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.

Original poster

Charlie Gard 8

999 replies

cjt110 · 14/07/2017 11:49

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"

OP posts:
Lightlovelife · 14/07/2017 16:28

I'd like to thank everyone too. One of the best series of threads I've seen on Mumsnet and very balanced for AIBU.

Lightlovelife · 14/07/2017 16:29

Yes, and the tweet updates very much appreciated.

phoenixtherabbit · 14/07/2017 16:29

gabs ah right, I can understand why. I do see it the other way too. It's easy to forget that such a young baby has his own rights if that makes sense. Because parents have the decision over nearly every other aspect of a babies life it's easy to believe that they would have a say over this too but I do understand why they cant/dont.

Kickhiminthenuts · 14/07/2017 16:30

maybeoneday
Flowers
I'm so sorry.

Original poster
cjt110 · 14/07/2017 16:30

Here's to next week and some clarity it may bring..

OP posts:
Nearly10to9 · 14/07/2017 16:30

i'm just looking at the FB page, and its scary how many of them think 'it should be the parents decision' re treatments etc. Dont listen to the drs who have trained for years, let every parent do what they think is right

ffs

straighttalker · 14/07/2017 16:31

The judge is really bending over backwards to be fair, isn't he.

I don't agree with CY attending the meeting, it will majorly inhibit the clinicians meeting. However, the ethicist was a good compromise - their function will be purely to follow the judge's orders and keeping CY quiet during the meeting, so that the doctors don't have to waste their time pandering to Connie and can just discuss the issues.

I've been enjoying the asides from Charlie's army - I think they do add comic relief, phoenix, and I do think they deserve to have the piss taken out of them. And it's not that I'm laughing at them for being uneducated or illiterate - it's for the fact that they are so blissfully ignorant, and happy to show it - they could have easily gone and read up about this case and improved their knowledge but didn't.

How can you not laugh at conversations like

  • "Why aren't they doing the MRI!! They're hiding something!"
  • "Connie didn't want the MRI."
  • "Oh, that's all right then hun. Mum knows best".
annandale · 14/07/2017 16:31

I wonder what happened in the morning meeting to result in all that discussion about who could be there and when they could speak.

Phoenix I profoundly disagree with the idea that the family should have the default right to say what happens. When a medical treatment is preposed, it is the doctors who have the professional responsibility to decide on whether that treatment can be offered. Even adults with capacity don't get to decide 'i should be on a ventilator' 'i should have an mri' because the doctors have the responsibility to understand the implications of what they are doing. IN PRACTICE patients and families are always part of the decision particularly when a treatment is NOT going to be offered. I doubt it was clinically critical for the baby to have an MRI in recent weeks so even if it might have been useful the medics perhaps thought it didn't offer enough benefit to overrule the parents' objections , if any. However, if the MRI had been essential the medics would have gone ahead anyway, or at least legally they can do so. That's the whole centre of the law on this. Medics cannot be forced by parents or any patient to give a treatment against their own ethical standards. When it comes to withdrawing treatment, patients can request this even if it is against medical advice.

Sostenueto · 14/07/2017 16:31

Now there might be a point. If the parents refuse new scan then expert can't make an informed assessment. So parents case thrown out, original order upheld.
But if the judge can force to get said scan, why hasn't he? Well he said he wouldn't order one because he was thinking of parents rights.
Now can the judge say he's covered all bases, let the parents have their way with scan which effectively stops their expert from proceeding, therefore throws case out?

DarthMaiden · 14/07/2017 16:31

Thanks @cjt110 for the updates

phoenixtherabbit · 14/07/2017 16:31

rabbit I can appreciate that you might find it mildly amusing but at the end of the day they are only people who want a baby to live, whether they express it well or not. Whether they're doing it for the right reasons or not and whether they're well informed or not. I find it difficult to find humour in it but obviously I can't and won't stop you doing it or posting it I'm just saying it makes me feel a little uncpmfortable.

SumThucker · 14/07/2017 16:32

Hopefully cjt110. Thanks for the updates.

rabbitnothare · 14/07/2017 16:32

Nearly10to9 I have just had a very abusive dm for merely liking a comment that someone else posted about not threatening GOSH.

Hence I find it easier to laugh at them.

goodbyestranger · 14/07/2017 16:33

Online yes actually I think that's a good point about the conduct of the parents.

Original poster
cjt110 · 14/07/2017 16:34

Lets not end this thread with arguments

OP posts:
Grammy78 · 14/07/2017 16:34

How come it's been said that Chris won't be at the meeting and only Connie?

Original poster
cjt110 · 14/07/2017 16:35

How come it's been said that Chris won't be at the meeting and only Connie? YY can someone confirm the reason for this please?

OP posts:
rabbitnothare · 14/07/2017 16:35

phoenixtherabbit I am afraid that I disagree, especially after they attacked the poster who asked if anyone would donate to Alfie's fund (the target is not reached).

I think that having followed their page since the beginning, most of them are unpleasant bullies who have no real concern for Charlie.

Sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable.

Any reason why you highlighted me to address it to rather than anyone else from the eight threads?

SerfTerf · 14/07/2017 16:35

I think she's calmer and he's more volatile (he storms out of court, for example, and she follows) and that's probably tacitly recognised.

GabsAlot · 14/07/2017 16:36

i doubt w'll know what happens in that meeting but i doubt connie will accept anything they say

is it barred from being put on social media by her?

goodbyestranger · 14/07/2017 16:36

phoenix this so called Charlie's Army is totally discredited and seems to have the dodgiest of motives underlying its professed aim. I welcome the light relief which others repeat on this thread, especially since I can't access it myself. Thanks rabbit.

Original poster
cjt110 · 14/07/2017 16:36

Thank you serf

OP posts:
Puzzledandpissedoff · 14/07/2017 16:36

I expect the thing about Chris not attending the experts' meeting is a ruse. Doubtless Connie will decide on the day that she has to have him there for support, then argue that since she's not able to attend alone the meeting should be postponed

rabbitnothare · 14/07/2017 16:37

cjt110, it seems to crop up that half way through every thread or so (and I have been on all of them having namechanged after linking my FB), someone comes on an announced how the thread should be run.

Ellie56 · 14/07/2017 16:37

Maybe the judge is thinking that if Connie is at the meeting she can't accuse anybody of lying/ conpiracy etc etc. Everything will be seen to be above board, so no room for any challenges later.

Crucially if the NY doctor backtracks and says the treatment won't be any good and agrees there is brain damage she will hear this first hand.

Hopefully they will ensure they have a very robust Chair who will be fully briefed and will not take any nonsense if she starts trying to disrupt the meeting..