Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Charlie Gard 7

999 replies

CaveMum · 13/07/2017 15:58

Continuation of the discussion.

It looks highly unlikely that there will be a verdict today as GOSH have not yet been able to put their case across. The Gard family had their position heard this morning and currently an expert witness from the US is being questioned via video link.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
nauticant · 13/07/2017 23:12

Having read the account of the NY expert's evidence I thought he was a decent expert witness. He made clear what information he'd accessed and what he'd not. He stated the limits of his knowledge. He took some care (not enough in my view but at least some) not to reach for conclusions beyond his knowledge. This is how an expert witness is supposed to act. The worst expert witnesses, and the ones most likely to contribute to miscarriages of justice, are those who head into court was an unshakeable sense of certainty and then make sure that their evidence does nothing to cause the court to doubt that sense of certainty.

I actually thought the day was helpful in saying to one side "give us the best you've got" and it clearly wasn't up to much. It was more helpful than the coming pointlessness of the court disappearing down the rabbit hole of phrenology.

Cinderllaspinkdresswasthebest · 13/07/2017 23:13

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/charlie-gard-army-high-court-medical-experts-great-ormond-street-hospital-murder-doctors-lying-a7840236.html

‘I don’t believe that Charlie is suffering, and if he is suffering, it’s better than being dead’

Word's fail me

nauticant · 13/07/2017 23:20

A reasonable article but without going into the sewer of CA online and the sheer hatred expressed and the many many threats of violence I think it's only a partial telling of the story.

MontyPythonsFlyingFuck · 13/07/2017 23:21

Re head scan - would the parents not have to consent for it? I know when I've had MRIs I've had to sign consent forms.

I agree, both that the judge is trying to reach Charlie's parents with logic, and that they are almost certainly unreachable. I want to cry when I think of them spending a night that may well be their last or almost their last with him. And I also want to cry when I think of him having another day of probable suffering ahead of him. I very much hope that he doesn't feel pain, and isn't it awful that the best you can wish a fellow human being is that they don't feel pain?

GriefLeavesItsMark · 13/07/2017 23:28

Writer83, good point, well made. Me, I've been spending far too much time on the CA Facebook page.

Sadly, when Charley dies, and his parents, who I genuinely feel sympathetic towards, really need support, CA (after some wailing and public grieving) will be nowhere to be seen.

GabsAlot · 13/07/2017 23:30

cindr just read that articl what a load of tosh

and all this loads of support there was harly anyone there

nocoolnamesleft · 13/07/2017 23:32

GabsALot

I'm honestly not sure. I wonder if the judge may end up asking an independent person to measure Charlie's head circumference, in the hope that it would help the parents feel that their specific concerns are being addressed. But that would just be one measurement, not a trend by that person, so probably limited help. With regards to scans, I know he must have had MRI in the past, as it has been mentioned in the previous judgement. It's a major undertaking...but if it has reached the point that GOS couldn't man age to do it if necessary, then the only reason would be that Charlie had deteriorated to a point of rather higher instability, with nature likely to take its course soon. But the question is more whether it would help the overall picture, which will partly depend on what timing there has been of previous scans, and exactly what they showed.

As ever, risk benefit ratios. I do not envy the judge.

I do hope that Charlie's parents did indeed manage to spend some time with him tonight.

NatashaGurdin · 13/07/2017 23:36

smilingmind

Maybe all the papers handed in were the Magna Carta. CA were sure it would swing the case in their favour.

What is this obsession with the Magna Carta as a cure all for all ills? I've just been arguing with someone on FB about the fact that the concept of 'Lawful Rebellion' does not exist and that only three clauses of the MC are still in use!

IfYouGoDownToTheWoodsToday · 13/07/2017 23:40

If this Dr is coming over from America, I'm sure the case won't be settled tomorrow.
It will go on into next week, surely?

Humptyfelldown · 13/07/2017 23:43

I'm confused - the expert witness claimed a neurologist would be best to examine Charlie, but he is a neurologist, and a pretty highly regarded one at that?

nocoolnamesleft · 13/07/2017 23:48

I'm confused - the expert witness claimed a neurologist would be best to examine Charlie, but he is a neurologist, and a pretty highly regarded one at that?

Not necessarily. I believe his declared area of special interest is metabolic disease, with specific interest in mitochondrial disease. Some people who have an interest in that area started out as paediatric neurologists (such, I believe, as the Newcastle specialist that GOSH consulted). Others may have started as hepatology (liver) experts, as that is a majorly affected organ. The metabolic unit in Manchester always used to be run together with the endocrinology (hormone) team. Different routes into what, internationally, is a pretty new subspecialisation.

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 13/07/2017 23:52

He was suggesting a specialist paediatric neurologist to examine him I think. He may be specialist but not specialist enough.

