I'd see the choice that the child's life should continue to be maintained as lying wholly within the field of the parents' decision. This is one situation surely where there is indeed a "right of choice", which is being denied.

It's not even a question of deciding that the medical authorities cannot justify continuing to devote resources, since alternative care providers have been identified. It is about the state believing that it has the right to take over the parents' duties - and though there are cases where that can be justified, such as parental abuse, it has not been suggested that anything analogous to that applies in this case.

Unfortunately, I think this can be considered as 'parental abuse'. Hard though it is to say it. Medical advice, backed by the courts, has stated that the best the child can hope for is a peaceful end, and the trauma of movement is not best for the child.

I fully accept that the parents may have desperate hopes, and will do anything to prolong their time with their child, unfortunately this also extends the time of the child's pains.

A sad case, but I feel it is almost certainly one in which the doctors know best.