Charlie Gard 8

[cjt110]

New thread so that we can await this afternoon's hearing at 1400 (UK time)

Let's try to keep this one as sensible and measured as the past 7 threads have been.

Please note the MNHQ comment on thread number 7.

"Hi everyone,

..... We had to remove several parent-blaming posts, so we'd like to ask folk not to do this. We think we can all agree that this is a truly awful time for all involved and we just wouldn't wish it on anyone. If there's anything we could do with more of, it's support. We'll continue to remove reported posts that break TGs (if we've missed something, do feel free to let us know).

If we have to make too many deletions, we will need to look at removing the thread; which is the last thing we wish to do.

Thanks all"

So the parents have refused to back down over the meeting issue. Nothing is going to be able to be mediated or agreed with them, their position is intractable. Wannabe I thought your post re ward of court the other day was harsh but now I agree with you, especially in light of them refusing to allow scans.

Imagine having to state in a court of law that a grown woman would behave properly in a meeting. That's exactly why the medical professionals don't want the family there ffs.

I feel the parents are so in denial about their son's condition and overwhelmed by the unfairness of it all that they want someone to blame.
They've decided that their son's deterioration was caused by the hospital and they are lashing out.

The sad thing is their boy is suffering as a result.

@JoshuaRozenberg**
11s
Armstrong: it would present a picture of unfairness if Connie Yates was excluded. She wants to ensure no false factual premises advanced.
Reply on TwitterRetweetLike
@SkyFixerJim
29s
Lawyer for Charlie's parents Connie and Chris is fighting hard for their inclusion in the whole of next weeks clinicians meeting.
Reply on TwitterRetweetLike
@JoshuaRozenberg*
1m
Armstrong: this may be the most critical meeting this case has ever had.

That is the million dollar question and the one that justice Francis is attempting to find some answer to at the moment, cjt.

cjt I really don't know. No one does. That's rally the issue here even the expert can say for sure and the improvement in patients with other strains has been slight (10% increase in muscle ).
So, on the one side you have an untested treatment with a very small chance of any kind of meaningful impact in halting the disease (but not curing his already damaged cells) and on the other is a child who is having multiple seizures, is blind and deaf and is though to be in pain. But his parents won't allow the diagnostic tests to prove what his current physical state is.

Armstrong: it would present a picture of unfairness if Connie Yates was excluded. She wants to ensure no false factual premises advanced.

Someone upthread mentioned Radio 4 'Thought For the Day'. It is really is worth listening. It's delivered by a Rabbi but imo as a lapsed catholic now atheist it makes no difference whether you are religious or not.

I think it really gets to the central issues. Only 3 minutes long

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p058n8mk

Even now the parents are accusing GOSH of lying. That's not on, it's disgusting and shame on the Judge if he allows this. How can she present medical facts? She is not a clinician, she's a parent. And she doesn't have an open mind.

sh wants to ensur no false facts?

so sh'll just shout out at everything like always

Thumping the table, he says he's anxious to make sure no "false factual premises are advanced during the meeting."

Judge: have the clinicians expressed a view on this? There are two competing principles and we are in new territory.

Totally agree, Shatners

Yes Lynn my DC had scans while ventilated and in ICU.

This is a fucking circus.
Those poor doctors.

Whaaaaaa?

Saying it would 'present a picture of unfairness' is almost saying let her in or we will whip up more drama about conspiracies etc to me. Maybe I'm being cynical after reading too much from CA.

Since Trump and Co stuck their oars in the risk o the mad pro lifers putting restrictions in against GOSH is high. Trump attacking them on twitter would lose them research opputnites due to people being scared of trump

I feel now that even the legal proceedings turned into a circus. This is awful. Poor Charlie.

With the best will in the world Connie cannot be guaranteed to remain calm and without emotion in the face of a range of doctors discussing with complete honesty the outlook for her son.
Completely ridiculous to even consider it

So basically it's just like CA. Her son is not dying and if he does the hospital will have killed him.

I am not a family law practitioner, but I suspect that the judge is weaving a course to make his final decision utterly unappealable and, to the extent that it can, give the parents closure.

If he made Charlie a ward of court, they would have the right to appeal that decision. We end up in even more litigation.

I suspect he will put his foot down on their attendance at the clinician's meeting. My guess is that he wants the US doctor to either (a) backtrack completely or (b) hold a position that is so untenable that he will be destroyed in cross examination.

As a barrister, I know that you want the expert to have as much info as possible. With her cross examination yesterday, Katie Gollop could not do much with a man who says "well, don't know for sure, but this has happened with other patients..."

What you want to be able to say is - you have seen X and Y scan. You have seen the child and how he is swollen and unresponsive. Do you now hold to the position that there is any doubt he is suffering from extensive brain damage?

The naming of the expert is deliberate. His reputation is on the line. I think Francis is gambling that he is not prepared to stake his reputation on this case.

they already disagee with gosh so whats the point of her being theer

Judge: medics must be able to speak without being interrupted. Armstrong: Connie happy provided she can listen and speak at the end.

Thank you muckypup.

I dread the CA backlash should that happen, or should Charlie pass away at GOSH even after a court decision.

It really is the ultimate no win situation isn't it.