Originally Posted by CyberPunk
It's not anybody else's place to determine what Charlie would've wanted but his parents.
Parents/next of kin do get to decide what to do in this situation in the UK, in concert with the doctors who inform them of the best courses of action. Its the basis of 'informed consent'.
But parents/next of kin do not always know or do what is best. Grief, denial, stubbornness etc. can lead to not just poor decisions but actually bad/harmful decisions. And that is when doctors, guardians and the courts must
What if they had wanted Charlie to have a horrifically invasive procedure that would have caused unimaginable pain with a 0% chance of any kind of success? What if they wanted to give him high doses of some kind of poison because they read it might wake him up on some internet website? What if they wanted to poor hot sauce down his throat because they saw something like that wake someone up in a cartoon? What if they wanted to just randomly saw one of his legs off just so they can say that they tried everything?
Where is the line?
Here, the doctors, the guardian and the courts decided that the line was the exposure of Charlie Gard to an experiment; an experiment where the professor refused to see Charlie until 7 months after he was asked by GOSH and who retained a financial interest in the experiment; an experiment which had not even been tried out on mice and therefore had no evidence that it would have worked or of the potential side-effects, which is essentially against international law (which is the reason why GOSH had to go to an ethics committee even before contacting the professor).
In the case of Charlie Gard, the doctors, guardian and courts were there to protect a terminally ill, virtually brain-dead little boy from the grief, denial and desperation of his parents.