Charlie gard case thread 2

[Fancythat69]

The last thread is full, Not sure if another has been started.

Theres a CA rally at GOSH planned for tomorrow. What are these people on?

It's definitely not that I don't want those questions to be asked, Psycho, but I can't see it doing any good. Connie will make answer of some sort, nobody's mind will be changed, and a bunch of idiots would start lobbying the presenter's boss to sack him/her. I'm not sure I could claim to be altruistic enough to ask those questions if it might cost me my job.

It's a godawful situation for GOSH. Fortunately what matters is what is decided in court, where they can make their own case. I don't see Mr Justice Francis making a ruling which isn't legally sound because of pressure from the peanut gallery.

@ShatnersWig

I was about to make the same point but you beat me to it....

It's just another way to fan the flames.

I listened to Connie on Today and she does come across as very reasonable and articulate.

The problem is her arguments only hold up if Charlie is not irreversibly brain damaged. She said she has seen no evidence of this.

However plenty of evidence was presented to the courts on this crucial matter and as pp's have said all interviews seen to shy away from challenging her "opinion" on this by balancing her testimony against the evidence already in the public domain.

Even if all the issues with a trans Atlantic flight could be over come, even if the nucleoside therapy did cross the blood brain barrier and had a positive effect on his condition, that damage would not be reversed.

I think, in their grief, they are unable to accept how profoundly ill he is, in ways this treatment cannot possibly address.

I'm sure they do see "signs" of responsiveness, because they are desperate to interpret any action by Charlie as being so. That very sadly doesn't make it true.

I know of one particular case (which I'm going to be purposefully vague about for obvious reasons) where the doctors and family were massively divided on a patient's care, and because of my own position at the time I knew what the hospital's view was as well as what the family were saying to social media and local journalists. The family were angry that the patient wasn't receiving X treatment, and seeing it as a case of neglect from cruel doctors and penny-pinching pen-pushers. Meanwhile, the hospital weren't giving X because that wasn't at all a treatment for the condition the patient actually had (which the family believed s/he didn't), and could well have been dangerous to them, and they were getting treated with something that actually was appropriate instead. But the family's voices were out there, and the hospital's weren't because of patient confidentiality.

I don't know how that one got to the place it did. I think the family were in a lot of denial and just angry with the hospital, so anything the doctors and nurses said that didn't agree with what they already thought, they just dismissed. I do think they believed what they were saying. But it was not true, not at all true, and it was so frustrating and terribly sad to see vitriol levelled at the medical staff for their 'terrible care'.

Maybe we need more awareness of this kind of divide, where there's confidentiality on one side and genuine denial/disbelief on the other. Comes up a lot in child protection cases too

The fact that it is virtually impossible for interviewers to challenge the parents - i would have no interest in seeing the mother collapse, cry or get into a barney- means that they should not have broadcast the interviews. I can see the temptation and as i posted before at least it proves where the parties are at in their thinking - but imo journalism is not about giving an unchallenged platform. I'm not a journalist though.

I honestly do see where you're coming from, WankYou and I realise you don't personally agree with the parents having all the rights, but it's where this concept could lead which worries me

After all, a judgement of "it's completely up to the parents" could also be made to apply to FGM, forced marriage, child sexual abuse and much, much more

Probably not the thread for that one, though ...

I agree @annandale however you could follow an interview with the parents with one by a doctor who explained how brain damage is assessed and the information presented to the courts on this case.

Quite simply to create a balanced view of the narrative, from which listeners could draw their own conclusions.

It doesn't have to mean an interviewer directly and aggressively questioning the parents.

why wouldnt the lawyrs have used every piece of evidence thy had to win a case

doesnt sound right

It's a good idea on the face of it, Darth, but no doubt the doctors feel their time is better spent elsewhere ... and after all, this kind of medical detail has already been presented by them at the previous hearings and no doubt will be again

She also said her lawyers where in possession of this evidence during the last trial but did not bring it forward

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought GOSH said they'd been approached by the "scientists" themselves, and only in the last few days? Surely it's unlikely that the parents' lawyers would have left out anything which might have helped their case, especially when they seem to have thrown just about everything else at it?

This circus is now like some kind of reverse variation of Munchausen by Proxy syndrome

I've had this thought too, but I hope that the parents are in denial rather than deliberately using Charlie for the attention.

darthMaiden I think I've agreed with every one of your posts on here, (you seem to be able to articulate what I think much better than me) and I agree with your comments regarding the interviews. There are ways to create a balanced story which is more truthful rather than just letting Connie have her say and then wrap it up and move onto the next story.

I can totally see why people believe her, she does seem very credible if you haven't read the court documents, been following this thread or getting accurate information elsewhere.

maud - the mother believes the child's brain damage can be repaired using this new treatment. How? She also said her lawyers where in possession of this evidence during the last trial but did not bring it forward.

