Charlotte Wyatt's appeal has been turned down - again.
Who has the best interests of a child at heart ? Doctors, judges or parents ?
Granting the original order in October, Mr Justice Hedley said he did not believe "any further aggressive treatment, even if necessary to prolong her life, is in her best interests". He said Charlotte should be allowed "to meet her end ... in the TLC of those who love her most".
Ah yes - the State fulfilling its role as the best possible nanny to all children.
The arrogance of these people is unbelievable. But Charlotte's parents, like Charlotte herself, will fight on.
Elsewhere we have the case of an 86 year old Muslim, originally from Pakistan. As a young man he fought for Britain in the Second World War. Just the kind of chap Guardianistas should be queuing up to defend. But while Blair and co. are racking their brains to think of new ways to be nice to Muslims, the State is sentencing them to death - "in their own interests".
The high court in London yesterday upheld the right of the NHS to withdraw life support systems from a critically ill 86-year-old man who is considered by doctors to have no chance of getting better.
His Muslim family appealed to the court to block the decision on the grounds that their religious beliefs required doctors to do everything in their power to keep their father alive. Only God had the power to bestow death, they said.
"For legal reasons" neither the hospital, the NHS trust, or the parient can be named. It could be your local hospital.
The parallels between this aged warrior and young Charlotte are striking. The doctors said Charlotte would not survive the winter. The warrior has survived the removal of a ventilator. His family are united in wanting him to receive continued treatment. But what do they know ? Mr Justice Kirkwood knows best.
Robert Glancy QC, for the family, presented the court with evidence from a doctor who had examined the patient and supported the family's belief that their father was getting better.
The doctor, known as Dr R, said the 86-year-old - who had already defied experts by surviving when ventilation was taken away from him on August 16 - had a chance of recovering to the extent that he could live at home with medication to control his ailments, should he be nursed into recovery from his current crisis. But the judge preferred the evidence of the other doctors.
"It doesn't seem to me that the doctor had any evidence of [improvement]. The evidence of all the other doctors of continued deterioration is preferred," he said.
"I'm satisfied that Mr A has significant impairment of his major functions and that Mr A is dying. Medical science shows no sensible chance of recovery.
"The natural process of dying is being extended only by life support interventions and they are not improving the underlying causes of Mr A's condition.
"Mr A is sentient to the extent that he is aware of pain and discomfort and intrusions upon his personal dignity.
"It is in his best interests that he be allowed a peaceful and dignified death.