Connie Yates, mother of critically ill baby Charlie Gard arrives at the Royal Court of Justice in London yesterday. Photo / AP
Connie Yates, mother of critically ill baby Charlie Gard arrives at the Royal Court of Justice in London yesterday. Photo / AP
Charlie Gard is expected to be removed from the care of Great Ormond Street Hospital and taken to a hospice to die by Friday, the High Court has been told.
Charlie's mother Connie Yates broke down in court after being told her final wish for her 11-month-old son, that he be allowed to spend a week at home before his death, had been turned down.
"What if that was your child?" she sobbed before saying: "I cannot be in the same room as him" possibly in reference to the judge. She then stormed out.
Chris Gard and Connie Yates with their son Charlie Gard provided by the family, at Great Ormond Street Hospital, in London.
Mr Justice Francis ruled today that Charlie could be taken to a hospice, where he would spend a few hours before his life support is switched off.
The judge extended a deadline until noon on Thursday (UK time) for Charlie's parents - Yates and Chris Gard - to find a paediatric intensive care team that could look after the little boy around the clock.
Last night, Yates made a desperate plea for a specialist doctor to come forward. She wrote on Facebook: "URGENT we need a paediatric intensive care consultant to come forward to assist and facilitate with a hospice stay by 12pm tomorrow, we will pay privately. Please only email if you can help us! We need some peaceful time with our baby boy."
A family friend accused Great Ormond Street Hospital of making it too difficult to put a team in place.
Connie Yates wears pendant in honour of her son. Photo / AP
The friend said: "The hospital have set the bar so high that in terms of the clinical team for Charlie's end of life nothing seemed good enough for GOSH.
"It is extraordinarily sad that there's been so much fuss about him dying at home. Connie and Chris have conceded a hospice but it was not their first choice. They will be devastated they have not been granted their final wishes as parents."
The precise timing of Charlie's final hours were discussed at a hearing held behind closed doors because of the sensitivity. The judge made an order - the details of which were kept secret - that gives the precise deadline for Charlie's removal from GOSH and the length of time he can remain in a hospice before his ventilator tube is removed.
GOSH had pushed for Charlie's final days not to be dragged out. Charlie's parents, who live in Bedfont, west London, withdrew an application on Monday seeking to have the little boy, who suffers from a rare genetic syndrome, transferred to a hospital in New York for experimental therapy.
Fiona Paterson, GOSH's barrister, told the court earlier: "It is the view of the clinical team we need to press ahead and transfer Charlie to a hospice by no later than Friday. It is simply unacceptable if this drags on another week. It is a strain on everyone involved to allow this to carry on. It is simply for no gain."
She said the transfer to the hospice should take place by Friday morning.
This is an undated photo of Charlie Gard provided by his family, taken at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London.
At the start of another difficult court hearing, the parents' barrister, Grant Armstrong, offered a glimmer of hope after a "doctor who has previous experience as a surgeon in intensive care" had come forward to provide the care for Charlie at home or at a hospice for a number of days. But the court discovered that the doctor, who cannot be named, turned out to be a GP with "no experience of intensive care medicine".
Nurses from GOSH had also volunteered their services but without specialist consultants in place, the judge ruled that Charlie could not be kept on a ventilator for days outside the hospital.
Mr Justice Francis also took a swipe at the American Right, which has been using the case to claim universal healthcare had failed Charlie.
"I do want to deal with the notion this issue is being dealt with by a judge because we have socialised medicine in this country," he said, explaining his role was to decide what was best for Charlie because the hospital and his parents were in dispute. "The notion the state is involved because we have a national health service is pure nonsense," he added.
