It is the most heartbreaking of battles - fighting to keep your child alive.
The case of little Charlie Gard is made harder still as those usually tasked with saving lives have become the very people who've been pitched against his parents in court.
We can all identify with this little boy's mum and dad. We would all do whatever it took to save our baby. But this is a deeply complex and emotive case, and at the heart of it is a little child, surrounded by machinery who can't fight for himself.
It is no wonder it is dividing opinion across the world.
Charlie's case has struck a massive chord with millions of people.
The Pope and the US President have even waded in on the conversation. The 11-month-old is in the 'terminal stages' of a disease called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital initially applied for permission to have his ventilator switched off, saying that Charlie should be allowed to die in dignity and that his quality of life was minimal.
Charlie's parents, Connie and Chris want to continue fighting for their only son. They have raised over 1. 5 million to pay for pioneering treatment in the US.
In April, a court ruled with the “heaviest of hearts” that it would be cruel to try and extend Charlie’s life further. His heartbroken parents refused to give up and took their fight to the European Courts to challenge the ruling.
At the end of June, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against them and Charlie's life-support was scheduled to be stopped. His parents pleaded for more time and delivered a petition signed by nearly 500 thousand people to Great Ormonde Street Hospital saying "We don’t want him in the ground, we want him riding a bike.”
Their proposed miracle treatment has come under a lot of scrutiny.
Some claim Charlie will never lead a life worth living, even if the treatment works. His condition means that he can't get enough energy to his muscles, kidneys and brain. The condition is typically fatal in infancy, and although there is no cure, some treatments (such as the one proposed in the US) have shown a reduction in symptoms.
Now, a doctor from the US will travel to assess the baby in light of 'new information'.
His case has touched millions of lives - mostly because of the decision to ban parents from intervening in their own child's case.
Millions of supporters of the family, calling themselves Charlie's Army, got #JeSuisCharlieGard trending on Twitter and the outpouring of support for his parents has been unprecedented.
We know that his parents want to give him every hope, but the doctors and courts have a responsibility to make sure Charlie isn't suffering and isn't being kept alive for the wrong reasons. They need to know that any and every action is in Charlie's best interest - even if that decision breaks his parent's hearts.
The idea of withdrawing treatment for a sick child is probably the most emotive part of this battle. Disallowing parents a say in their child's fate is equally cruel, but love and hope alone can't cure Charlie.
It is impossible to have anything but sympathy for Connie and Chris. They are trapped in a hellish scenario so unusual and complex that none of us can pass judgement. We will hopefully never be in a situation where we have to choose between hope or heaven for our child.
As the world talks and tweets and fights for this little baby, who may never see his first birthday, Charlie's machines bleep on, his chest rises and falls, and whatever is in his little head remains unknown.
We can only hope that he feels his parent's kisses, is comforted by their touch and dreams happy thoughts.
If love was the cure, there is no doubt that little Charlie would live forever and a day.
