THERE are times when there is a clear gulf between what is right and what is wrong; when it is easy to decide what should be done.

And there are times when it is impossible to weigh up the arguments and feel comfortable about the conclusions.

The tragedy unfolding around premature baby Charlotte Wyatt is a case in point.

On the one hand, we sympathise with the position of Charlotte's parents, committed Christians who believe that every effort must be made to help their daughter live as long as possible. How can that be wrong?

On the other, we support the view of the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust that 11-month-old Charlotte should not be resuscitated into a life of hopeless pain if she stops breathing, and that nature should be allowed to take its course.

We do not pretend to know the answer because the arguments on both sides are so strong.

The dilemma could not have been summed up better than in the words of the High Court judge who was burdened with making a judgement: "I am only too aware of my own limitations in making so momentous a decision."

In the end, he sided with the NHS Trust, concluding that further "aggressive" treatment was not in the interests of the child.

Whether we agree with his decision or not, Mr Justice Hedley is a man who deserves to be in our thoughts because he was faced with an unenviable task.

All anyone can do is pray that Charlotte is as comfortable as possible in the short time that she has left and that her parents are given every support in the heartbreaking days ahead.