Even then any examination still might not show whether the damage is structural or not.

Humptyfelldown · 13/07/2017 23:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Humptyfelldown · 13/07/2017 23:54

Aah thanks rafals that makes sense, paediatrics isn't mentioned on his expertise list.

rabbitnothare · 13/07/2017 23:59

Sorry if I am being a pain and this has been clarified but the professor speaking today, was he the one who offered to treat Charlie free of charge?

nocoolnamesleft · 14/07/2017 00:02

Of course, GOSH does have a rather respected team of paediatric neurologists, including two professors...

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 14/07/2017 00:03

He is pretty well qualified. He seems to have got a fairly rough ride on this thread given how well he is generally regarded.

FlowerSour · 14/07/2017 00:12

It may be the doctor is a specialist in mito cases but likes to have the brain diagnostics from a paediatric neurologist. Doctors work together- they specialist in certain areas and build on each other's work. It doesn't mean that he's not qualified, just that in that particular area he's not so confident and would rather have someone else assist. Once the other neurologist had ascertained brian prognosis, he can then link this to own conclusions concerning mito.

And also he doesn't want to be seen as a fraud or an idiot if he can't help. He's not a quack doctor, but if he tries to help Charlie and can't he could be considered one. You've all seen the conclusions Charlie's Army come too!

The mito specialist has a reputation to uphold. I don't blame him for being hesitant in a case where the patient has not even been seen.

LeMesmer · 14/07/2017 00:12

I think the judge is doing everything he can to ensure that every possible avenue of treatment is explored for Charlie. It may not be the same in other cases, but in this case the parents have asked for it, as they have the right to do, and so it is being done. It doesn't really matter in a sense what the American doctor is an expert in Charlie's parents have presented him as an expert expert witness so he must be be heard.

GinSoakedTwitchyPony · 14/07/2017 00:13

This seems like a good opportunity to ask something that I've wondered about for quite some time.
Is it true that there's a difference in usage of the title professor between the US and the UK?

rabbitnothare · 14/07/2017 00:16

I was just wondering as if he is the same one, I don't understand why he agreed to treat him without even seeing his medical records or meeting him.

MontyPythonsFlyingFuck · 14/07/2017 00:30

I'm fairly surprised that the parents haven't asked the NY doctor to examine Charlie in person. They do have £1.3m sitting in a GoFundMe account which is to be used for Charlie's benefit: I would have thought this was exactly the sort of thing they could have set up ahead of today's hearing.

And yes, they themselves are probably too wrung-out to even think about it, but surely someone on their legal team could have sorted it out?

BubblesBuddy · 14/07/2017 00:47

Because he is only talking about research that has been used on mice. No child with exactly the same condition as Charlie has been treated. Children have been treated but they do not have identical conditions. It seems odd to me that he hadn't read the judgements, visited Charlie or read his notes. It seems that until very recently he had not analysed all the outcomes and his findings and decided the therapy could have limited benefit to Charlie. Last May (I think) he held a different opinion and had stated that to the court. I may be wrong but I think this was said in court today.

Much earlier a poster felt Charlie's interests had been forgotten in court. If you look at Joshua Rosenberg's twitter feed, the Judge has been at pains to say that the case is about Charlie. No-one else. Charlie also has a Guardian with a barrister appointed to speak for him and promote his rights. In Court, parents do not have all the rights because Charlie is a human being too, and separate from his parents. It will be interesting to see what happens regarding the American expert. Is he coming over to GOSH right now? At times he seemed cautious about his therapy and seeing Charlie. He is also not to be named by the press or where he works. How are people checking his qualifications?

rabbitnothare · 14/07/2017 00:51

If you put a few key words in to google, I think it's reasonably easy to find him.

I think I have found him and if I am correct, he is indeed highly qualified.

That's why I am so confused that he offered to treat him for free but without what I would consider the basics of visiting him and seeing his medical notes.

What do I know though? I am very thick compared to him so am not making a judgement more trying to understand.

BubblesBuddy · 14/07/2017 01:07

I think GOSH barrister questioned him on this though. Correctly.

Everyone - don't name him!

I think he has talked about his results in mice. Charlie would be the first human being with his specific condition to receive the treatment. The American Dr has changed his position since the first hearing in May and has been questioned on this change of evidence especially as no visit or reading of notes has taken place. He hasn't even read the detailed court case ruling. It will be interesting to see what happens if and when he sees Charlie and the evidence and notes at GOSH. I cannot see the judge being impressed with an expert witness who has not treated an identical case and has never seen the patient. He is bending over backwards in asking him to come here and put that right. I agree it is utterly bizarre he has not already been prior to the hearing and come into court in person. It seems like remote theory and a slim hope of a tiny improvement that in reality is still not going to help.

Swipe left for the next trending thread