Charlie Gard: The Nexus of End-of-Life Issues, Public Morality, and Politics – HuffPost

In February 2017, the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal for any further treatment. Then the hospital petitioned the High Court to discontinue artificial ventilation and only administer palliative care. The court heard expert testimony indicating that Charlie no longer had a sleep/wake cycle, indicating severe brain damage, and that his seizures indicated death was six to nine months away. Even the American neurologist said the treatment was “very unlikely” that Charlie would improve, and that the “cultural difference” in treatment between the United States and England was the only difference in approach, as “anything” would be tried in the United States, even without rigorous clinical trial. The neurologist, who acknowledged never having seen Charlie, could only state: “I would just like to offer what we can.” Perhaps, he offered, some upper body strength might and reduced time on ventilators might be achieved, although there would be no structural repair to the brain. Charlie’s parents denied that brain damage was that severe, although they acknowledged that his quality of life was not worth sustaining if no improvement could be achieved.

Charlie Gard: The Nexus of End-of-Life Issues, Public Morality, and Politics – HuffPost