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"

Does Charlie have Grandparents, aunts / uncles? I wonder what their thoughts are, we don;t see them.

Maybe they thought he wouldn't be on it so long

But that doesn't make sense either. If a patient is admitted in pain, for however long that pain is expected to last (days, weeks or months) surely pain relief is administer wherever needed?

cjt thanks for posting those links. I hadn't read the Supreme Court judgement but it's very interesting. Point 18 says:

"are the best interests of Charlie necessarily always paramount? There is, says Mr. Gordon QC on behalf of the parents, another requirement in play, namely that such rights as they have under articles 2 and 8 (and, added Mr. Gordon, possibly also under 5)"

I assume it means the articles of the Human Rights Act but basically it means the basis of their appeal was to put forward that their rights (as parents) should be taken into account, not just Charlie's. This is really key. In U.K. Law we recognise the child as having separate rights to the parents and this appeal was a direct challenge of that.

I really feel for them as parents in this awful situation, but it is right that Charlie's welfare is the only consideration.

@SFJ #CharlieGard 's parents Connie and Chris take up their positions in court behind their barrister, Grant Armstrong.

I think grandparents stay with Charlie when his parents aren't there (I saw that in CA). I know of one Aunt (Laura) who is very active online.

Been lurking on these posts but just wanted to come on and say thank you for the updates. I read them regularly to keep up with it all.

Mumsnet at its absolute best. I don't think I've ever seen such an emotive topic discussed with respect and feeling like these have been.

Hoping for some resolution for Charlie. I'd hate to be in any position today, in all corners.

Ok, thanks Nerr.

Maybe over time they thought his pain got worse, I don't know. Sorry.

That link didn't work for me but this did:

news.sky.com/story/live-if-hes-still-fighting-were-still-fighting-say-charlie-gards-parents-10946729

If anyone wants to follow my posts for the tweets, somewhere you can change the colour of the OP's posts. Mine will then show in a colour of your choice to make it easier to spot.

BroomHandledMouser, it is good, its a very easy subject to get angry and upset about.

The GOSH statement and the various comments mad by the judge throughout this process make very clear that the law requires them to act in the best interests of Charlie, and that this is not necessarily aligned with what his parents want. I wonder whether they (the parents) think they can change this? Because I really don't think they can. And if that is the case, their legal team need to have been much more clear on this when speaking to their clients. It's desperately sad.
It's also the case that the parents' position has changed a lot since the original April hearing. (That is the one where it was reported that the parents' independent doctor has confirmed that he agreed with the GOSH doctors on Charlie's condition). I wish someone had been there to really guide them through the various bullshit medical claims because clearly the medical "evidence" is not as has been represented by the parents to the media.

anyon got th sky news link

Thanks Venus

news.sky.com/story/live-if-hes-still-fighting-were-still-fighting-say-charlie-gards-parents-10946729 gabs

To someone on previous threads - if you think a reporter has missed a major point in a crucial story you can go on the media website and complain. Or call the general line and ask to speak to the relevant person which could be the journo (if grievous) or to the news editor.

BORE - the US article is interesting but seems to ignore the fact Charlie is represented by an appointed guardian as in the USA. Maybe I misread?

CJT - useful timeline. So which hospital was he in before transfer to GOSH? I can see lawyers being consulted about the gap between September and March about going outside the UK for mito experts. The Lord help us.

millie I couldnt find that info

Charlie Gard: hearing resumes. Chris Gard and Connie Yates sitting behind their counsel, Grant Armstrong. Mr Justice Francis enters court

thanks all

i dont think hecan rule that parnts have the final say

would set a dangerous precedent

Thanks to those who linked GOSH's statement, very moving. I also didn't know that the parents had instructed their own expert who agreed with GOSH.

What I don't understand is why the NY expert was saying a specialist would need to assess Charlie, when at least 4 already have?

@JN Judge thanks Chris and Connie for the statement they made outside court. Apparently they condemned abuse of doctors.

@SFJ The judge arrives and the case gets underway. Judge says that the statement given outside court on behalf of the parents was very helpful.

I think originally they assumed his cognitive function was so minimal that he was unlikely to be able to experience pain. Normally I believe patients on life support are kept sedated to a level such that they couldn't feel pain but he was already believed to be in that state.
However, he has since deteriorated further, and ventilation and all the associated suctioning, respiratory physiology, repositioning to avoid sores etc carry their own discomforts. His cognitive function has not improved so I would imagine the low dose of morphine is a "just in case". If he can feel anything at all it would be pain. And his brain is so functionally damaged it would be near impossible to tell.

GabsAlot, that is what I have said, because if you get another sick child and their parents look into treatment abroad, you could end up with endless court cases.

Is the recent adminstering of morphone something to do with the parents' recent insistence that brain damage is nothing like as bad as GOSH had hitherto said it was? GOSH say they believe he is beyond experience, and in the April Court hearing the parents appeared to be in agreement.

Personally, I think they have realised that the US doc won't treat Charlie if the brain damage is too great and so they now vehemently deny it. GOSH, I suppose, are just hoping that acceding in small things will help lead to greater agreement in the end.

i dont gt that stitch-like you say 4 specialists have already seen him

what else can they say