On top that, the UK is saying that he has to die at the hospital and that his parents can't bring him home on hospice.
They may be tending to a vegetable, but unless they endanger anyone they are entitled to this.
More importantly - hospitals can make mistakes, and any entity with power might eventually abuse it. It is frightening that the hospital has this much power over this family.
> unless they endanger anyone they are entitled to this In Britain, the rights of the child are considered to pre-empt the rights of their parent to control them. In this case, the doctors argue (and the courts have agreed) that the parents are asking to do something that will cause pain to the child for no benefit to it.
It doesn't. The courts do, and the parents got good quality legal advice (pro bono, which is a problem, there's an argument for these kinds of cases to have some legal aid).
Your corruption of the facts - the UK's government has not "decided he should die" - is an echo of that exploitation.
It is the same construct that leads the unwell to adopt dangerous or ineffective remedies from quacks and snake oil merchants, only in this case it is being leveraged by political and religious groups to further their own agenda.
In all this I feel mostly for the parents. Their pain and desperation has been used by cynical opportunists for column inches, and that is just revolting.
And it's not the government, it's the courts who are independent of the government. One of the courts was outside the UK.
In the UK courts the case was between the parents and the hospital. In the European court the case was between the parents and the UK.
Read this for more: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/charlie-gard-update/
It feels like I'm missing some utter, basic detail because I keep thinking "so why not just pick up your child, even with the hospital complaining, walk out the front door, and go to <wherever you want to go>"?