The parents of the terminally ill British baby Charlie Gard have given up their legal fight over treatment for their son in the United States.
Their lawyer Grant Armstrong told the UK High Court Monday that experts have said that the "window of opportunity no longer exists."
"For Charlie, it is too late ... treatment cannot offer a chance of success," he told the court.
Charlie's parents Chris Gard and Connie Yates made their decision following the latest medical reports and scans.
"Dark days lie ahead for these parents ... they want to spend time with Charlie," Armstrong said.
The general public had responded to this situation by donating generously towards experimental treatment for Charlie. Sure, the likelihood of success was less than favorable. But if the boy's parents were all in, what's the issue? Sadly, this is the perils of government run health care in that they become the moral arbiters as to who deserves treatment. And when people point to systems such as this as being the gold standard in saving money on care, they're at best being woefully misleading and at worst bald face lying. Of course less money is spent on those who are considered to have a terminal illness. Let them "die with dignity" or something.
In following the Charlie Gard saga, I couldn't help but ponder why no elected Democrats (at least none of which I'm aware) were ever asked what they thought of this tragic situation. Stephen Miller answered via Twitter what was probably a rhetorical question on my part.
Reason Dems weren't asked about Charlie Gard is because every single journalist out there knows how bad their answer is.— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) July 24, 2017
Just another aspect of "The Resistance" I guess.