Turn the clock back 20 or 30 years, wee baby Charlie would probably not have survived as long as he has. Thanks to modern technology, it is possible to keep children with such devastating conditions alive a whole lot longer, which, as we have seen, does throw up more and increasingly complex ethical dilemmas. Apart from whether the child is suffering pain, one does also need to examine the effects, long-term, on the mental health of parents of a child so afflicted, and/or on any subsequent children they might have. I imagine that the judge in this case will have considered all of the above. Hard though it might seem, my feeling would be to let this poor child go in a dignified way. No, the parents will never get over it, and they can never replace that child, but they may, in the long term, have a better life ahead if they can just learn to accept that Charlie's prognosis, whatever the treatment offered, is very poor..