Everyone involved in the case of Charlotte Wyatt has behaved honourably. While she has clung to life despite her injuries, her parents have sacrificed much to be near her and have fought to extend her life for as long as possible. They have been motivated in part by religious conviction, but mostly by the desire that hope, even when slender, must not be extinguished prematurely. They have been unstinting in their praise for the treatment that their daughter has received, despite their disagreement with her paediatricians. Mr Justice Hedley, obliged to play Solomon in this tragic affair, should also be afforded sympathy for his difficult circumstances, although his decision was wrong.

It is rare that a case such as this is settled by the judiciary. On most occasions, agreement is reached between parents and doctors. The medical profession seeks, gently but honestly, to explain how desperate a situation a child faces and then the parents must make decisions on behalf of someone who cannot possibly take them. This is the proper way to proceed. In this instance, though, the Portsmouth NHS Trust sought the authority to deny a period of ventilation that would perhaps prolong life but would have little chance of improving it. It was pointed out that the law allows parents substantial autonomy to decide the fate of a child but not absolute sovereignty in deciding its “best interests”.

Darren and Debbie Wyatt are portrayed in some quarters as zealots, misled by their own faith and by implausible belief in miracles. They are presumed blind to the dire state of their little daughter, whom they should surely allow to die in peace and with dignity. This is an unfair caricature of their position. As their submission to the court shows, the Wyatts are not “unrealistic or unreasonable”. They accepted that the hope held out by the medical evidence is limited. They endorsed a compromise by which Charlotte might receive an elective tracheostomy. If after any future five days of ventilation she still had high oxygen requirements and made no improvement, they would concede it would be right to stop ventilation.

The Portsmouth NHS Trust should have accepted this arrangement. If it had, it would not have been necessary for Mr Justice Hedley to have issued his ruling yesterday that shifts the balance of power between parents and doctors, and between parents and the courts in a disturbing direction. The judge indicated that he would still like the tracheostomy option explored.

The judiciary is entitled to intervene on behalf of a child when it can be claimed that parents are being negligent in not pursuing a course of action that might save the life of their offspring. A judge was right, for example, when in 1993 she ordered a blood transfusion for a ten-month-old girl in the face of objections from her parents, Jehovah’s Witnesses. But to claim that parents might be negligent in seeking to preserve a life presents a much lesser case for judicial intervention.

It would be necessary to show that such an ambition bordered on the sadistic. This is not an assertion that can yet be made here.

The law on life is the loser. The strong legal presumption in favour of life set out some ten weeks ago by Mr Justice Mumby in the case of Leslie Burke now appears to be less certain. Charlotte’s suffering may soon, mercifully, be over. The legal impact of her short life and plight will continue.