Archie Battersbee case

[whynotwhatknot]

I was just wondering why we're not allowed to post about this case-the deletion message mentioned it was ongoing so wouldnt be fair to the family

Charlie gards case was on going and there was numerous threads about it

Anyway if this stands maybe we can discuss

She's saying a planned death is another name for euthanasia and it's not in his best interests to die

Absolutely heartbreaking, especially for his mum who witnessed his accident/incident. The trauma is unimaginable, for a mother to find her 12 year old child like this, she must be broken. I am unsurprised that she’s so adamant she doesn’t want to let him go given the circumstances of how Archie sustained the injury.

The judgement was kind and reflected a loved young man who was full of life. It was harrowing to read though.

They were always going to appeal. They've been driven to delusion by a mixture of trauma, religious experts, and media frenzy. Everyone else - including the person they claim to be doing this for - is collateral damage.

Very well written thoughtful and eloquent judgement.
Mind blowing that they will continue to appeal?
Do the family read the judgements? Do they even understand them? It seems so black and white and indisputable to me when I read it.
God, I feel so overwhelmingly sorry for the PICU nurses and doctors, I hope they have all been offered support/ counselling as it must be incredibly upsetting

It's tragic because now his life support will be turned off and all these gifts and cards are going to continue arriving for a dead child that both the mum and all the staff will have to see. I imagine the Facebook group will also be a source of pain now as it's mostly people going, "what happened???" and not bothering to look at the news. No doubt they're waiting for another update of next steps. It seems a lot more garish now as there's no official update and some posts have had comments turned off by Admins.

Coincidentally, I believe this is also the point where other 'Army's' went even more over the top and intense, although there doesn't seem to be the same level of intensity here as there was in the Facebook groups for Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard.

I just really hope the mum can accept and come to terms with the situation before they switch off life support. It'll be horrible if she spends her last moments with her son in denial and not being fully 'with' him. I guess what I really mean is that in Archie's last moments, I hope she can accept it for what it is and stop thinking the courts are trying to kill her son, because believing that there is more she can do to 'save' him will make the whole ordeal so much harder for her.

I can’t believe she’s appealing.

I think she’s doing it because she doesn’t want to look weak in front of her bizarre Army.

She’s banged on for so long that she will keep fighting and how Archie is still alive etc, that she is going to let her own pride stand in the way of what is right for Archie.

I had no doubt she would appeal, whether she will be given the right to appeal is another thing. Often they allow it so 'no stone is left unturned' but the gormless army is whipping her up
looking at the transcripts he is very unstable, hourly blood tests and regular bolus fluid to try and maintain his BP plus all the other hormones he is receiving to try and maintain homeostasis. His chance of dying on the vent is high, but that would be due to overwhelming sepsis or no longer responding to the medications or of malnutrition. Much kinder to withdraw in a peaceful dignified way, without the tubes and wires, with his family around him and his mum cuddling him on the bed.

"This court has to ask itself whether continuation of ventilation in this case is in
Archie’s best interests. It is with the most profound regret, but on the most
compelling of evidence, that I am driven to conclude that it is not. Accordingly,
the Court cannot authorise or declare lawful the continuation of this present
treatment"

An excellent and deeply compassionate piece on the whole, but I'm confused about the last sentence which seems to this layperson to be a bit ambivalent

Is anyone who understands these things able to say what the difference is between "not declaring something lawful" and saying it has to stop?

I couldn't believe he requires hourly blood tests when I read the court report. It struck me how much of the detail of the report centred around the mother, how Archie felt responsible for looking after her. How he had 'ex girlfriends' really it seems a level of maturity behind his years was foisted on him (I had suspected this previously from his mother revealing that he'd been vaping and a few other things I've read along the way) and you wonder how much of that led to the actions he took that day.

My understanding is that where there is a dispute between a hospital and a patient or his/her representatives as to whether treatment should go ahead or cease, the hospital has to go to court and say that it wishes to do XYZ. In this case, the hospital has asked to be allowed to cease life support treatment. The court has said that it is not in Archie's best interests for the treatment to continue and essentially authorised the hospital to proceed in the way it wishes to do. It isn't telling them they have to stop, but telling them that stopping would be lawful. It gives them legal authority to proceed.

It struck me how much of the detail of the report centred around the mother, how Archie felt responsible for looking after her. How he had 'ex girlfriends' really it seems a level of maturity behind his years was foisted on him (I had suspected this previously from his mother revealing that he'd been vaping and a few other things I've read along the way) and you wonder how much of that led to the actions he took that day.
Awful to say it but I agree with you.

I have a friend who has a similar relationship with her son, it isn't healthy for him but she relies on him and tells him to much for his young years.

I cannot believe they are planning on appealing the judgement.

It is deplorable putting his dead body through the daily grind.

My 11 year old claims to have an ex girlfriend. The only difference between being boyfriend/girlfriend for them would be them saying to their friends "Lucy is my girlfriend" or "Jack is my boyfriend". It's all about role play at that age. My 9 year old has a "girlfriend". They make each other cards on valentines day. The vaping is odd for a 12 year old though.

All appeal grounds have been dismissed

I think Hayden J has refused permission to appeal his judgment. However the family get a second bite at the cherry and can ask the Court of Appeal for permission. I expect it will be rejected, but we aren’t at the end of the process just yet.

@Cantanka I think the judge will let them
Know on Monday but I can't see what human rights have been denied to Archie for the European court of human rights to intervene?

Presumably parents will argue right to life, in absence of brainstem death testing being capable of being carried out.

Absolutely this. And the resources that are being used in a futile case.

It isn't telling them they have to stop, but telling them that stopping would be lawful. It gives them legal authority to proceed

Ah, okay, that makes sense and thank you, rainbowmilk ... though whether the hospital will go ahead and risk the parents finding another justice who'll say they shouldn't have done it is beyond my amateur mind

TBH it's starting to look like them arguing for the sake of arguing now, perhaps the only blessing being that Archie isn't in a position to know or care

He has been having intermittent blood transfusions too. What an absolute waste of an already scarce resource.

Do we still have access to the European Courts, now that we are not a member of the EU? Not sure how it works.

Yes that's true

The European court of human rights we do, as that's nothing to do with the EU.

Imagine if your child was an inpatient at that hospital but had to be transferred out to another hospital because there was no picu bed. Looks like he's requiring 2:1 nursing at times. As a paediatric nurse that makes me very angry. He's long dead. Tragic but true.

Yes, we still have access to the ECHR (government is itching to remove that access though) as its not dependent on EU membership and GB was a founding member of the court post-WW2.

I don't think they'll be allowed leave to appeal though, as sad it is they would just be prolonging the inevitable and that they don't actually have any further grounds to appeal on.

That's not quite how it works. The family can't try and just get a different constitution of the same court as a 'do-over' in the hopes of getting a justice who is more sympathetic to them. The proper route is to appeal on the basis that this one got the law wrong. That's been rejected by this justice, so next step is Court of Appeal.