This article is from the source 'bbc' 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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40716292

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Charlie Gard's parents want him home for final moments Charlie Gard: Court hears hospice best option for baby
(about 1 hour later)
The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard have returned to court to seek permission to take their son home to die. Moving Charlie Gard to a hospice to die would be the best option for the terminally-ill baby, a court has heard.
Lawyers for Chris Gard and Connie Yates told the High Court they wanted "a few days of tranquillity outside the hospital before Charlie passes away". The 11-month-old's parents had returned to the High Court to seek permission to take him home for "a few days of tranquillity outside the hospital".
They accused Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) of putting "obstacles" in the way of Charlie's return home. But Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) said there were practical problems with that proposal, for example his ventilation equipment would not be able to fit through their front door.
But the hospital said Charlie's parents had refused an offer of mediation. The judge will rule on Wednesday.
Grant Armstrong, representing Charlie's parents, told Mr Justice Francis that his clients' "last wish is that Charlie dies at home". Grant Armstrong, representing Chris Gard and Connie Yates, told Mr Justice Francis that his clients' "last wish is that Charlie dies at home".
The lawyer said a portable ventilator and oxygen supply could be used by the 11-month-old. He suggested a portable ventilator and oxygen supply could be used but accused GOSH of "putting up obstacles".
Mr Armstrong added that GOSH, where he has been in intensive care since October, "says it won't stand in the parents' way yet is putting up obstacles". Lawyers for the hospital told the judge they "would like to be able to fulfil the parents' wishes... if it is safe and practicable and in Charlie's best interests".
The judge said Great Ormond Street bosses had indicated that there were practical difficulties and had suggested a "hospice option". However, Katie Gollop QC, who leads the hospital's legal team, said providing intensive care for Charlie away from a hospital was not simple.
He added: "These are issues which cry out for settlement." Charlie's condition requires air to be forced into his lungs. She said as far as the hospital was aware invasive ventilation was only provided in a hospital setting.
'Charlie's interests' Ms Gollop said Charlie would need to be "monitored by an ITU trained nurse at all times, with an ITU doctor on call and close at hand".
Lawyers for GOSH told the judge "the hospital would like to be able to fulfil the parents' wishes... if it is safe and practicable and in Charlie's best interests." Such resources "cannot be provided by GOSH to Charlie at his parents' home", she said.
However, they said Charlie's parents had not wished to use the services of a mediator and had proposed no clear plan. Mr Justice Francis said: "If going home can be achieved within reason then I would like to achieve that for them."
"We need to balance parents needs and Charlie's best interests," lawyer Katie Gollop said. But he said hospital bosses had suggested a "hospice option" instead that would give Charlie and his parents the space, privacy and protection they needed.
She said the hospital wanted to fulfil Charlie's parents' "last desire" but that providing intensive care to Charlie outside a hospital setting was not simple. He said he would make a final decision, about whether Charlie can be taken home, at 14:00 BST on Wednesday.
The judge said: "If going home can be achieved within reason then I would like to achieve that for them." Charlie's parents, from Bedfont, west London, said they had been spending their "last precious moments" with their son.
GOSH said that as far as it is aware, invasive ventilation is only provided in a hospital setting.
"It requires air to be forced into the lungs. For reasons that are obvious, that process and the correct, safe positioning of the tube have to be monitored by an ITU trained nurse at all times, with an ITU doctor on call and close at hand.
"Those resources cannot be provided by GOSH to Charlie at his parents' home.
"GOSH is aware that there are other practical problems one being that the ventilator does not fit through the front door."
Ms Gollop added that the hospital had found an "excellent hospice" which would give Charlie and his parents the space, privacy and protection they needed.
The hearing was adjourned to allow private discussions to take place.
Charlie's parents, from Bedfont, west London, said they have been spending their "last precious moments" with their son.
Charlie has encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. He has brain damage and cannot move his arms or legs.Charlie has encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. He has brain damage and cannot move his arms or legs.
His parents had asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that their son should be allowed to undergo a trial of nucleoside therapy in New York, a move opposed by medics at GOSH who argued the treatment would be "futile".His parents had asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that their son should be allowed to undergo a trial of nucleoside therapy in New York, a move opposed by medics at GOSH who argued the treatment would be "futile".
The Family Division of the High Court heard on Monday that US neurologist Professor Michio Hirano was no longer willing to offer the experimental therapy after he had seen the results of a new MRI scan.The Family Division of the High Court heard on Monday that US neurologist Professor Michio Hirano was no longer willing to offer the experimental therapy after he had seen the results of a new MRI scan.
In a statement to the High Court, GOSH said it was "increasingly surprised and disappointed" Professor Michio Hirano "had not read Charlie's contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie's brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie's condition". In a statement to the High Court, GOSH said Professor Michio Hirano had not taken the opportunity to see Charlie until last week, despite being offered the chance to do so by the hospital in January.
The hospital said Professor Hirano had not taken the opportunity to see Charlie until last week, despite being offered the chance to do so by the hospital in January. The hospital said it was also concerned the professor had declared a financial interest in some of the treatment he had proposed prescribing for Charlie.
Even though the professor gave written evidence at all the court cases, the hospital said it only emerged last week that he had not read the judge's ruling following the first High Court hearing in April.
The hospital added it was concerned to hear the professor state in the witness box at the High Court hearing on 13 July that he had a financial interest in some of the treatment he proposed prescribing for Charlie.
Timeline of legal battleTimeline of legal battle