let Charlie go? Absolutely not. What is there to lose from trusting his mum and dad's instinct, says ANNE ATKINS 

A parent's love is a powerful thing. It nurtures, guides, protects, forgives. It is unconditional. And it can sometimes save your life.

Take a young boy by the name of Ashya King.

His parents sparked an international manhunt three years ago when they took their son, then five, from Southampton General Hospital without his doctors' consent in a final bid to give him the pioneering treatment they hoped would cure his cancer.

Where, I wonder, would he be today were it not for their courage, determination and unwavering love?

For they defied the authorities and smuggled their son out of the country to Prague, prompting an international hue and cry.

They were reviled as irrespon-sible and insane. But, as events proved, they were neither.

While in Prague, Ashya successfully underwent proton beam therapy. Three years on and now eight years old, he is well and happy and back at school.

Although Ashya is yet to be declared free of cancer (his next scan is during the summer holidays), he is a boy with a second chance at life. A chance that his desperate parents were prepared to break the law to give him.

But then, if the tragic story of Charlie Gard has shown us nothing else, it is that there is nothing deeper than the bond between parent and child. And when that child is not only utterly defenceless and terribly sick but also at the centre of a global furore over whether he should be given one last chance at life, those bonds become stronger still.

Their anguished faces may be the embodiment of a living hell, but Chris Gard and Connie Yates are not yet broken people. For while their little Charlie lives, so does the flicker of hope.

Last week the Gard family lost their final appeal at the European Court of Human Rights. Judges failed to come to their aid and give them a chance to take Charlie to the U.S. for the experimental treatment which Great Ormond Street Hospital says won't help him.

The European Court ruled to uphold Great Ormond Street's recommendations that Charlie's life support should be switched off, pronouncing his case 'inadmissible' — a dreadful and outrageous pronouncement on anyone's life.

Yet the groundswell of public opinion for the Gard family grows.

The Vatican said the Pope 'is following with affection and sadness the case of little Charlie Gard and expresses his closeness to his parents. For this he prays that their wish to accompany and treat their child until the end is not neglected.' And, as unlikely an alliance as it sounds, U.S. President Donald Trump has joined forces with Pope Francis to voice his support.

But it's not all prayers, vigils and empty promises. Yesterday, the Pope's Hospital in Rome offered to take Charlie into its care.

And in another startling development, the American parent of a son with a similar rare genetic disorder to Charlie told how his son's health improved dramatically after undergoing the pioneering treatment that Charlie's parents want him to have.

Art Estopinan says his son's disabilities were so severe that had he been born in the UK, he would not be alive today.

Six years ago the American boy, who could only move his eyes, was given two months to live. Yet now his father says he can move his hands, fingers, feet and arms and is a 'strong and happy boy'.

Washington sources said yesterday that the American hospital and doctor who treated Art have agreed to waive their fees for Charlie.

So why, in the face of not only international goodwill but real and tangible alternatives, is Charlie still being denied this final shot at life?

Doctors and nurses are wonderful. Modern medicine is almost miraculous in what it can achieve. But it cannot achieve, or know, or do everything. Doctors see the big picture: the case histories, the statistics, the generalised likelihoods. But it's the parents who know their child better than anyone.

And it's the parents who, in the case of any severely disabled child, make enormous sacrifices to ensure that their offspring's needs are met.

And if a child dies for lack of treatment, it is parents, not doctors, who will cry through the night; tears which will go on falling, one way or another, for the rest of their lives.

It has been said that Charlie shouldn't be put through any more suffering.

Who knows that better than his parents?

Who feels every pain he suffers more acutely than his own mother and father?

Doctors can advise and inform. They can give us their expert opinion to help us make sometimes terrible choices on behalf of our children.

But neither their training nor their knowledge gives them the right to make the final pronouncement on a child's life.

Have we learnt nothing from Ashya King? Has no humility been learned on the part of doctors; that they might occasionally be wrong?

No recognition from other professionals, too, that just sometimes, dogged and devoted parental persistence might be right?

What is there to lose for little Charlie Gard by entrusting his life to his parents — even if his chances are minuscule?

Medicine has — so far — failed him. Why not give love a chance?