Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Issues raised by the CG case 11

999 replies

Venusflytwat · 17/07/2017 18:30

This is a thread following the legal and ethical questions raised by the recent court case involving Charlie Gard.

Please could we refrain from insulting or otherwise "bashing" his parents. It isn't in the spirit of Mumsnet and will get the threads removed.

Please could we also remember that at the heart of this case is a terminally ill baby and his heartbroken parents. There are those participating in and watching this thread for whom these issues are painful. Please let's try and be mindful of them when we post. This isn't a place for name calling or trivialising the very real pain they feel. Many parents of severely disabled children are on here.

Lastly, here are some hopefully useful reference points of facts surrounding the case.

13 July GOSH position statement on latest hearing (includes update on Charlie's condition):
http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/file/23611/download?token=aTPZchww

7 July GOSH statement on Charlie:
http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/news/latest-press-releases/latest-statement-charlie-gard

June 2017 Supreme Court decision:

May 2017 Court of Appeal Decision:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/410.html

April 2017 High Court Decision:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/972.html

GOSH FAQ page on Charlie:
http://www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
friendlysnakehere · 19/07/2017 09:57

TinselTwins I want the poster who is studying psychology and social media to post again. She was really interesting and highlighted why it is so important to consider the impact of social media campaigns.

I think that she only posted a couple of times unfortunately.

0nline · 19/07/2017 09:58

the account that was first mentioned was definitely a parody one. I posted a screenshot.

I was looking at the second one. A blue ticked Congressman, with matching facebook. He exists and really is a congressman. Under his tweet/facebook post were irate Nebraskans wanting to know why he wanted to bring over a "hopeless case" (not my words) from another country shortly after voting to remove health insurance from millions of Americans.

So i think that one is real.

But I couldn't find a news story to confirm the vote. So no idea why the congressman posted what he did. Has he put up a correction, or further information ?

I did find something interesting (to me) on the Italian blue lit buildings front. Tiny little place up in the mountains with fuck off big castle. Deffo lit blue for Charlie rather than some other cause.

The councillor named as being one of the thrusts for the lights... is full on pro-CA. The mayor is several degrees of fervour behind her, but in the same vein. The political party is a tiny local one with no real info online. But seems to lean strongly left.

The interesting bit (to me) is the "in your face" Lefite Neo Religiosity of The Cause. The councillor in particular has never met a left leaning cause she didn't like. And once the bit is between the teeth posting on the subject becomes almost exclusive. Her feeds looks identical to the hardcore Catholic ones, except religious pics and quotes are substituted with Cause Memes and one sided opinion pieces in abundance.

It's just an idea I have been mulling for while, but I have had an sensation that in some circles on the left faith based positions are becoming favoured over evidenced information based ones. To what feels like quite an extreme degree. It's like a mirror image of the Conservative Christian is forming. And it's equally single minded and fixed in place with a mule like resistance to alternative perspectives, debate or dialectic. To the point where people who do not agree 100% are denounced as "heretics" rather than engaged with in discussion.

I don't know if I am reading too much into things. But some threads of thought seem to be converging and crystallising while watching the various aspects of communication and expression of opinion in this case. I am starting to believe it is possible that we are at the beginning of a period of human history where perhaps reason/shades of grey starts to become less socially acceptable , and ye olde unquestioning faith (in any ideology) is regaining ground as "right thinking".

It's not the most cheering mid-week thought I have ever had. With any luck I am dead wrong and reading far too much into far too little.

friendlysnakehere · 19/07/2017 10:01

Sorry 0nline, because you said it's not a parody, I thought you were replying to me.

Yes, a couple of the buildings were lit up for Charlie.
I felt really sorry for the Italian lady that was bullied on there and actually arranged the support at the leaning tower of Pizza when she was trying to explain that it wasn't lit up and the photo was taken from an internet trawl and claimed to be real.

She was so polite and confused.

muckypup73 · 19/07/2017 10:04

Feelingthestrain, why would you be flamed? I think your post is quite balanced.

TinselTwins · 19/07/2017 10:04

Couldn't agree more. Can't believe the glee people have in "proving" that things aren't being lit up for Charlie. Is it hurting you?
Autism awareness is personal to some posters

But regardless of that, did you miss that it was CA turning on other members of CA over that? It wasn't people from this thread it was their own members fighting over who

muckypup73 · 19/07/2017 10:09

Autism awareness is very close to my heart, especially as I have children on the spectrum.

friendlysnakehere · 19/07/2017 10:10

Me too, it's personal to me as I have a dd with autism.

Sandthefloor · 19/07/2017 10:12

I don't think his parents want to back down. In any case it's out of their hands now. There have been people on these threads stating that Charlie's parents don't care about him ( I did report that one) and that they are reveling in the media attention. Have you seen the haunted look in both their faces? Those are the comments that will wound them the most.

WeDoNotSow · 19/07/2017 10:12

People can disagree on this thread. People can say they find certain hints distasteful, and others can disagree.
However, no one is being blocked or banned from this discussion, unlike on CA, and therein lies the difference.
Also, people are horrified re: the blue for charlie.
It's not about whether it's 'hurting anyone', it's literally like watching a car crash, people are being shown proof, and they just don't care, and its horrific how people are continuing with their agenda, facts be damned.

