Your editorial (10 July) appears to suggest that it is in Charlie Gard’s own best interests that he should be forced to die. Whenever the phrase “own best interests” is used, I mentally flinch. The individual, and not some socially powerful institution is the person who should decide what their own best interests are. Unfortunately, Charlie cannot be consulted as to what he thinks are his own best interests, but it would be reasonable to suppose that, like the overwhelming majority of the rest of us (and that includes the majority of the severely disabled), Charlie would prefer to live rather than die. How could it possibly be in his own best interests for him to be forced to die? What possibly has death to offer him?

The contexts in which “own best interests” is used show that it speaks the language of power. No doubt the psychiatrist who orders the use of electroconvulsive therapy on a sectioned patient consoles himself with the thought that he is acting in the patient’s own best interests, even though the patient regards the treatment with horror.

Malcolm Pittock

Bolton

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

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