Whose welfare is first in difficult decisions about children?

The debate in the media about Charlie Gard showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how we view children in UK law. Thankfully, we don't view them as the possessions of their parents and parental views are important but can be challenged.

The situation Charlie's parents were in was of course terrible and agonising. We can all feel for them. The baby was only alive since Christmas because of artificial breathing and feeding and excellent care. The view of the hospital was the baby was suffering and there was no hope of an improvement in his condition which may warrant prolonging the suffering. This awful conclusion must be drawn many times a week across the country by skilled clinicians.

The only difference with Charlie was the parents did not accept that decision and challenged it in the courts. The court's only determinator is what is in the baby's best interests and welfare. The decision of the court at each stage was that Charlie's suffering needed to be ended as he was not going to improve. The reason the matter became prolonged was that sad fact that the parents could not accept this. Trump, the Pope and some aspects of the media did not seem to understand the court's role or where parental decision making ends.  The Court decided that prolonging Charlie's suffering in order to let the parents follow a theoretical possibility of improvement was wrong. This is exactly the court's role: to put the child's welfare before any other considerations.