How could someone be so heartless as to condone this act of pure evil?

The judges made that decision to limit the child's pain and suffering.  Are you saying that in spite of additional pain to this infant, you would want to keep it alive for as long as you could afford to do it?  If so, I'm happy you aren't my mother.

To try the treatment that is available.  I would fight for my child, for every chance they had at life.
The government should not tell the parents---loving parents how to proceed.

Once the child is brain dead, which this child is, no amount of doctoring is going to regenerate the brain and without the brain there's nothing but being hooked up to machines for the rest of the child's life.  What is it about no brain function that you aren't understanding?

The article does not say he is brain dead....

It was on the news last night and it said the child was brain dead.

According to reports, the child cannot move his arms or legs or breathe on his own.  Those are all functions controlled by the brain.  X

"According to reports, the child cannot move his arms or legs or breathe on his own.  Those are all functions controlled by the brain.  X"

Pretty certain that all those characteristics apply to Steven Hawking now. Are you trying to say that he's brain dead too?

Are you trying to compare what Steven Hawking suffers from with what this child does?

No. I'm merely pointing out that you drew the conclusion that the child was "brain dead" based on his inability to move his arms or legs or to breathe on his own. (None of the stories that I've read on the poor little pup say that he's "brain dead" by the way, only that he has brain damage; BIG difference.) I pointed out that Mr. Hawking displays those same symptoms and is obviously not brain dead. That makes your personal criteria for determining "brain death" quite incorrect.

My apologies - you are correct.  The child is only brain damaged.  however, unlike Steven Hawking, he cannot think and cannot speak and likely will never be able to do any of the things that require brain function.  So, as a practical (as opposed to medical) matter, the child is brain dead.

He is under a year old of course he didn't speak. How do you know he doesn't think?

Because his brain is damaged. 

Have you never been around a brain damaged person? I have. And trust me they think. Maybe not the same as you or I but brain damage covers a lot of territory. 

Do you think screaming at me with an extra large font gets your point across better?  Let me tell you that it DOES NOT! 

I apologise for the appearance of screaming. But I am on mobile and my font size changes on it's own. I never know until it posts what size it will be. Idk if it is a glitch here or something with my phone. Sometimes I even have to use the bold font just to make my keyboard come up. 

Or, more accurately, Stephen Hawking is able to demonstrate a level of functionality. Charlie Gard cannot, so it is left to others to assess, by observation, how functional, in pain, or whatever, he may be. As expert as they may be, they could be wrong, but Great Ormond Street is one of the world's leading children's hospitals, and saves thousands of children, every year, so their decisions will be made in the best interests of the child, every time. In any case, the court is hearing further evidence today, so we can but await the outcome. This post was edited by HarryDemon at July 10, 2017 8:35 AM MDT

Thank you.  Clearly, you explained it better than I did.  At some point, Steven Hawking was not in the condition he is in today, but his brain still functions and he is able to have coherent thoughts.  Poor little Charlie will most likely never be able to function mentally because of the damage to his brain. 

It's all very sad. I'm sure we all agree on that.