Feelingthestrain · 19/07/2017 10:12

...because so far anyone who has suggested putting any limits on the thread has been accused of being too school marmy/ head girlish.
I would like to state that I do have very strong opinions on this case, and have first hand experience of the agony that C and C are going through, but I feel so strongly that the judge must be trusted to act in Charlie's best interest and opinions for and against treatment need to be balanced.

WeDoNotSow · 19/07/2017 10:13

I'd also argue that a mob mentality, where people cannot be reasoned with, and emotion is deemed more important that fact, has the potential to hurt very many people...

friendlysnakehere · 19/07/2017 10:14

Feelingthestrain, I think, what I object to, is posters who have not engaged with the discussion or offered opinion other than to sweep in and say that the thread should not run or it's 'distasteful'.

I find it very rude. It's completely different to saying that you have an opinion on treatment or how the social media campaign should be run.

muckypup73 · 19/07/2017 10:16

Feelingthestrain, I think most of us have said the judge will make the correct decision, I am sorry you have been through this, I also belive that most of us have a lot of sympathy for C&C&C as well as Gosh, if it helps some of us have been through something similar, we had the same with my brother, he died when he was 14, through those 14 years it turned my mother to the drink and my father severe depression, my brother was in a vegitive state for those 14 years.

friendlysnakehere · 19/07/2017 10:17

Connie is arguing with people on the online newspapers, I really think that these threads are a haven of reasoned discussion compared to what is being said directly to her there.

I hope that she steps away from it all.

TinselTwins · 19/07/2017 10:17

I don't think his parents want to back down.

Whether you want something or not is irrelevan if you have no choice! I don't think they have the option and space to back down IF they wanted to, because their whole "support system" has told them that fighting GOSH and not letting Charlie go equates with how much they love Charlie. Charlie may die even with treatment - can you imagine, if you've been told over and over again that he is alive because you love him, how damaging that'll be for them

One of the american fanatics who has been in personal contact with CY has said on an interview "I said to Connie, you know that you're not just fighting for Charlie right? you're fighting for the lives of hundreds of other children like him, you know that right, and she said Yes." (paraphrase slightly but that's more or less what he said. These people have CYs personal number/email, they care more about their pro-life agenda than they do about CYs mental health, and they are in her ear saying things like that!

Of course she doesn't want to back down, ever, she can't now!

friendlysnakehere · 19/07/2017 10:18

I think that sadly lots of us have had personal experience of a situation similar to this and that's probably why we feel strongly about it.

0nline · 19/07/2017 10:19

friendlysnakehere

My fault, it was v. late and I wasn't clear.

I am struggling a little to feel sorry for the Italians. I don't enjoy them feeling bad, misunderstood, or misreprented, because not all of them are the most robust of people emotionally. However they have basked in the group praise for long enough when it suited them, and either joined in or stayed silent while others were thrown under the bus for daring to put forth a more nuanced perspective, or attempted to right inaccuracies.

Sometimes you have to be the munched person in a cycle of "we eat our own" to fully comprehend the more vicious dynamics you have de facto condoned, in a group you have sustained, supported and participated.

On occasion that is the only way firmly fixed scales in eyes can start to become unglued. And for people to be more willing to pull back and take a less biased view of what they have fallen face first into.

TinselTwins · 19/07/2017 10:20

...because so far anyone who has suggested putting any limits on the thread has been accused of being too school marmy/ head girlish

The OPs of each of these threads start with a post asking for limits.

Sandthefloor · 19/07/2017 10:20

If that's aimed at me friendlysnakehere I have contributed to these discussions. To offer a different point of view. I still think some (not all) of it is distasteful.

Kilabee21 · 19/07/2017 10:21

I agree Sandthefloor. I have looked through these threads. Some posts on here are informative. Though a lot of the posts, particular from the regular contributers are as bad as the extreme ones on CA. Every time it is brought up, they justify that they can do this as CA have done...... Definatly a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other.

WankYouForTheMusic · 19/07/2017 10:22

Well it seems from recent posts towards Sodablackcurrant and others who have (politely) expressed distaste at aspects of these threads that CA are not the only ones giving the order of the boot.

Soda's post wasn't polite, though.

However carefully expressed, repeatedly telling people you don't think they should be having a conversation instead of just not participating is poor manners. There's quite an important distinction between that and saying you don't think the thread should take x turn, discuss x point. It's really important we don't try and conflate the two.

And you just make yourself look silly, comparing people telling soda and others that they're not the thread police to a group who've defamed people, doxxed them and banned them for dissenting.

GabsAlot · 19/07/2017 10:22

dont read it then sand we're just going round in circles now

friendlysnakehere · 19/07/2017 10:23

Sandthefloor, I still think that you should just report it, otherwise it detracts from what was being discussed and makes it about you and your moral code.

friendlysnakehere · 19/07/2017 10:24

Frankly, I can't take anyone seriously when they start the comparison between CA. Clearly the death threats were deleted by HQ Hmm.

GabsAlot · 19/07/2017 10:26

back onto subjct

wright stuff just discussing it actually quoted 10% as maximum chance of improvement correctly

although ann diamond thinks any chance is enough for treatment