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"

Isn't the reason this is back in court because the parents threatened GOSH with judicial review so GOSH had no choice but take it back to court?

I believe so. Plus they wanted to go into this whole question of 'new' evidence.

I have to step away from this case now and stop reading about it.

All I can think about is that poor baby, trapped in a living hell for at least another week and a half. It's barbaric.

Jux, I agree.

DailyMailReadersAreThick, I totally agree. xx

Deux I think the case is bigger than simply Charlie and his parents and there are a lot of policy issues flying around so it's probably a very good thing to bring it back to court.

I don't see how the judge can make a ruling which imposes the US approach in these situations on UK doctors for as long as we run two entirely different systems. The NHS cannot afford it, it's creaking as it is.

And then there's the issue of children being their own unique individual and not the property of the parents. This runs through the whole body of law relating to children but it seems that it needs re-inforcing big time. It's a very sound principle.

Anyone want a bit of light relief on how crazy parents can be when their adult child is in ICU? When DH was in ICU, FIL remarked to the nurse that he thought DH's ventilator 'sounded funny' and if she could get him a tool box he'd 'take a look'.

I think GOSH were bound by the court order to withdraw Charlie from the ventilator - so would have to go back to court anyway to overturn this before taking another course of action.
I think today was largely about process. I'm not sure it's a good idea that CY attend the meeting, but her counsel requested it and the judge agreed it, subject to there being independent chairman. The judge also made it very clear that he had gone out of his way to accommodate the parents' request in this respect, so if she acts up or leaves I am sure they will continue without her.
In reality, I think it will be an exceptionally difficult meeting for her to attend. I don't think there is going to be any good news coming out of it, and denying MRI scans etc. does not alter the data that GOSH already have.

Deux

My DS2 was delivered by CS at 31 weeks and was more unwell than his gestation alone suggested, so I have a tiny bit of personal experience of a baby whose life is hanging in the balance (for a few days - he did absolutely fine and is now 13 and almost 6ft tall) and if I never have to see the inside of a NICU again, it will be soon enough.
This case IS about whether parents always know what's best for their children or whether they are always able to make decisions in the child's best interests.

It is very obvious to me from my experiences that I cannot. So I think it is vitally important that the principle of children not being their parents property is maintained and protected. Society moved on from wives being their husbands' chattel, and the same principles must apply to children too - I think that is really important.
This legal case is not just about Charlie - it's outcome will have far reaching consequences.

The problem with giving the mother extraordinary allowances (such as attending the meeting) is that it seems to be pointless.
Anyone who doesn't agree with her delusions is, in her view, wrong.
If the American doctor decides that Charlie's case is too serious and decides to withhold treatment I could see her arguing that it's GOSH's fault.

She just won't accept the sad fact that her son is dying.

I think the Judge did the right thing by allowing the so called expert to come and testify. He's going to let the guy shoot himself in the foot.

You and 99% of people on this thread are forgetting that GOSH requested that this evidence to be put before a judge

I'm actually perfectly well aware of this thank you, but as others have said already, GOSH had little choice in the matter if they wished to avoid being sued ... something I'm surprised you didn't acknowledge to be honest

Some might think this a poor way to treat GOSH after the painstaking care they've given, and continue to give Charlie, but once again I appreciate that not everyone feels the same way

I don't think it was a fear of being sued Puzzled, because there just is no grounds for a claim, and GOSH will know that.

I have avoided these threads until now, not wanting to engage with the crazy I have seen elsewhere. But like others, I too have found them illuminating and sources of wise information.

It's a desperately sad situation, but thanks to wise posters, I have a better understanding of the step-by-step cover-every-base approach of the Judge.

I think the meeting is going to be very hard for CY but I was thinking that maybe it is a good thing that she attends and hears it all. Especially if the news and prognosis isn't good. This really is the last chance.

What concerns me most is that we don't create precedents so that those who shout loudest, can fund raise and get pro bono lawyers receive a different enhanced tier of treatment.

What concerns me most is that we don't create precedents so that those who shout loudest, can fund raise and get pro bono lawyers receive a different enhanced tier of treatment.

Quite.

Gosh were threatened with judicial review, they had no choice in going back to court.

Are some of CA sneaking on here?

To be very honest, no matter how frustrated I feel about this case and although I am failing to understand some of the decisions being made, I'm very very glad not to be in the shoes of Chris and Connie, the Judge in this case and most of all, Charlie. There is never going to be a happy ending to this story, however it plays out and the parents aren't going to ever accept the outcome. I can see a lot of litigation in future, and I can understand in a way why the Judge is taking a very slow and conservative approach to ensure that can't happen easily.

I hugged my grandchildren very tightly when they were here this afternoon.

Acrossthepond
That's one of the things that's concerning to me. These types of meetings talk about the patient in sometimes brutal and dehumanizing terms in order to get to the crux of the matter. If CY doesn't like what is said she'll be free to put her own 'spin' on them referring to Charlie as 'it', 'the subject', 'the patient', 'the patient's body' rather than 'Charlie', 'the baby', or 'the child'. The language is purely professional but if things don't go CY's way, it can be spun to make the team look uncaring and inhuman. As if they have no 'respect for human life' when the truth is that the quality of human life is their paramount concern.

I agree entirely. April Judgement included this telling passage:
1. There is an unfortunate email from Dr. B [GOSH Consultant paediatric intensivist] to Dr. E [Consultant paediatric neurologist, Newcastle] which included the words "parents are spanner in the works. Recent deterioration with worsening seizures means trial is not in his best interests". I can understand how distressing it must have been for the parents to read this email when they were later shown the hospital records. However, in my judgment, it is important to view this comment in its proper context. The context was private notes passing between two eminent consultants about what was in Charlie's best interests.

Private note, that had obviously been part of the 1,000’s of pages of notes recorded as being supplied to the family. I feel they are requesting copies of everything and I'm sure Connie has pored over every single word.

On a separate note, BBC reports that Italian specialist will also be at the meeting, I expect there will be other clinical experts there too.

Charlie and all his latest results etc will be examined in person by some of the most eminent specialists in the world, who will then have a face to face cse conference. Connie will hear things she won'tnlike. It's the nature of these things.

Whatever the outcome when it all goes back to court I have total confidence that Mr Justice Francis will make the best decision for Charlie, whatever that turns out to be.

Deux if we are still allowed light relief, that did make me laugh. Get yer spanner out and sort that ventilator.

What happens if the visiting docs say they think they can help? How long would the 'treatment' last? If it's medicine can it not be given in GOSH without going to USA?

The Judicial review stuff was mentioned in court.

I would imagine the meeting would be very overwhelming. It's a medical meeting so the doctors - rightly so - won't be taking time to explain things like they do in a meeting with parents. Although I can understand why she wants to be there I am not sure whether sitting for hours on end listening to complex clinical discussions is going to help her.

Much as Connie has done some pretty objectionable things recently, the thought of what she's going to suffer in that meeting is just, well, horrifying. What a torment to have to deal with both a child in this situation and the delusion that GOSH are trying to murder him. This seems to get sadder every day. I hope he passes quietly over the weekend.

jut saw the news as always very feww facts

just that usa doc on his way an italian one coming unleess hs still on th phone

dont know why that wasnt mentioned in court

didnt stat parents rfusing scans etc just said measurments still not taken

Yes surely the Italian doctor's mobile will be out of charge by now