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?

Daily mail are live outside the court now (on their Facebook)

I wonder why the sub judice rule does not apply to CG case?

Maybe someone with legal background might explain that this case is not covered for a variety of reasons. According to this publication, civil cases are covered.

Just wondering, and I am sure I will be put right by our legal Mnetters!

This is one of the reasons for contempt of court under sub judice rules....

"mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings"

www.out-law.com/page-9742

puzzled I'm sure I heard too that it's unpublished research. My first thought was also the lack of peer review.

Thinking about the Today interview a bit more deeply.

A key point Connie raised when asked about setting a precedent wrt parental rights, she said (and I paraphrase) that it wasn't true in this case, because it wasn't just the opinion of her and Chris, but medical teams in 2 different hospitals and specialists in nucleoside therapy who agreed with them.

Again taken on face value a very pertinent point to make.

However, it's not that clear cut at all.

The specialists signing the letter (to the best of my knowledge) did so specifically on the chances of the therapy's ability to pass through the blood brain barrier. They countered the previous evidence presented to the courts that this was not possible. They said it "might" be possible but was untested. They also did not make any statements about the effectiveness of the treatment in light of any brain damage he has already sustained.

So yes, they did support one aspect of the parents arguments but crucially did not support their assertions that this treatment would be beneficial in light of the wider implications of Charlie's current health.

This is again were there the statements/interviews being released are not giving a properly balanced view of the case in its totality.

What exactly are the parents hoping for?
They have contradicted themselves quite a few times in the past week alone. It has gone from pleading for Charlie to be allowed to die at home to him making a full recovery and living a normal life. But I heard the mother say she had this new evidence months ago. I would be delighted to hear there is a real chance of recovery.
But none of this adds up.

soda I have no legal background so take what I say with a pinch of salt but I think it's because this isn't a criminal case.

Is someone on standby to start a new thread? This one will run out soon and I'm sure people will want to discuss the outcome of the hearing.

@soda

Matters are considered to be sub judice once legal proceedings become active.
Criminal proceedings are deemed active once a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest has been issued, a summons has been issued or a person has been charged and remain active until conviction. Civil proceedings become active, in England, when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland, when the parties' pleadings have been finalised and the record is closed.

GinSoaked,

That's what I presumed initially, but the link I posted includes this re civil cases.....

"Matters are considered to be sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment') once legal proceedings become active.
Civil proceedings become active, in England, when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland, when the parties' pleadings have been finalised and the record is closed."

I could be missing some very important get out clause though. I don't know. Just throwing it out there.

I wonder how much time the parents are spending with Charlie.
It almost feels as if they're seeing him as a cause rather than a baby.

X post with @Quizteam

This is a good article from a paediatrician on the case. I can start a new thread if you like.

www.independent.co.uk/Voices/charlie-gard-gosh-great-ormond-street-hospital-life-support-pope-donald-trump-a7827276.html

Facing the death of your child is almost unthinkable but what makes me, dare I say it, angry about this whole case is that it's being used to "prove" that the NHS doesn't work.

GOSH is a world-leading children's hospital. One of the very best in the world. It makes me so angry to hear their careful and compassionate treatment of this rare and generally fatal genetic malfunction so disrespected.

I've donated because this whole case makes me fearful for the future of all the other children treated by GOSH.

New thread here

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2975888-Charlie-Gard-Case-3?watched=1

Thanks for that, Bleakley. I've spent decades under the impression it wasn't relevant in civil proceedings. .

Joshua rozenberg tweeting live from court

On the subject of parents / relatives 'knowing' their child. I have a neighbour who is adamant that after her brother died he pinched a nurse's bum.

She really believes it.

As for moving him, well everything meddie said but with the addition that this would be PICU/ITU which is another speciality.

If it was an adult then it's possible the medical staff who repatriated soldiers from Afghanistan and the planes used could be utilised (no idea who would pay) because he is so young it wold need a completely different team.

The best thing all round IMHO would be for the US Dr to get on a plane examine Charlie and then say, as he already has, that treatment is not suitable.

This who can't understand Connie's insistence that Charlies brain damage isn't as bad as you might think, is due to the EEG results. She said in a recent interview (itv last week) that a normal reading is 5 and above, and sometimes Charlie has been lower than 5 but it's also been as high as 8, which is comfortably in the normal range. This is part of her reason for believing he is not as bad as the majority on these MN threads suggest.

I also know people report the brain damage to be catastrophic but I haven't read any doctor from GOSH using the word catastrophic, they've said they think there's irreversible damage by haven't to my knowledge qualified it any further, other than being blind and deaf.

@Total

This is from GOSH's statement on Friday.

"Charlie’s condition is exceptionally rare, with catastrophic and irreversible brain damage."

Full link - www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/latest-statement-charlie-gard

Looks like the judge is going straight to the crux of the issue...

Join us on the new thread Darth

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2975888-Charlie-Gard-Case-3?msgid=70343809#70343809

Should someone not spam close this thread down what with the new thread.

due to the EEG results. She said in a recent interview (itv last week) that a normal reading is 5 and above, and sometimes Charlie has been lower than 5 but it's also been as high as 8, which is comfortably in the normal range. This is part of her reason for believing he is not as bad as the majority on these MN threads suggest.

Sounds like she doesn't understand EEGs.

A jelly will produce some reading. The ECG can also interfere with a EEG recording.

Flat lines only appear on TV/in film because the leads are not connected.

my limited understanding of this condition is the reason for Charlie being unable to breathe unaided is functional (mitochondria fuel the muscle cells needed to perform respiratory function) rather than brain stem issues, but am ready to be shot down and corrected on this point.

That's my understanding also, which is why I was baffled by his mother saying this morning that she didn't understand why Charlie is on a ventilator rather than having a tracheostomy, and if he's had a tracheostomy he could have been at home. Not only was it fully explained in the documents before the court, but the plain fact is that a tracheostomy can't work unless the muscles are drawing air in and out, surely?

Puzzled I read that the research hadn't been published or submitted to peer review.