ExConstance I think your post a few pages back is a pretty good example of the kind of attitude that has made this issue so very contentious. You asserted that the hospital had failed to engage the parents in the way that they should have back in the beginning and that you hoped they'd learn lessons from it. You even went so far as to call people "patronising".
You have precisely no evidence whatsoever for this - and it's people making assertions without evidence that lies at the heart of all this. In sworn statements given to the court GOSH are very clear that they have bent over backwards at all times to work with and support the parents. It was only when no consensus could be reached over what was right for Charlie that they sought legal remedy - for Charlie's sake, not theirs. By all accounts they were met with nothing but anger and brick walls.
Now, we cannot know what prompted Chris & Connie into their responses and actions - I suspect a combination of extreme distress, grief and desperation to believe the pronouncements of experts who should have known better. If that is the case then it can hardly be described as a failure on the part of GOSH and it's wrong of you to just assume that it must have been.
As far as today's proceedings are concerned, I have a feeling that it's going to come down to a very unpleasant choice for Connie and Chris: if they want time with Charlie it will simply have to be at GOSH. If they don't want him to die there then they'll have to sacrifice that time. Devastating for them.
BoreofBabylon I went to read that Piston Heads post. I didn't understand a word of it but you clearly have no cause to dismiss it as "mansplaining". He wasn't patronisingly dumbing down an explanation for females on the assumption that they are too dim to understand long words. He was simply explaining something complicated on a thread (largely for other men). And he didn't say he was a clinician either. I got the impression that he worked in genetic research - which, of course, provides data for clinicians. I have no idea whether his explanation is correct, or indeed whether he's an accredited scientist or a fantasist with a GCSE in Human Biology - but that he is a man who explained something for lay people does not make him guilty of "mansplaining".