I think it's reasonably clear how the court hearing will go. The judge has been clear he wants to see compelling new evidence that nucleoside therapy can not just cross the blood brain barrier but treat Charlie's structural brain damage (the extent of which the court has already accepted, even if his parents have not).
I agree. It also seems to me that in very recent days the Gards' [I know his mother is called Yates but calling them this is a useful and respectful shorthand] attitudes have hardened considerably. The Court of Appeal judgment (quoting Mr. Justice Francis) described them as:
"All, including the parents, agreed that if Charlie were to remain at the hospital under the present treatment regime, the benefits to him being kept alive for the remaining few months of his life were outweighed by the detriments and that the hospital should be permitted to withdraw treatment and, in the judge’s words, let him slip away peacefully, receiving only palliative care"
And Francis J. said in his summary that: ""Charlie's parents have, sadly but bravely, acknowledged and accepted that the quality of life that Charlie has at present is not worth sustaining, for he can only breathe through a ventilator and, although they believe that he has a sleep/wake cycle, and can recognise them and react to them when they are close, they realise that he cannot go on as he is, lying in bed, unable to move, fed through a tube, breathing through a machine"
and also asked "But if Charlie's damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?"
Re-reading that and then seeing that the Gards now say their baby is watching videos with them is very sad.
The American coverage and involvement has not been in the least helpful, because a lot of it just gets the circumstances very wrong and much of it is more about a domestic agenda re "socialised healthcare" and the desire for parents to have the only say in what happens to their offspring.
It is ridiculous talking about 'the government' doing anything to Charlie, as some do. The government is not involved and not requiring anything to be done or not done, obviously.
US citizenship would change nothing. Nor can I see the Sstate Department or the US Embassy here entertaining calls for intervention. The same kind of demand was made on behalf of Amanda Knox in the Meredith Kercher case and was ignored then too.
I find it worrying that people do not understand that :
- We are a country of laws, and subject to law. That's why, when doctors and parents cannot agree, a judge is asked to decide. Everything has to be done according to law.
- Parents can't just dictate what happens to their children because children are people in their own right, with rights, bodily autonomy and the protection of law. Parents are usually the last word on what is in their children's best interests, but sometimes it just isn't as simple as going with the parents' wishes. Which takes us back to point 1).