For those who are not familiar with the story, they can read the summary here: Spoiler Charlie Gard, the baby whose fate was the subject of a protracted court battle and made headlines around the world, has died, his parents have said. Chris Gard and Connie Yates fought a five-month campaign to have him transferred from Great Ormond Street hospital in central London, where he was on life support for experimental treatment they hoped could give a meaningful life to Charlie, who was blind and deaf and could not breath without a ventilator. They abandoned their legal battle on Monday, saying it was too late to save him. On Thursday, he was transferred to an unspecified hospice and he died on Friday, a week before he would have turned one, after having his life support systems withdrawn. In a statement, Charlies mother, Connie Yates, said: Our beautiful little boy has gone. We are so proud of you, Charlie. For those who don't know, Charlie suffered from an exceptionally rare genetic condition called encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS). The experimental treatment Charlie's parents sought (NBT or nucleoside bypass therapy) had never been tried in this case ever; however, the parents raised upwards of £1.3 million ($1.6 million) via GoFundMe to transport Charlie to the US for the experimental treatment. The UK as well as the European courts denied their request and sided with the hospital that the treatment wouldn't provide Charlie with 'quality of life' even if it prolongs Charlie's life for a bit. The parents finally gave up as it was too late for any treatment to work anymore. This whole story has now become a left vs right debate on who gets to decide the fate of the child. This is no longer about whether Charlie could've been saved, but about government vs parental authority. Personally, I believe government or court had no business in what Charlie's parents were trying to do. They raised the money, it should've been their choice. The specific argument of 'quality of life' doesn't hold water for me because it's too broad to define. Parents should have the right to decide what's best for their children till it's not physical or mental abuse. In this case, it was neither. What are your opinions? Who should have the final say in such a case?