Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Charlie Gard 6

999 replies

CaveMum · 13/07/2017 10:10

New thread so that we can await this morning's hearing.

Let's try to keep this one as sensible and measured as the past 5 threads have been.

Fingers crossed that this can all be resolved today and that Charlie and his parents can find peace.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 15:29

this is shocking

never seen him never read the last judgement?

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 15:30

1s

The witness is struggling. Charlie's family don't like this line of questioning. The judge has to ask them not to interrupt. #CharlieGard

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 15:30

Expert asked by Gollop QC why he didn’t ask to see judgment by the court delivered after he last gave evidence to Mr Justice Francis.

Laiste · 13/07/2017 15:30

Judge asks whether there would be any meaningful brain function after treatment. Expert says he can’t tell.

Expert crossed examined by GOSH: How confident are you that he doesn’t experience pain. Answer: I have no evidence he does.

So he can't tell if there would be meaningful brain function after treatment and he wont say he's confident that Charlie isn't in pain. No evidence either way.

This is meant to be convincing the judge to try the treatment?

cjt110 · 13/07/2017 15:30

Not read Charlie's info, nor the judge's previous decision.... Marvellous.

Ceto · 13/07/2017 15:31

CA seized on the statement in the GOSH position statement that Charlie was growing to mean that they must be lying about his skull circumference not growing. Do they not realise that if he is growing but his skull is not, that is a really worrying sign?

ShatnersWig · 13/07/2017 15:31

We're already approaching 900 messages - when we get to 950ish will someone please start a new one

Sluttybartfast · 13/07/2017 15:31

I don't think it's that unusual for a doctor to give a non-binding opinion based on clinical data. Nor will all the other specialists consulted by GOSH have physically seen Charlie.

I don't think this guy is right but let's examine his evidence on reasonable grounds.

HouseOfMouse · 13/07/2017 15:31

He hasn't requested medical records, has relied on summaries, and hasn't even read the April ruling (which is freely available on the internet). This is very feeble.

Yamayo · 13/07/2017 15:31

No wonder he wanted to stay anonymous

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 15:32

Gollop QC: you would need FDA authorisation to treat Charlie? Yes.

smilingmind · 13/07/2017 15:32

This doctor has said he has no financial interest in the case but realistically treating Charlie, whatever the outcome, won't do his research any harm.
I am just pointing this out and not saying this is his motive.

meddie · 13/07/2017 15:32

The NY expert would have a vested interest in this though. the ability to test this on an actual human subject.
Ultimately this comes down to Charlies interest and his alone and he has a right not to be treated as an experimental model just because he might not be feeling pain or experiencing anything.

ChocChipBitch · 13/07/2017 15:33

I cannot believe he hasn't read the decision from the last judgment. I can see why this has gone so far if this is the kind of unsubstantiated rubbish he has been feeding to the Gards. We are talking about an 11 month old child trapped in a world where they cannot communicate or even breathe. He are not a thing to be used in an experiment for a untested treatment with no proof of efficacy.

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 15:33

family dont like lin of quesitoning

thy want this prson as a witnss thy hav to let him be qustioned

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 15:33

NY expert: to obtain emergency FDA approval, you would need to assess his life expectancy at no more than 90 days.

Yamayo · 13/07/2017 15:35

Surely that is tricky- technically he is being kept alive as it is, how can you realistically assess his life expectancy?

Laiste · 13/07/2017 15:35

I don't understand what line of questioning the parents were expecting. Judge is only asking all the obvious ones.

jellypi3 · 13/07/2017 15:35

Does anyone else feel (from the limited feeling gained from Tweets) that this expert witness is being quite defensive?

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 15:36

Gollop QC: Why did Charlie live for longer than you expected in March? Expert: maybe care, maybe exceptional patient.

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 15:36

NY expert: I’m not licensed to practice in UK and felt uncomfortable about seeking permission to examine him at such an excellent hospital.

ShatnersWig · 13/07/2017 15:37

The Barmy don't like this questioning any more than the family. Apparently "that cow" is ignoring what the Judge said about only looking at new evidence and not going over past evidence.

Um - isn't this supposed to BE the new evidence?

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 15:37

this is hilarious

if its so exceellent why are you disagreeing with them

Laiste · 13/07/2017 15:37

At least the expert calls GOSH ''excellent''.

flatbreads · 13/07/2017 15:39

Am I the only one to feel a bit emotional that he at least called GOSH excellent? Thank god.