@MissEliza
I think they believe Charlie is entitled to have this treatment, this chance as they see it.
They seem unwilling to accept how very poorly he is and do not accept he is suffering.
From everything I've read there is no new compelling evidence. They were hoping that the letter from the "scientist 7" that suggested the treatment "may" be able to pass the blood brain barrier was enough.
The judge made clear on Monday that "new" evidence from a legal point of view was that the treatment could not only pass the BBB but also reverse structural brain damage.
This evidence doesn't exist, again to the best of my knowledge.
As such they've really come to the end of the line with legal options and I suspect they have been advised of this.
What's odd, is that in the original court ruling in April "Mr Justice Francis said that Charlie’s parents “acknowledged and accepted that the quality of life that Charlie has at present in not worth sustaining”.
However, we now find at this point in time, statements from the parents that contradict this - they assert (depending on the interview you select) that he "is not brain damaged" or "he has some brain damage but it is not severe and could be reversed".
I'm not sure what caused this change of opinion.