Charlie Gard: Appeal judges rule life support should be withdrawn from sick baby

Ruling: Charlie Gard's parents wanted to take him to the US for pioneering treatment
PA
Chloe Chaplain25 May 2017

Appeal judges have ruled that doctors can withdraw life-support treatment from sick baby Charlie Gard.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates want their nine-month-old son Charlie, who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage, to undergo a therapy trial in the United States.

But specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, where Charlie is being cared for, said the therapy is experimental and will not help. They argued that life-support treatment should stop.

In the High Court last month, Mr Justice Francis concluded that life-support treatment should end and said Charlie should be allowed die with dignity

Treatment: Charlie Gard and his parents
PA

Charlie's parents, who are in their 30s and come from Bedfont, west London, had asked three Court of Appeal judges to overturn Mr Justice Francis's decision.

But Lord Justice McFarlane, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Sales, who analysed evidence at a Court of Appeal hearing in London on Tuesday, have upheld the ruling.

Mr Justice Francis had concluded that a move to a palliative care regime would be in Charlie's best interests.

Charlie Gard's parents on This Morning

He said he had made the decision with the "heaviest of hearts" but with "complete conviction" for Charlie's best interests.

Richard Gordon QC, who led Charlie's parents' legal team, told appeal judges that the case raised "very serious legal issues".

"They wish to exhaust all possible options," Mr Gordon said in a written outline of Charlie's parents' case.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates, the parents of nine-month-old Charlie Gard
PA

"They don't want to look back and think 'what if?'. This court should not stand in the way of their only remaining hope."

Mr Gordon suggested that Charlie might be being unlawfully detained and denied his right to liberty.

He said judges should not interfere with parents' exercise of parental rights and added: "What is really at stake in this case is the State, on a massive scale, intruding in your right to private and family life."

Lawyers, who represented Charlie's parents for free, said Mr Justice Francis had not given enough weight to Charlie's human right to life.

They said there was no risk that the proposed therapy in the US would cause Charlie "significant harm".

Mr Gard shook his head as appeal judges announced their decision. Charlie's parents then left court to hold discussions with lawyers.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in