The parents Charlie Gard who is terminally-ill have lost the final stage of their legal battle to stop his life support machine being turned off after the European Court Of Human Rights refused to intervene in the case.
Charlie Gard aged 10-months-old and suffers a rare genetic condition, he is brain damaged and has been on life support since October.
His Parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates have now lost their legal battle to take the youngster to America for experimental treatment.
The Judges at the European court agreed today that the majority of them would not hear the case which would be their “final” decision meaning Charlie’s life support will be turned off.
They said that they believe the British courts have made the right decision when they found that the baby Charlie should be allowed to “die with dignity”.
Judges have now also lifted the interim court order which required to keep him on life support at the Great Ormond Street Hospital while the case was being considered.
Sadly this marks the road of the end of a legal battle and Charlie’s support machine will sadly be switched off.
Specialists who have been looking after Charlie believed his life support machine should be stopped because the proposed US treatment had no realistic chance of success and the baby was probably in constant pain and suffering.
Charlie’s parents argued that doctors had overstated the extent of their son’s condition and that he should be allowed a chance of treatmentand a life.
Great Ormond Street Hospital said ” Our thoughts are with Charlie’s parents on receipt of this news which we know will be very distressing for them.
“Today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights marks the end of what has been a very difficult process and our priority is to provide every possible support to Charlie’s parents as we prepare for the next steps.
“There will be no rush by Great Ormond Street Hospital to change Charlie’s care and any future treatment plans will involve careful planning and discussion.”
The High Court within the UK found that it was Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die, two further appeals at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court also upheld that it was his best interests to be allowed to die, before his parents pushed to the European Court Of Human Rights (ECHR) case to be heard.
ECHR ruled that they would not hear the case because they endorsed the substance of the approach by the domestic courts. The British courts acted meticulous through and reviewed they provided clear and extensive reasoning giving relevant and sufficient support for their conclusions.
They further concluded that on the basis of the extensive, high-quality expert evidence it was most likely that Charlie was being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress and that by undergoing experimental treatment with no prospect of success would offer no benefit and continue to cause him significant harm.
A full ruling on the decision will be published tomorrow.