Activist insists Charlie Gard's parents 'have every right to fight'
The terminally ill baby's case is compared to that of Terri Schiavo, whose feeding tube was removed after a 15-year court battle.
Monday 10 July 2017 21:32, UK
Charlie Gard's parents "have every right" to fight for experimental treatment for their terminally ill son, activist Bobby Schindler says.
Mr Schindler told Sky News the court battle was "very similar" to the case of his sister Terri Schiavo, who had a heart attack and was left in a vegetative state due to a lack of oxygen to the brain.
While Mr Schindler's family fought to keep her alive, Terri's husband argued she would not want to stay alive with little prospect of recovery.
Following a landmark 15-year US court case, Mrs Schiavo's feeding tube was removed and she died.
::
Describing Charlie Gard's case as a "parental rights situation", Mr Schindler said he and other campaigners would "fight…as much as we can".
He said: "If parents have the chance, hope and means to provide treatment they think could help their son they should have every right.
"It doesn't make sense, reasonable people look at the case and see what's happening. Everybody is sitting back and asking why the hospital and courts are taking this decision.
"Why are they imposing their values when they have parents that are more than willing to care for their son?"
Mr Schindler added that the court battle had made headlines across the globe as "it frightens people".
He said: "We are seeing more and more that our medical rights are being eroded.
"I think people are frightened with families not being able to make these decisions.
"It doesn't make sense and that's why we're here to support the family emotionally and let them know millions are supporting them, don't give up."
While activists retain hope Charlie will be allowed to receive experimental treatment, others say the chances of a successful challenge are remote.
Medical ethics expert Jonathan Montgomery told Sky News it would "take a lot" to overturn the High Court's initial decision against care in the US.
Professor Montgomery said: "If there is a different balance of interpretation the judge is very unlikely to reopen the case.
"But if there is information that he hadn't had the chance to consider previously he'll look at that."
He added: "The suggestion there may be up to 10% of radical improvement seems a very difficult suggestion to make when so few children have similar diseases.
"None who have the same condition as Charlie have had this treatment."