Malcolm Pittock says he mentally flinches when he hears the phrase “own best interest” used by “some socially powerful institution” when deciding if someone should be “forced to die” (Defining Charlie Gard’s best interests, Letters, 11 July). This is mischief-making on many counts. Discontinuing life support (mechanical ventilation) is not forcing someone to die but allowing them to do so when neither nature nor medicine can improve their severe condition nor offer hope of future improvement. Pittock has no right to assume that the “majority of the severely disabled” would rather live than die.

As one who has a severely disabling condition, I would infinitely rather trust the NHS, its expert clinicians and the British judiciary than Pittock, Trump, the pope or any other religious fundamentalist to have a say in whether I live and die, when the time comes. Thanks to the brilliant NHS, I have lived more years than I might have expected and may well live many more, though with increasing disability. But my advance medical directive is prepared and it does not include life at all costs!

GM Draper

Sevenoaks, Kent

• Malcolm Pittock states that “the individual is the person who should decide what their own best interests are”. For individuals like Charlie who lack capacity, this decision must be made by others. For children, the decision should almost always rest with the parents, and the child’s best interests will usually be served by interventions to save life. Sadly, however, on rare occasions childhood illness may be so severe (particularly in terms of brain injury) that such interventions can offer no benefit to the child, and may indeed cause harm by prolonging suffering.

Also, on rare occasions, despite careful sharing of knowledge and discussion, clinicians and parents disagree on what the child’s best interests are, and how best to meet them. In this event, the decisions rest with the caring professionals. In the face of intractable disagreement between the parents and clinicians, the advice of the courts must be sought. These circumstances seem to apply to Charlie’s case. As a retired paediatrician, I think it is most unlikely that Charlie’s professional carers consider themselves to be part of “some socially powerful institution”. It would be kinder for Malcolm Pittock to describe the withdrawal of intensive support – which is artificially sustaining existence with no overall benefit – as allowing, not forcing, Charlie to die.

Donal Manning

Heswall, Merseyside

• What kind of world is Malcolm Pittock living in, when he claims to speak for the “overwhelming majority” of us regarding Charlie Gard’s best interests?

My wife suffered a series of strokes that destroyed first her sight, then her speech, and finally her comprehension. On the way, she managed to say “it’s hell”, and many times “I want to die”. Her death, when it came, was a merciful release for her, and for all who knew and loved her.

Of course, each tragic case of brain damage is different. But in this case Charlie Gard is not being “forced to die”, he is being forced to live. No cure is in sight. I ask Mr Pittock how it can be in his best interests to continue to live with such extreme brain damage. And being realistically honest, would he really wish this for himself?

Peter Freyhan

Arnside, Cumbria

• The nature of this vulnerable baby’s severe disabilities will tragically shorten his life. He is not being “forced to die” as Malcolm Pittock suggests. Specialists at Great Ormond Street hospital have done all they can to treat him and to save his life. They fought to save my son’s life and were devastated when he died and each time they lost a child. They are not robots but caring people on whom their work takes a great toll. Surely it is the quality of life that matters. It was excruciatingly painful but I did not want my son to live to fight another day.

Veronica Edwards

Malvern, Worcestershire

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters