The thing with Charlie is that - from everything I have read - there never was a chance. Of course he deserved every chance to live, but this was not a chance - the doctor that got involved in this despite having never seen him or his scans admitted as much. His amazing new ‘treatment’ had never even been tested on an animal before, never mind a human. But he thought it might be a treatment option for children in the future. And then the press picked it up, and then the Pope and Donald Trump and every other idiot looking for some publicity. And they gave the parents false hope - the parents rightly did everything they could to save their child, but they were surrounded by people who, just perhaps, had other motives. That is what is most sad.

The link you sent wouldn’t open - can you re-send.

Here is my two cents on parental authority:

I wrote a post a few weeks ago on a new treatment - CAR-T therapy - for leukaemia. This treatment is working in many children that would otherwise die. Imagine two sets of parents with children eligible for this treatment

Parents 1 says that they refuse the treatment because they want to try unproven alternative therapies - here, in my opinion, there needs to be an intervention. There should be no parental authority whatsoever here.

Parents 2 say that they accept the treatment, even though they would prefer to use alternate therapies. They ask if they can use the alternative therapies as well. This sounds ideal to me

In short - my view, which is just my view, is that parental authority should absolutely be overridden if what the parents are trying to do is clearly (in as much as we scientifically know right now) not in the best interests of their child

Anyway, I think I am done for a Friday evening!!

Cheers