Charlie Gard’s parents pay emotional tribute to terminally ill son as they desperately wait to see if he can die at home – and say final wish is to ‘give him a bath’
CHARLIE Gard's family face an agonising wait to discover if their "absolute warrior" will be allowed to die at home.
In an emotional tribute to the terminally ill tot, parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates told him: "We're so sorry that we couldn't save you".
Yesterday the couple ended their fight to try and save the tot’s life as they emotionally revealed “time has run out”.
But they still don't know if their final wish will be granted as Charlie remains hooked up to an artificial ventilator.
The couple say their greatest wish is to bath their baby boy and put him to bed in his cot at home.
Speaking outside the High Court, Chris said: "Mummy and daddy love you so much Charlie, we always have and we always will and we are so sorry that we couldn’t save you.
“Sweet dreams, baby. Sleep tight our beautiful little boy.
“Our son is an absolute warrior and we could not be prouder of him and we will miss him terribly."
"Charlie has had a greater impact on and touched more people in his 11 months than many people do in a lifetime.
"We are struggling to find any comfort or peace with all this but one thing that does give us the slightest bit of comfort, is that we truly believe that Charlie may have been too special for this cruel world."
Desperate to say their goodbyes at home, Chris and Connie have offered to pay for a mobile ventilator and medics which will allow Charlie to leave hospital.
They have made their feelings clear to Great Ormond Street Hospital bosses, but it's still unknown whether it will be possible.
Connie said: "There is now no way back. Charlie did have a real chance of getting better if only therapy was started sooner.
"We only wanted to give him a chance of life."
Chris added: "A whole lot of wasted time. Had Charlie been given the treatment sooner he would have had the potential to be a normal, healthy boy."
Charlie's parents admitted that damage done to the 11-month-old’s muscle and tissue is “irreversible” – and he will not live to see his first birthday.
The tot's fight for life has touched the world as he battled with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome.
Doctors at GOSH said Charlie should be allowed to die in dignity and applied to switch off his life support machine.
This sparked a legal battle with Charlie's parents, who are in their 30s and come from Bedfont, West London, who raised more than £1.3 million to pay for pioneering treatment in the US.
They have already lost battles in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in London.
They have also failed to persuade European Court of Human Rights judges to intervene.
Doctors at Great Ormond Street have continuously argued the therapy is experimental and will not help.
Charlie’s parents made the decision to end the battle following the latest medical reports and scans.
Charlie Gard's condition and his story so far
Charlie Gard is in the “terminal stages” of a disease called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, after both of his parents were unknowingly carrying the faulty gene.
Sufferers of the condition do not get energy to their muscles, kidneys and brain, and is typically fatal in infancy and early childhood.
The 11-month-old is said to be one of only 16 people to have ever had the condition and his desperate mum and dad have been unable to find a treatment in the UK for him.
They raised £1.3million to send him America for treatment but doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital said Charlie should be allowed to die in dignity and applied for permission to have his ventilator switched off.
The European Court of Human Rights’ ruled the doctors' decision would be upheld and his parents were not allowed to intervene in their child’s case.
The family were given extra time to say goodbye before his life support is turned off.
Now US President Donald Trump and the Pope have offered to help as "Charlie's Army" vocalised their support for him all over the world.
British doctors say their "hands are tied" and they are unable to let the tot fly to Italy, so the Italian foreign minister called for crisis talks with Boris Johnson - who backed the doctors' and courts' decision.
Theresa May also confirmed she supports Great Ormond Street’s decision not to let Charlie fly.
She was set to speak with Trump about the child's fate at the G20 summit in Hamburg, as his followers continued their support.
The Pope declared on July 6 he wanted to give the youngster a Vatican passport to help him travel to an Italian hospital for treatment, before a New York Hospital offered to admit him - and even ship experimental drugs to the UK.
On July 10 Charlie's parents went back to the High Court and asked for a fresh review.
Days later Dr Michio Hirano travel from New York on July 17 to examine the baby boy, but on July 21 doctors said the latest scans made for "sad reading".
GOSH chairwoman Mary MacLeod said doctors and nurses at the hospital had been subjected to abuse and threatenbing messages.
Finally Charlie's parents made the heartbreaking decision to let their boy go, and to stop their legal battle.
In Mr Justice Francis' full statement to the court he touched on the accusations made by some of Charlie's supporters that the NHS "has the power to decide" his fate, adding: "This is the antithesis of the truth. In this country children have rights independent of their parents.
"Almost all of the time parents make decisions about what is in the best interests of their children and so it should be.
"Just occasionally, however, there will be circumstances such as here where a hospital and parents are unable to decide what is in the best interests of a child who is a patient at that hospital.
MOST READ IN NEWS
"It is precisely because the hospital does not have power in respect of that child that this hospital makes an application to the court, to an independent judge, for a determination of what is in that child's best interests."
Their barrister Grant Armstrong told the court: "This case is now about time. Sadly time has run out."
He added: "It is now too late to treat Charlie."
Katie Gollop QC, who is representing Great Ormond Street Hospital, told the court she was "more sorry than words could say".
Great Ormond Street chairwoman Mary MacLeod said earlier this week that doctors and nurses have been subjected to abuse in the street and received thousands of threatening messages in recent weeks.
A section of Mr Justice Francis' statement
"From the outset of this second hearing, I made it clear that I could only change the decision that I made on 11 April on the basis of compelling new evidence.
"No one has sought to assert that this approach is incorrect, nor could they, given the detailed judgment that I gave in April, having considered all of the medical evidence, and the review of that judgment by the three layers of appeal to which I have already referred.
"I also made it clear that I could only consider the case on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of partially informed or ill-informed opinion, however eminent the source of that opinion.
"I made it clear that I would always listen carefully to any new and material evidence. The world of social media doubtless has very many benefits but one of its pitfalls, I suggest, is that when cases such as this go viral, the watching world feels entitled to express opinions, whether or not they are evidence-based.
"When I became a judge, I took the same oath that all judges in England and Wales take and I promised to do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm. When jurors are sworn in in criminal trials they promise to try the case according to the evidence.
"I have at all times endeavoured to remain faithful to that oath, to apply the law having heard and considered the evidence.When Dr Hirano was kind enough to give up his time to give evidence by video link to this Court some two weeks ago, I invited him to travel to England to see Charlie and this is an invitation which he was good enough to take up, doubtless at extreme inconvenience to himself and, I daresay, to other patients of his.
"It seems to me to be a remarkably simple proposition that if a doctor is to give evidence to this court about the prospect of effective treatment in respect of a child whose future is being considered by the court, that Dr should see the patient before the court can sensibly rely upon his evidence.
"My task has always been to determine what is in Charlie's best interests, not what benefit there could be to scientific research."