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
LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 11:06

Judge: I will hear the evidence by video link at 1400. It seems unlikely I will reach a decision today.

Sluttybartfast · 13/07/2017 11:06

I think it's normal and expected for there to be video or in-person evidence on top of written evidence. The judge, and possibly the two lawyers, would wish to question people to further their understanding of the written evidence. Mr Justice Francis said on Monday he would hear evidence all day Thursday and into Friday if needed.

I'm not sure whether to feel sorry for or annoyed at Armstrong. If the case the parents are putting is as thin as it appears to be, he doesn't have much to work with. But is he seriously arguing that everyone at GOSH, and other doctors they have consulted, have misread Charlie's MRIs and EEGs? And trying to tell the judge he's wrong about whether he can re-open issues?

Sirzy · 13/07/2017 11:07

Surely different perspectives on existing evidence would simply be people's opinions not facts?

muckypup73 · 13/07/2017 11:07

Awwww no, hes not giving aruling today, this could go on for ages.

ShatnersWig · 13/07/2017 11:07

I think M'Lud is doing the right thing. He wants to question a witness, in effect. Get stuff in the open. Then when he rules, there is a clear throughline of why.

Laiste · 13/07/2017 11:07

Blimey if they're going to even argue the definition of 'old' and 'new' this is going to go on and on and on.

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 11:08

Judge: quick decision must not be at the expense of fairness. If we need more court time we shall have to find it.

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 11:08

poor baby this will drag on again

muckypup73 · 13/07/2017 11:08

Well if Gosh said pink unicorns were real the family would argue against it.

smilingmind · 13/07/2017 11:09

Couldn't error in perception of mri, eeg evidence mean error in how parents perceived it?

DonutCone · 13/07/2017 11:09

Ummm Mucky, I think we'd all argue against that!

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 11:09

Judge: parents must understand that I set out the law as decided by other courts. That was upheld on appeal.

muckypup73 · 13/07/2017 11:10

smilingmind, thats the way I took it, after all they did not tell the American proffesional exactly how bad Charlie was.

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 11:10

Judge: where parents and hospitals don’t agree in cases like this they must apply to the court to decide. I can’t go behind that principle.

nauticant · 13/07/2017 11:10

nauticant, surely it should have been done before now though? as the judge wanted the evidence by yesterday, why do they keep taking the piss?

Because there has been very little time available. Providing a medical opinion in this area is very complicated indeed. Preparing a full witness statement to get to the court yesterday could well have been a far more cumbersome way of presenting evidence based on a case with so many uncertainties in it than giving direct live witness evidence.

BoreOfWhabylon · 13/07/2017 11:11

I'm a bit in love with Judge F. Such clarity of thought as well as compassion.

muckypup73 · 13/07/2017 11:11

Thanks for the tweets.

Laiste · 13/07/2017 11:11

They'll be no decision today then. As much as we all want a quick decision, he's right to take as much time as he needs to be seen to cover everything carefully.

Babieseverywhere · 13/07/2017 11:11

Surely the brain damage element is the only thing that needs addressing.

As the last ruling said due to his brain damage, there would be no benefit to the treatment.

Surely there is no point discussing how great the treatment would be, when a brain damaged child will gain no benefit from it.

Or does this treatment claim to reduce brain damage?

Ceto · 13/07/2017 11:12

It's not just GOSH's interpretation of scan results that they're disputing, is it? They must also be saying that the experts in Newcastle and Spain were wrong also - and indeed also Dr I, the US doctor who changed his mind about how effective the treatment could be after seeing the scans.

pasanda · 13/07/2017 11:12

babies - I agree. As far as I know, this treatment is not supposed to reduce brain damage

Sluttybartfast · 13/07/2017 11:13

I'm a bit in love with Judge F. Such clarity of thought as well as compassion.

Me too. He's so utterly unintimidated by the shitstorm whipped up and so simultaneously empathetic but questioning and clear-thinking about the case.

TheWeeWitch · 13/07/2017 11:13

I'm sure Connie has said in interviews that they believe the treatment can repair some of the brain damage.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 13/07/2017 11:13

So as I expected it looks as if the family have found (paid?) somebody else who'll claim to have "new evidence"

Trouble is, there's probably no limit to the number of "experts" out there who'll say the same in order to drag this out and out

I wonder just how long it will be allowed to carry on, leaving little Charlie in his horrible limbo Sad

LapinR0se · 13/07/2017 11:13

Armstrong turns to the evidence filed this week. Refers to a letter of 6 July to GOSH from a hospital in Rome.