The highly emotive Charlie Gard case, by which parents became locked right into a bitter dispute with medical professionals in regards to the treatment of their son, has once more entered the headlines.
Charlie Gard suffered from mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome and died in 2017, shortly before his first birthday, after life support was withdrawn.
Great Ormond Street Hospital determined that maintaining Gard’s life support was futile as it will only lengthen his suffering, and there was no prospect of effective treatment. When Gard’s parents opposed this and desired to seek experimental treatment abroad, the hospital asked the High Court to overrule the parents, which it did.
The ruling was made despite a proposal by an American hospital to treat Gard and a fundraising effort value £1.3 million to pay for the prices. The case attracted the eye of President Donald Trump and the late Pope Francis, who each supported the efforts of the parents.
Last month the Supreme Court ruled that medical professionals involved in such cases can not expect anonymity as a matter after all. In the Gard case, the clinicians involved got anonymity for “unlimited duration”.
Now Gard’s mother, Connie Yates, is difficult that anonymity and the injunctions which effectively prevent her from telling the total story.
Lawyers representing Yates have asked each the hospital and the Supreme Court to overturn the injunctions, calling them “disproportionate”.
Yates said, “To have these restrictions lifted would feel like I used to be being given my voice back. It is difficult to place into words what it’s like as a parent, in a highly tragic and vulnerable position, to be silenced and threatened with being criminalised when you speak in regards to the people condemning your child to die.“I even have lived with this injustice for eight years. No parent should should undergo that.”
Yates questioned whether the clinicians in her son’s case would have made the identical decisions in the event that they had been subject to proper scrutiny.
“I’d never condone any abuse of clinicians, I didn’t on the time and I don’t now,” she continued.“This isn’t about targeting clinicians. It is about accountability within the NHS, transparency, honesty, open justice and the liberty of oldsters to go away no stone unturned in attempting to help their children.”
Her case is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre.
