Charlie Gard's mother yelled in anguish as a High Court judge set a timetable for the end of the terminally-ill baby's life.
Mr Justice Francis said Charlie would move to a hospice if his parents and doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London could not settle a dispute over where he would spend his last days by noon on Thursday.
The judge said life-support treatment would end shortly after Charlie arrived at the hospice.
Connie Yates and Chris Gard wanted to be given time to reach agreement over end-of-life plans for their son.
Ms Yates walked out of what could be the final court hearing in Charlie's case on Wednesday, after the judge said a decision had to be made.
She yelled: "I hope you are happy with yourselves."
Ms Yates and Mr Gard had initially said they wanted 11-month-old Charlie to spend days with them at home before dying.
Great Ormond Street doctors said it was not practical to provide life-support treatment to Charlie at the couple's home for days.
They said a hospice would be a better plan, and they said life-support treatment should end shortly after Charlie arrived at a hospice.
Lawyers representing the couple on Wednesday told Mr Justice Francis about a change of heart.
They said the couple now wanted a move to a hospice.
But they said Charlie's parents were still in dispute with doctors over the detail of hospice care plans.
Grant Armstrong, who led Charlie's parents' legal team, said the couple wanted to privately fund care at a hospice where Charlie could continue to receive life-support treatment for days before being allowed to die.
He said a doctor was ready to help and several Great Ormond Street nurses had volunteered their services.
Great Ormond Street bosses said they were not satisfied that a properly-qualified specialist would be in control under Charlie's parents' plan.
A lawyer in the couple's legal team said discussions about mounting an appeal against Mr Justice Francis's decision not to allow more time were taking place.
Relatives said an appeal had been mounted for a specialist to come forward.
A family friend posted a statement on Facebook saying: "The hospital have set the bar so high that in terms of clinical team for Charlie's end of life nothing seemed good enough for Great Ormond Street.
"The reality is Charlie is very stable, not in pain and rarely needs a doctor.
"It is therefore difficult to understand why Charlie could not die at home.
"All he needs is a ventilator which pumps room air into his lungs.
"It is extraordinarily sad that there's been so much fuss about him dying at home.
"Connie and Chris have conceded a hospice but it was not their first choice.
"They will be devastated they have not been granted their final wishes as parents."
Charlie's parents became embroiled in the new fight with doctors earlier this week, a day after abandoning attempts to persuade the judge to let their son travel to America for experimental treatment.
Mr Gard and Ms Yates, who are in their 30s and come from Bedfont, west London, had asked Mr Justice Francis to rule that Charlie should be allowed to undergo a therapy trial in New York.
Doctors at Great Ormond Street said the therapy would not help. They said life-support treatment should stop.
Mr Justice Francis in April ruled in favour of Great Ormond Street and said Charlie should be allowed to die with dignity.
Charlie's parents subsequently failed to overturn his ruling in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in London.
They also failed to persuade European Court of Human Rights' judges to intervene.
But the couple had recently returned to court, saying they had new evidence, and asked Mr Justice Francis to change his mind.
They abandoned their legal fight on Monday after concluding that Charlie had deteriorated to the ''point of no return''.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel