Charlie Gard 12

[muckypup73]

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):
www.gosh.nhs.uk/file/23611/download?token=aTPZchww

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

June 2017 Supreme Court decision:

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

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

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

TinselTwins I never said you did say it but you replied to my post pointing out it was a nasty thing to say. Do you think it was OK?

Why don't you actually READ my posts before picking fights that don't exist

We both disagreed with that poster, your arguement isn't with me!

@grannytomine

I agree with the point you made, yes.

I also agree with @TinselTwins posts.

I don't think a bun fight is necessary here...

TinselTwins I'm not picking a fight. I was commenting on someone else's post, it isn't all about you.

Blimey I could do with a bit of wacky baccy now!

I don't think a bun fight is necessary here... or indeed a bum fight

DarthMaiden, I don't understand why there would be a bun fight. TinselTwins was explaining that you can open a baby's eyes without pulling them and I was pointing out that I was talking about the post that specifically referred to pulling them open.

I have just read about the McMath case. Horrifying.

She knew that Granny. She was just stating a fact, not aimed at you.

PLEASE leave it now.

I also think it's time to leave the "who said what and did they mean me or someone else?" argument.

Venusflytwat and I was commenting on a real remark someone made. I knew it wasn't her but she won't leave it.

But yes I will leave it, you are only allowed to make negative remarks about CA or C&C on here or you get drummed out.

The FDCPA (Federal debt collection law) prohibits collectors from falsely claiming you have committed a crime or saying you will be arrested if you don’t repay the money they claim you owe. Collection agencies cannot issue arrest warrants or have you put in jail, and simply failing to repay a legitimate credit card debt, mortgage, car loan or medical bill isn’t enough to land you in jail.

That being said, if you receive a legitimate order to appear in court related to a debt you allegedly owe and you don’t show up, the judge could issue a warrant for your arrest. And it's true that if you fail to pay a court fine related to your debt (i.e. traffic warrants) – or refuse to pay taxes or child support – you could go to jail.

Bottom line, you cannot be arrested in the US merely because you owe a debt. But you can be jailed for failing to show up in court for legal proceedings related to paying for the debt as this is contempt of court. These proceedings are usually to find out if you have the means to pay it and to make arrangements to pay it. The judge could also dismiss the debt if he felt you were unable to pay it or if the agency you owed had misled or otherwise used illegal tactics for collection.

But yes I will leave it, you are only allowed to make negative remarks about CA or C&C on here or you get drummed out.

You are welcome to say what you want. This passive aggressive rubbish though isn't especially welcome.

We also don't have bailiffs in the US who can remove your property to sell it to pay an unrelated debt. We do have repo agencies who will repossess an item you still owe money on, usually a car, boat, RV, or airplane. But they cannot enter your home, yard, locked storage, or garage to do so. They have to take/tow it off the streets or public lot.

grannytomine - all comments are welcome so that everyone can try to understand everyone else's point of view.

CA does get a bashing on here (in my opinion rightly so) but not c&c as most (if not everyone) on here has the utmost compassion for them. We just don't agree with their decision but it does not mean we do not feel sorry for their and Charlie's pain.

People trying so desperately to get Charlie to the US really have no idea of what they'd be unleashing long term.

I don't think he'll travel, anyway. Either the Judge will rule for treatment and GOSH will administer it or he'll rule against it and they'll turn his life support off.

What a mess.

I don't understand why people who have made it clear that they disapprove of these threads continue to read them but don't engage until they see a comment that bothers them.
It almost comes across as goady behaviour to me.

• meant to say the majority of folk on here

I am going to stop trying to type messages - it is just not my day

Yes, that makes things sound similar to how the UK courts work. There is leeway but do make sure you engage with the court. Not engaging is guaranteed to get you into trouble.

I guess that does lead to the question of whether the poor and dispossessed in the US can readily engage with the courts once they've fallen foul of them.

I don't think Charlie will be going to America. He looks far too ill to even attempt the journey.

I also think the moment has passed for him to have the treatment. If he was going to have it it should have been months ago.

GOSH considered treatment like this in January but didn't apply for the necessary permission because they considered Charlie became too ill to benefit.

Yes I know Bubbles . I will be very surprised if the judge rules in favour of treatment next week.

Ellie Gosh were going to get the treatment,but then charlie was detiorating, so thats when the Usa doc said it was futile