See, this could have been gently ... explored by the interviewer. ''Why didn't the lawyer bring it forward?'' is hardly a grilling.

I hope this doesn't come across offensive, as it's really not intended to be so.

I find Connie's insistence that Charlie can do these things they say he can, to be a tragic and deeply sad example of what we all know to be true of many mothers.

A 4 month old baby makes an 'aah' sound when handed a rattle:
"Oh Look! He said Ta! He is such a clever baby saying thank you to his Mummy!"

Or when people anthropomorphise their pets.
"Oh you can tell he knows he's wrong, he looks so guilty" or,
"I knew the cat had been up to no good, she had that look on her face"

Humans interpret emotions and actions in the only way we know how.

I think Connie and Chris so desperately want to attribute every little unconscious action as 'progress', that they really can't see the reality in front of them anymore.

A muscle twitch becomes 'he's trying to move', flickering eyes become "he can see", placing a toy in his little hand becomes "he's holding it", and the swelling of his body as it fails, becomes "Look at how well he's growing".

It's absolutely tragic.

Is it possible that there are restrictions on the interviews - i.e. you can't ask us xyz or we won't talk to you?

Inthink the interviews have been carefully picked and also agreed only on the basis of what can and can't be asked. PR pastor twatface strikes again.

spot on logical-good post

I was just googling the case, and I asked earlier on the thread if further appeals would be allowed if today's (or Thursday's) decision went against the parents.

Well I came across this report on an Irish news website. It gave me all the information I was looking for, and seems to be quite impartial really. I hadn't realised that the case had already gone to the Supreme Court, or that the ECHR declined to take the case either. I didn't know that.

The current case is being taken because apparently new medical information has emerged and it needs to be adjudicated on. Well really that's great. The child has been given every opportunity in the courts now.

www.rte.ie/news/uk/2017/0710/889060-charlie-gard-court/

I see another fb group which is not supported by the family has been profiting.

Well that's one of the reasons I don't agree with it puzzled. But for better or for worse, there are people who accept that eg FGM shouldn't be allowed, but think a decision like this should rest with the parents. It's not an especially unusual viewpoint, is what I'm trying to say. The large majority of people think there should be a line drawn somewhere, safe to say, but there are philosophical disagreements about where it is.

But even assuming none of the legal team agree with the argument at all, I don't think it's surprising or negative that they were willing to voice it. You act on your client's instructions. It is not as though Connie and Chris couldn't represent themselves if they wanted, anyway. These arguments are going to be made to the court one way or another.

Gabs This is a common legal strategy in death penalty cases here in the US. Lawyers will have multiple grounds for appeal and they'll file and fight them one at a time through the appellate courts & the Supreme Court in order to prolong the life of their client. The average time from sentence to execution is, I believe, 15 years or so due to multiple appeals. Same thing in this case. The more separate appeals they file the longer Charlie will be kept alive.

I suspect the media would see a sensitive and accurate exploration of the medical issues as a turnoff to listeners/viewers.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with any of this. I think it's a travesty. I would rather the media has not given Connie a platform at all. But they will reason that 'it's news' and 'people are interested' and 'we're not trying to decide for people'. Coverage of scientific and medical issues in the media is shitty. This is just one more example of that. The way the autism/vaccines issue was reported is arguably a huge factor in the growth of unvaccinated children and the re-emergence of diseases which were close to being eradicated.

but theyd gone to the highest court before this new vidence came along there was nowehere left to go with it

its compltly differnt here

Also on the subject of the legal team, I think the parents have had more than one lot of legal reps already? That can sometimes be, erm, telling.

As someone who spent weeks in ICU with a relative who eventually had their life support switched off I just cannot get my ahead around the posting of a picture of a very ill Charlie on social media, and I cannot understand why his parents aren't spending every moment with him. That poor little boy deserves his privacy and dignity. I had to be forced out of the ward by doctors to eat and sleep as they were concerned about my own welfare - that's how caring the medical profession is. They should be with him and we should not be part of this.

This case is bringing back memories I have tried to bury and the coverage is making me feel ill - I've had to stop watching and listening. It must be even worse for other parents who have lost children or currently have children being treated at Gosh.

It's just awful.

The hearing is due to begin shortly.
I hope that whatever the outcome, should it be annouced today, that it's the absolute best for Charlie.

Haven't the "scientists" with the "new evidence" also said that's it's based on unpublished research?

Again I could well be wrong, but I thought a key point about publishing is that claims are then subject to "peer review" ... or in other words, become open for other experts to consider whether they're realistic or not?

So if this hasn't yet happened, doesn't that affect the credibility of the "evidence"?

I've been watching some very interesting videos from the Lily foundation of experts from Gosh talking about mitochondrial disorders. The Lily foundation support families with mitochondrial disorders and support research. I can pm the links to it if anyone's interested.