The terminally ill 11-month-old, who is on life support at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH), remains at the centre of a legal battle which has gained interest across the globe.
The British Supreme Court backed the hospital and the European Court of Human Rights refused to hear an appeal from Gard's parents.
"The objective of government is to protect innocent human life".
[D] octors and the judiciary have said that, not only is there no hope, but rather than release Charlie to the care of his parents, they have also omnisciently made a decision to literally hold him hostage - insisting not only that Charlie must die but that he also must be in their "care" when he does. Certainly, U.S. courts intervene in situations where parents are withholding consent for critically needed medical care such as chemotherapy, but the idea of ordering parents to halt care for a dying child takes things a giant and troubling step further. However, he said he would consider any new evidence given in 48 hours and would examine the couple's arguments "calmly and fairly". "We all want a better future for our children, and that's why families worldwide are responding so strongly to Connie and Chris's fight to give Charlie a chance".
The hospital had to stop keeping the baby alive as a result of a court ruling by its parents. "I will be the first to welcome that outcome", Francis added.
But doctors familiar with his case haven't been so optimistic.
The tragic case has left thousands of well-wishers world wide debating what should be done for Charlie. The brain damage Charlie has already suffered is irreversible, meaning even on the off-chance the experimental treatment extends his life, the little boy will remain blind, deaf, unable to breathe on his own and unable to move.
Who will care for Charlie if he does have treatment?
Also on Sunday, Yates and Gard delivered to doctors at GOSH a petition organized by Washington D.C. based anti-abortion law firm and advocacy group, Americans United for Life.