Shouldn't the British government allowed the parents of baby Charlie Gard to take him to the states?

@MartinII

No ... the hospital appealed to the British High Court ... to supercede the parental rights.

Charlies doctors have no authority to inhibit a medical transport from flying him out of Britain.

@questionWeaver Right, sorry. But my main point was, it's nothing to do with the government.

@MartinII The court IS the government. Unelected men who have decided they have the right to make life and death decisions. You won't like it when they decide you can't have that bypass because you're over 50 and not worth it.

@katielass very good point

@questionWeaver That's exactly what's coming. Oh you're 63, we don't feel our finite resources would be well spent replacing your bummed out knee even if it means a quality of life for you. We have to save our precious resources for the young folks. Oh you're 58, well sorry but bypass operations are extremely expensive and you've already had a pretty good life so no bypass for you. Have a nice day.

@katielass Sorry, the Court is nothing to do with the government, except to the extent that the government has a say in senior judicial appointments. The Court's job is to interpret the law, just as with the Supreme Court in the US, except that you have a written constitution which we don't.

On the substance of the matter, I agree with you.

@MartinII Who appoints the court? The government. It's an extension of the government, even more so when there is no constitution.

@katielass Strictly speaking I think The Queen does on the advice of the Lord Chancellor. The High Court frequently frustrates the wishes of the elected government, especially at the moment, partly because of laws passed under the Blair/Brown government, partly because judges at present are more left-wing than the government.

Anyway, as I say we are of the same opinion on the sad Charlie Gard case.