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"

The judge has just tipped the judicial wink at Armstrong to say "I know your client's game".

Gobbolinothewitchscat Yes indeed. Clever chap is HJFrancis

I am getting light relief from following CA too.

They think that the judge is very rude

Gard: it's agreed that experts' meeting will have independent chair who'll decide when Connie Yates can speak. On that basis, she can attend

Did MN send the Italian doctor a pizza or would that have been seen as bribery ?

I think previous posters are right; the Judge sees the parents for what they are trying to do and what they are likely to do if/when this doesn't ultimately go their way. I think he's trying to ameliorate that possibility as much as possible so that his ruling can stand for Charlie's sake.

We will see more of these desperate cases in the future now I predict.

smilingmind I'd like to know where he's gone!

Venusflytwat he's covering all bases and possibilities to ensure the best for Charlie.

Court rises for the day.

*Gard: case adjourned for the day.

i must remmbr all this if i ever en up in court

keep stalling till you get your own way

So it will reconvene on 24th following the review on Monday/Tues and experts meetings?

I loathe the 'I know everything about my child's illness' argument.

There's a reason doctors go to medical school, train, then specialise. There's a reason we don't have them skip all that and just go straight to studying the one particular thing they plan to focus on. This is especially true of doctors who focus on one very particular disease/illness. You can know absolutely everything about say, a very rare type of cancer, but that's completely useless if you don't also know a hell of a lot more than that. Congratulations, you can write a Wikipedia article on such and such illness. Doesn't mean you're in any position to know how to treat it.

I think I've missed a few pages but I'm trying to keep up.

I see that Charlie's parents have refused an MRI. I do find this confusing because personally I would want answers and that would maybe be able to give some.

However, if they know it's going to prove them wrong, and in turn their baby's life will be ended against their will and on someone else's terms, I can see why they would say no to it.

These are people desperate to keep their child alive. Whilst it may be kinder to let Charlie slip away, put yourself in their position. If there was even a tiny tiny glimmer of hope for my son I would find it incredibly difficult to give up as such and let him go. I would want to do all I possibly could for him and if it meant fighting with every hospital in the land I think I would do it. Obviously I can see now, because I am not in that situation, thankfully, that that may not be the correct course of action and that I would be doing that selfishly. To keep my baby alive with me. For me essentially.

Whilst they may be able to look back in 20 years time and think, we maybe should have acted differently I'm not sure they can think like that now. I don't think I would be able to.

They just want to keep their baby alive. I can understand why they are doing this.

For me, it is the fact that I wouldn't have the choice. That I was being forced to end my child's life. Forced to give up on him.

I do understand that as parents you don't own your children, And I do truly believe GOSH only want the best for Charlie, but I do find it hard to accept that a hospital have a greater power over someone's life than their closest family. Obviously I think it's right they advise and say look we think this is the best course of action because of x y and z but if a parent is totally against it and has the means for another treatment elsewhere (which the parents do in this scenario) why they are allowrd to say no to it?

I understand that if they give the parents the final say they could end up setting a dangerous precedent but I can't help but think they should have a bit more of a say than they seem to have now.

I did read the blood transfusions comment. Whilst I don't agree with people stopping their children having blood transfusions due to religion I'm not sure whether I feel like it's right to force them to do it. Obviously I feel anyone's life should be saved but is it any different to a dnr - I know you can put one on yourself can you do this to your child?

I still feel extremely torn.

I don't think she should be in the meeting tbh and I'm surprised that has been agreed. Perhaps watch from another room and go in at the end to speak. I hope she is removed if she interrupts the proceedings. That does seem unfair on the clinicians.

I am getting light relief from following CA too.

They think that the judge is very rude

And they're not?

So the plan for the way ahead: 1/2 1) Clinicians meeting, chaired, which parents can attend Monday or Tuesday next week.

2) Directions hearing next Friday at RCJ. Brief and mainly for the lawyers. 3) Case to be heard in full 24/25th July. 2/2

Thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion as the case has gone on. Very intelligent and compassionate discussion.

sorry phonix cant agree

thyvha too much say

no scan no eeg no nothing all to prove some made up point that he hasnt got brain damage

I must say I'm also not extremely fond of the posts about .CA providing light relief. These are people who want to help Charlie, and whilst it may not be in the right way, or a way that we agree with I don't think anyone should sink to the level at laughing at them for their views

Just to note this works both ways and I don't support their posts which include threats, violence or slander either.

The focus should be Charlie not hating the "other side"

So what are they actually hearing on 25th/26th that's going to take 2 days?

Am now enjoying pronouncing GOSH gauche in my head at all times.

A summary of the experts meeting, the visit from the NY expert and his opinion too I would imagine Ellie

Sorry gabs can't agree with what? I waffled a lot!

I don't think she should be at the meeting, they can be so very disruptive when they don't hear what they want to hear, or if they believe they are not being listened to.