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

Of course, did I say conversation should be banned? Have I reported the thread? No. But as part of this ‘discussion’ I am weighing in to say comments here are very unkind.

Goodness, if you think this thread is unkind you clearly haven't seen some of the other threads about this on social media.

Nor do I want to.

Endlessly pick crap men? Tons of sympathy on here. Struggle switching off your 12 year old’s life support machine after he hanged himself? You should get a grip and do it.

ive made my opinion clear without using phrases like ‘leaving her son to rot’.

You seem to be ignoring replies to your post @whynotwhatknot

Posted in more detail before, but...

• most people are not critical of Hollie, understanding she's in a terrible situation
• the thread is critical of groups like the CLC, charlatan "experts" like their US doctor, and the strangers who are enabling her
• the family have spread a lot of misinfo, including that the judge is a murderer, the hospital are trying to kill archie (including by starving him), and this is because they want to "harvest" his organs
• they are saying one thing on social media (he will recover) and another in court (they understand no prospect of recovery. This is problematic as they are getting a lot of money from donations which they say will be used for future medical care and rehab.

@Quia, but MN often deletes threads that aren't in the spirit of the site, so what happens across SM is irrelevant.

Some posters have treated this like a soap opera, which is always a danger. Hollie has been vilified, yet we know that Archie isn't in distress, unlike Alfie Evens, Charlie Gard etc. We need to remind ourselves that these are real people. As much as I think that Archie died in May, I can understand why she wants him 'there', in a warm body to still hug, wash etc. I don't think that the consultants at the start handled this properly and lessons should be learnt.

"they are saying one thing on social media (he will recover) and another in court (they understand no prospect of recovery."

But then so did the doctors, they didn't help by putting 'unlikely to recover' in the Court papers. Hollie can't control the wider family, but on every television interview she's praised the Nurses. In terms of the gastro team, the service in most hospitals is poor, but there should be someone liaising between the various teams and Hollie.

If you read the most recent court documents, it is clear that there is no prospect of recovery, and the "unlikely to recover" statement refers to idea that there was a miniscle chance he could persist in a PVS. The family have said they agree and understand this.

It's therefore incredibly disengeous to talk on their facebook group about him "waking up", needing rehab etc, when they know this isn't possible, but that people are donating based on this mistaken belief.

We'll never know if anything could have prevented this happening, including behaviour of consultants, but this is sadly not uncommon, and most parents don't respond like this when doctors recommend withdrawal of life support.

In what way did the consultants handle this badly?

I have read the court judgements but didn't see anything to suggest this?

'But then so did the doctors, they didn't help by putting 'unlikely to recover' in the Court papers.'

That's just how doctors talk, they never talk in absolutes. The family think this is some kind of ground breaking 'gotcha' - it isn't and it isn't going to win their case for them.

That court report is sobering reading.

Imagine having to do a scan on a little boy who has passed away so you can give a post mortem report of what exactly is inevitably deteriorating while he is still warm and "breathing"?

The poor staff, that is just deeply unpleasant.

I feel really upset by that. The child is dead and his body is losing it's integrity. Once he is off the machine she will want to hold him, but if his insides are moving around, well, could it become a terrible last memory?

I can't believe this is still going on. It is not how I want society to treat the dead, not at all.

ok think ive been misquoted but anyway

its confusing putting a coma like state into the report as people are cinvinced its just a coma and he'll wake up so i get now why they think that

There are so many people who have had to make very similar decisions in relation to people they love. The very fact that this case is so unusual demonstrates that the vast majority are able to take that decision without requiring it to go through the court system, let alone setting up Facebook pages and asking for funding. Indeed a substantial proportion of those posting on this and other pages have specifically had to take similar decisions - in my case, only a year ago. So telling them to get a grip is singularly inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal say they will give judgment on Monday morning.

They have asked about the possibility of substituting their own decision if they were to allow the appeal. Family opposes that on the basis that oral evidence was given at the last hearing by the parents and a doctor and the CA hasn't had the benefit of hearing that. However, the doctor's evidence seems to have been what was already in a report.

The lead judge seems more troubled about Devereux's submissions, but has made the point that this is a very unusual case in that it is not just a case of breathing being supported, but every single bodily function.

They have asked about the possibility of substituting their own decision if they were to allow the appeal

Sorry to sound dense and it is Friday night here and I’m having a glass of wine 🍷- but what does that mean?

You’ve summed it up perfectly. Exactly how I feel ☹️

I know what you’re talking about but I find underneath the breathtaking brutality towards his family there’s a genuine sympathy for Archie.

Where an appellate court allows an appeal, they often remit it back to the lower court for a fresh hearing. That’s what happened in this case - the appeal against Arbuthnot J’s decision was upheld, and the court of appeal sent it back to the high court for a fresh decision. That ended up being Hayden J’s decision, which is now being appealed.

However an appellate court can substitute its own view for that of the lower court rather than send it back for a fresh hearing.

So here, the court of appeal could say that Hayden J’s analysis was wrong and uphold the appeal, but they have come to their own conclusion that Archie’s life support should be switched off and therefore there will be no further hearing.

(Technically they could also substitute their view that treatment should be continued, but I would be surprised)

It would be a way of bringing it to a conclusion on Monday even if they think there were errors in Hayden J’s judgment. They can say yes he didn’t take this and that into account when he should have done but nonetheless our view is that it is in his best interests to have treatment withdrawn.

That’s very clear, thanks.

The family seems to have put forward a third possibility at the last hearing, namely keeping the ventilator going but stopping the vasopressin. That seems to be the main issue that the doctor's oral evidence dealt with, and he said that Archie would go downhill and die quickly and, I think, chaotically. Initially the appeal judges took the line that there was no point in bothering about the doctor's evidence in that case, because he was dealing with a possibility that no-one was pursuing.

Initially their lawyer seemed to accept that, but when he came back to respond to the others he said that no, that was still on the table. You have to wonder whether the reasoning was to put the CA off from making their own decision and pushing them to remit back for a third hearing from which, no doubt, there would be yet another appeal.

Yes it definitely was to try to get it remitted. Hopefully it won’t work - McFarlane LJ was pretty sceptical if that was even something the court could entertain as it wasn’t part of the hospital’s application. I think he also said the court would have to consider the viability of that suggestion as part of the decision to remit or not.

I am hopeful the court of appeal will substitute if the appeal succeeds. A third hearing on the same thing, and undoubtedly another attempt at appeal thereafter, is just ridiculous.

Sorry if I’m being a bit dim, but what does the vasopressin do?

It helps regulate the amount of urine he produces. He has diabetes insipidus, so is producing huge amounts of urine.

Surely the piecemeal withdrawal of some treatments, whilst continuing with others, will create a chaotic and unpredictable end for Archie?