Charlie Gard 9

[muckypup73]

Hi guys new thread.

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"

Or it's just total manipulation.

Condemn the UK system to gain more support from the US.

It's cheeky as fuck if that's the case

UKIPPer trying to raise his own profile - he lost his deposit at the last election.

i cant believ thyve actually sai that aftr everything the judge said

sorry im qui8ckly losing sympathy

noone is holing him hostage-hes now bound by the uk courts not to leav so are thy saying the judge is holding him hostage aswell?

no other hospital will tak him in the uk so why dont they mention that aswll

i think its disgusting

From what I can see there are rumours that Charlie's guardian's barrister (Victoria Butler-Cole) has advocated for "Death with Dignity", a pro-euthanasia group, and CA supporters are saying it's a conflict of interest for her to represent Charlie.

I'd be surprised if that is what pro-life woman was tweeting about, as it's never been any secret and indeed CA types were commenting on it in their responses to Joshua Rosenberg's tweets. She isn't the guardian, and the fact that you advocate dignity for people who are dying does not mean you advocate death. In any event, barristers are supposed to be able to advocate for causes which are contrary to their own personal belief, not least because basic principles of natural justice require that even the vilest individuals are entitled to legal representation when accused of crimes.

Once you get to a certain level of specialism money become pretty irrelevant. I have very wealthy relatives with two rare conditions within their family and they are NHS all the way. Of course, having money makes it easier to be away from home, living at the hospital and able to adapt their home accordingly or pay for respite care, but the actual treatment remains the same.

Although they got their way about Connie being at the meeting, they didn't get their way about the Chair. When their lawyer started objecting to that, the judge told him sharpish they didn't have the right of veto over that.

The chair needs to keep Connie firmly in her place.

on the subjct of the tweets i thought jims gave mor insight

e.g when judg sai connie is not as medically experiencd as the specialists that is a fact she cant be-joshua didnt tweet that part

The only spokes-person for the parents who matters is Mr Armstrong, their Barrister. No-one else is advocating for the parents in court.

Just to reiterate, the independent chair of the Experts' meeting on Monday will invite Connie to speak. It is not clear if she is attending without her barrister but that is a possibility. Her barrister did object to the way the expert meeting was to be handled and a compromise was reached but the judge was annoyed at the barrister's continued "spanners in the works".

Lots of American commentators do not understand our legal system. Additionally, the parents do not have an automatic right of appeal to the court of appeal. There may be no grounds for appeal. Highly likely in fact. In this jurustiction you are given to leave to appeal, it is not your right.

Having a trachy tube is much more comfortable than having an ET tube. Its much safer and easier to change in the event of a blockage of secretions. The ET tube will have to be changed every few weeks and that is something that is much more traumatic than changing a trachy tube. I will go and read the original judgement.

Yes Jim reported more details than Rozenberg.

Catherine Glenn Fosters news relates to the guardian.

I thought it was agreed there would be no lawyers at this meeting - it is purely for the medics (and Connie who is supposed to listen and shut up until she is invited to speak).

Whether she will manage this remains to be seen.

Catherine Glenn Foster has tweeted and the gist of it is that the media have been trying to dig up dirt on the Guardian. CA are gleeful. No idea how that would or could change anything about the case at all.

I may have missed this - Jim who?

Catherine Glenn Foster's tweet reminds me of Davina McCall telling viewers to tune in after the break for BIG BB revelations!

Yes as I said Sandthefloor a trachy has loads of benefits, however many of the benefits apply to conscious people and gives them a better quality of existence, it probably wouldn't change Charlie's life much, he wouldn't be able to sit up in a wheelchair and go out and enjoy the zoo with mobile kit for example

The guardian hasn't been named, I'm sure. So this may break confidentiality.

I think they will fast lose sympathy. CC appear to be extremely controlling. The nurses and doctors do not work for them. I think GOSH are having their efforts thrown in their face.

I find some of the messages on this thread very lacking in empathy.

I think talking of the parents being kept in their place and how what they say is disgusting are excessive.

Essentially the comment about the state is true, isn't it? Charlie's parents are being prevented from exercising the parental rights they would have in other circumstances to take him to a centre where they are prepared to see if they can treat him. Those are among the highest use of state powers to intervene between parent and child.

I will wait for the judgment to decide whether their comments are justified or not and whether they should have stayed in their place and not challenged the hospital.

Has the army ever mentioned rumours about the Guardian themself.

This really is grim. What on earth can they have dug up about the guardian?

The guardian hasn't been named, I'm sure. So this may break confidentiality

Are American sources bound by confidentiality ordered by a British court?

Where is the care for Charlie in this? It's all about placating the parents.

Essentially the comment about the state is true, isn't it? Charlie's parents are being prevented from exercising the parental rights they would have in other circumstances

What other circumstances?

I don't have rights over my children, I have responsibilities to them!
I don't have a right to decide not to feed them
I don't have a right to decide to have their faces tattooed
I don't have a right to sell them, to deprive them of healthcare, or to dictate that they have healthcare treatments that aren't medically appropriate

GOSH & the courts aren't taking away parents rights to do whatever they say they want to do to their children, because none of us have those rights to start with, rightly so!

Perhaps not exactly the same, but my DH has a rare cancer and the MDT meet weekly (I think!) to discuss his case and what to do next. He has never been invited to any of these meetings - it's what the hospital do! There's nothing we feel has been hidden from us. It's normal protocol.

I dont think legally American sites are.