Vatican Hospital Holds Press Conference About Charlie Gard

Wednesday, 26 Jul, 2017

The parents of "Little Charlie", who has a rare degenerative disease, have fought court battles for seven months hoping to defeat London's Great Ormond Street Hospital's refusal to let them take their baby to the USA for other treatment.

In a surprise move, the family's lawyers and mother Connie Yates returned to the High Court after abandoning legal action Monday over treatment for the 11-month old, who is now on life support.

Ms Gollop said the hospital had found an "excellent hospice" which would give Charlie and his parents the space, privacy and protection they needed.

Mum Connie Yates appeared before the High Court today as part of the request but the court was told the ventilator needed for the 11-month-old wouldn't fit through the front door of the family home.

The judge said hospital officials had indicated that there were practical difficulties in releasing Charlie.

"These are issues which cry out for settlement".

The Judge added that hospital bosses suggested a hospice for little Charlie.

Judge Francis had been due to rule on whether there was enough new evidence to allow the parents to take the baby, who suffers from a rare genetic disorder, to the United States for a type of treatment that has never been used on a human being. He has brain damage and can not move his arms or legs.

A lawyer representing the couple told a judge that they wanted to take Charlie home to die.

As Charlie's case made its way through the courts, worldwide attention grew.

In a statement to the High Court, GOSH said it was "increasingly surprised and disappointed" Professor Michio Hirano "had not read Charlie's contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie's brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie's condition".

Victoria Butler-Cole, representing Charlie's legal guardian, said the family's chosen experts can not provide continuing ventilation outside the intensive care setting.

There are 51 different specialties at the hospital, which treat some of the UK's sickest children. It is in Charlie's best interests, and everybody's, that the risk of a precipitate, distressing or disordered death is removed so that he may be assured of a peaceful and dignified passing.

James O'Brien thinks Charlie Gard's parents fought like any parent would - but the way some of the public have reacted has some worrying undertones. The parents appealed a High Court decision, and their appeal to the U.K.'s Supreme Court was rejected.

Why did Charlie's parents end their campaign?

Britain's courts, backed by the European Court of Human Rights, refused permission, saying it would prolong his suffering without any realistic prospect of helping the child.