A member of the medical team that helped treat Charlie Gard has decried ill-informed politicians and religious leaders for stoking abuse of Great Ormond Street hospital and undermining confidence in the treatment of its young patients.

The clinician said the furore over Charlie’s case had already led some “nervous parents” of other children to start questioning the judgments of doctors in the hospital’s intensive care unit, fearing “they might not do the right thing for their child”.

The health worker said Charlie’s case became a distressing soap opera for some commentators that had prolonged the agony of Charlie’s parents. It had also clouded the heart-breaking truth that their son was critically ill and that the hospital was right to conclude it had done everything it could to save him.

Charlie, the medic said, had effectively been kept alive for people such as Donald Trump and the pope, who “suddenly knew more about mitochondrial diseases than our expert consultants”.

“We didn’t want to lose him, and we didn’t want his mum and dad to be without him, but it’s our job, our legal and moral obligation, to stand up for Charlie and say when we think: that enough is enough,” the health worker said, writing in the Guardian.

“My colleagues and I worked our hardest, tried everything, fought so hard for this family but there was nowhere else to go. It was obvious to all those people who treated him.

“We gave him drugs and fluids, we did everything that we could, even though we thought he should be allowed to slip away in his parents’ arms, peacefully, loved.”

Charlie died on 28 July, a week before his first birthday. He had a rare genetic disease that meant he needed to be on a life support system.

His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, fought a five-month court battle against Great Ormond Street, which had said his treatment should be stopped to prevent him suffering further. Gard and Yates ended their legal battle last week.

The family had believed Charlie could still be treated, and questioned the analysis of experts at the hospital. But his parents gave up the challenge on Monday 24 July after accepting that their son no longer had any prospect of a meaningful life.

In a statement read in court, Yates said the arguments with the hospital had wasted time – and that time had run out.

The clinician who contacted the Guardian said the decision to speak out was highly unusual, but reflected how months of concern and frustration had taken a toll on staff in the 200-strong intensive care unit.

The medic, who wrote on condition of anonymity, said colleagues had been deeply affected by the case and were shocked to become the target of “horrendous and offensive” abuse online and also from campaigners who camped outside the hospital.

“It’s things like ‘why are you trying to kill this child? You are all murderers’. It is horrendous and offensive. It is my job to stop people from dying, not to kill them.”

The team of healthcare professionals also felt dismayed by interventions from people who “knew nothing” about the condition Charlie suffered from, or the care he had been given.

“Over the last few weeks, parts of the media and some members of the public have turned a poorly baby’s life into a soap opera, into a hot legal issue being discussed around the world.

“The case has also had an effect on other families here. Parents are nervous, they worry that we might not do the right thing for their child. That worry is not based on the care we are giving; it’s based on what you have been saying about medical staff you have never met.”

The worker criticised the “keyboard warriors” who have bombarded social media with opinions and messages calling hospital staff “evil” for wanting to give Charlie palliative care until he dies.

“You have contributed to the family’s pain, you have been fighting a cause you know nothing about. It’s not been helpful to anyone.”

They added that no healthcare professional wants to give up on a patient. “That’s not why we go into care … It’s our whole reason for being to keep these children alive, to give them back to their parents with as great a quality of life as we possibly can.”

They said that while the general public may eventually forget about Charlie, he will remain in the memories of his family and those that have cared for him. “His parents will live with this forever; they will go over and over whether they made the right choices for their beautiful baby.

“The parents’ pain will be unimaginable, their loss immeasurable and incomparable. But we will live with this for ever, too.”

They added that there are very few instances where parents and medical staff disagree over a patient’s care to such an extent that legal action is taken; some cases go to court but the shock of initial proceedings is usually enough to reopen discussions where the two parties can come to a mutual decision.

The case had previously gone to the European court of human rights, with judges at every turn backing the view of Great Ormond Street doctors who said Charlie’s condition was irreversible and that further treatment could cause him suffering.

The hospital requested a new hearing after receiving two letters – one from seven doctors and another from a solicitor representing Charlie’s parents – claiming the chances of the treatment being successful were higher than previously thought.

But the hospital was critical of Dr Michio Hirano, an eminent doctor and expert in his field, who had suggested Charlie could still be treated.

The hospital criticised Hirano for not declaring earlier his “financial interest” in some of the drugs he wanted to prescribe.