This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/13/charlie-gards-parents-walk-out-of-court-hearing
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Charlie Gard's parents walk out of court hearing | Charlie Gard's parents walk out of court hearing |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The parents of the critically ill baby Charlie Gard have walked out of court at a hearing to determine his future, after a disagreement with the judge. | |
| Chris Gard, 33, and Connie Yates, 31, are challenging a previous decision by the high court, upheld on appeal, denying them permission to take him from Great Ormond Street hospital (GOSH), where he is on life support, to the US for nucleoside therapy. | Chris Gard, 33, and Connie Yates, 31, are challenging a previous decision by the high court, upheld on appeal, denying them permission to take him from Great Ormond Street hospital (GOSH), where he is on life support, to the US for nucleoside therapy. |
| When Mr Justice Francis referred to previous comments by Charlie’s father to the effect that he would not want his son to continue living in his current condition were there no prospect of improvement, Gard and Yates suggested that was inaccurate. | When Mr Justice Francis referred to previous comments by Charlie’s father to the effect that he would not want his son to continue living in his current condition were there no prospect of improvement, Gard and Yates suggested that was inaccurate. |
| Yates said that they did not believe Charlie was suffering. Gard then angrily stormed out, closely followed by his wife. It remains to be seen whether they will return for the afternoon’s proceedings. | Yates said that they did not believe Charlie was suffering. Gard then angrily stormed out, closely followed by his wife. It remains to be seen whether they will return for the afternoon’s proceedings. |
| The court had heard that new evidence about the chances of Charlie recovering after receiving experimental treatment rendered the original judgment “unsafe”. | |
| At the high court on Thursday, the parents’ lawyer, Grant Armstrong, quoted an expert in the field as saying there was a 10% chance of Charlie, who is critically ill as a result of a genetic defect inherited from his parents, experiencing “meaningful improvement” as a result of the treatment. | |
| “There is likely to be muscular improvement, there is likely to be an effect whereby the treatment crosses the blood-brain barrier and it’s likely the treatment will have an effect on the mitochondria,” said Armstrong. He said the effect on the mitochondria would include “meaningful brain recovery”. | “There is likely to be muscular improvement, there is likely to be an effect whereby the treatment crosses the blood-brain barrier and it’s likely the treatment will have an effect on the mitochondria,” said Armstrong. He said the effect on the mitochondria would include “meaningful brain recovery”. |
| According to an expert there was a 90% chance of the treatment crossing the blood-brain barrier and a 56% chance of it generating muscular recovery in Charlie, the court heard. | According to an expert there was a 90% chance of the treatment crossing the blood-brain barrier and a 56% chance of it generating muscular recovery in Charlie, the court heard. |
| Another expert has put the chances of the treatment crossing the blood-brain barrier at 100% and the chances of increasing mitochondrial DNA at 60%, according to Armstrong. Under reporting restrictions imposed by the supreme court, none of the doctors giving evidence can be named. | Another expert has put the chances of the treatment crossing the blood-brain barrier at 100% and the chances of increasing mitochondrial DNA at 60%, according to Armstrong. Under reporting restrictions imposed by the supreme court, none of the doctors giving evidence can be named. |
| Charlie’s parents also argue that GOSH’s claim that he has suffered irreparable brain damage is erroneous. Armstrong quoted an expert who had reviewed MRI and ECG scans and concluded it “didn’t indicate any moribund diagnosis”. | Charlie’s parents also argue that GOSH’s claim that he has suffered irreparable brain damage is erroneous. Armstrong quoted an expert who had reviewed MRI and ECG scans and concluded it “didn’t indicate any moribund diagnosis”. |
| He told the court the evidence “renders unsafe” the court’s previous finding of futility with respect to Charlie’s improvement chances. | He told the court the evidence “renders unsafe” the court’s previous finding of futility with respect to Charlie’s improvement chances. |
| As well as the quality of the evidence, the case will hinge on whether it is new, as the judge has made clear the hearing is not a review of material previously put before the court. | As well as the quality of the evidence, the case will hinge on whether it is new, as the judge has made clear the hearing is not a review of material previously put before the court. |
| He said: “We all want what’s best for Charlie and if there’s important evidence that suggests my decision should be changed, I will change it.” | He said: “We all want what’s best for Charlie and if there’s important evidence that suggests my decision should be changed, I will change it.” |
| He ordered an independent measurement of Charlie’s head size after hearing that there is disagreement between GOSH and Charlie’s mother over whether it has got bigger, which would be a sign of brain growth or lack thereof. | He ordered an independent measurement of Charlie’s head size after hearing that there is disagreement between GOSH and Charlie’s mother over whether it has got bigger, which would be a sign of brain growth or lack thereof. |
| The case has previously gone all the way to the European court of human rights, with judges at every turn backing the view of GOSH doctors who said that Charlie’s condition was irreversible and that further treatment could cause him suffering. | The case has previously gone all the way to the European court of human rights, with judges at every turn backing the view of GOSH doctors who said that Charlie’s condition was irreversible and that further treatment could cause him suffering. |
| But the hospital requested a new hearing after receiving two letters – one from seven doctors and another from a solicitor representing Charlie’s parents – claiming the chances of the treatment being successful were higher than previously thought. | But the hospital requested a new hearing after receiving two letters – one from seven doctors and another from a solicitor representing Charlie’s parents – claiming the chances of the treatment being successful were higher than previously thought. |
| The earlier rulings forbid staff from transferring Charlie for nucleoside therapy anywhere in the world without going back to court. | The earlier rulings forbid staff from transferring Charlie for nucleoside therapy anywhere in the world without going back to court. |
| The case has attracted intense public interest, including from US pro-life groups. Another rally in support of Charlie’s parents was held before Thursday’s hearing and the proceedings were broadcast into a second courtroom to accommodate all those wanting to watch them. | |
| Although the hospital asked for another hearing, its counsel, Katie Gallop, suggested on Tuesday that, subsequent to the letter from their solicitor, Charlie’s parents had failed to come up with the new evidence they claimed to have. She suggested that they were trying to get the case reheard in its entirety, something Francis, who presided over the initial high court hearing in April, said he would not let happen. | |
| The hearing continues. |