Although it is a terrible situation for the parents, this must be about the little boy.
It has been reported that several doctors - some of whom have been involved in his care and treatment, and others who have seen him and studied his medical notes, have said this little boy cannot see or hear - or feed or breathe independently of machines. On top of that, he is said to have profound brain damage and to need regular doses of morphine, presumably to ease pain and distress. It is his doctors' opinion that his condition is terminal and that it is not in his best interests to keep him alive artificially.
Why would the little boy's doctors say this unless they truly believe it - and surely, having had day-to-day care of him, they have the most knowledge of his condition. Because of patient confidentiality they cannot speak out and explain exactly why they take the view they do, and so it seems unfair that they are being subjected to criticism.
In a TV documentary I saw a few years ago, a paediatrician admitted that he was often very troubled as to whether it was in a baby's best interests to carry out distressing procedures and continual surgery on very sick babies when the outcome was overwhelmingly likely to be eventual death.
As I understand it, the procedure the parents are seeking is experimental and, of course, it is only through experimentation that new treatments and surgical procedures are perfected. But it is my view that, whilst it is in order for a terminally ill adult to agree to submit themselves to experimental procedures that may prolong their lives, there is a question as to whether a baby, who cannot speak for himself, should be subjected to such experimentation.
.