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

What a sad world we live in, where judges merely look at legal arguments set out by professionals and not into the eyes of a baby they have the power to save
Yes because this isn't X-factor, where the cutest whitest most popular kids with the most likes gets to live
thank god!

i just truly cannot understand for thelifeof me why you would want your child to suffer this way, I know they are greif stricken,but bloody nora, for charlie enough is enough.

if anyone on earth could save him, they would. If GOSH could have saved him, don't you think they would have done?

CA have done a ''thunder-clap''..quoting the words of Lady Hale.
When quoting, it is all too easy to leave crucial words out, so as to put a different meaning to what was actually said.

The Circus is still trying to whip up a furore..Attacking those who have to do their job [Judges / GOSH] is pointless.

Who are you quoting there Tinsel ?

That's the thing. They don't have the power to save him. No one does, he's terminally ill.

Cantusethatname,they would save him if they could.

oakleaffy, seriously another thunderclap??? they seem to do a thunderclap when the mood takes them,the sad thing is,no matter what they do it is up to the judge now.

Venusflytwat, C a I presume.

I think people miss the word terminal

What a sad world we live in, where judges merely look at legal arguments set out by professionals and not into the eyes of a baby they have the power to save

Posted by the sis in law...again stirring it up

I was quoting Laura Gard

They really are in too deep with the social media thing

Why on earth would you want your childs life/death decided by how instagramable they are and not by best professional evidence?

What exactly is Laura suggesting? that the judge goes and looks at charlie, and makes his judgement based on whether he thinks he's blue heart adorable enough to live or not???

across thats interesting we hav court appointed baliffs that if u let in can stay an repossess goods

they can also remove cars etc

But they might t have the power to save..they have to look at what's best for him!

Sorry TinselTwins didn't see you already posted :-)

This is what annoys me about that group as well as having others stirring the sister in law is as well! Surley better ways to support them creating more of a mob

Well Charlies birthday is 4th August so if judgement is upheld I suppose there will be pleading for him to see his first birthday so more time given, then they will slap another court thingy in and round and round we go. It is such a farce no matter what happens treatment, no treatment Charlie is slap in the middle. (Absolutely emotionally drained over this case)

I thought the earlier post was interesting that talked about carers being genuinely mistaken as regards the reactions of the person they were caring for. In the case of a baby like Charlie who you knew was deaf, if you were interacting with him, you might stroke or touch his face. That physical contact and movement of the flesh could conceivably cause his eyes to open, or his eyes could just randomly come open, or appear more open anyway (do muscles act to close as well as open the eyes??). Add some confirmation bias (you notice and register the things that coincide with your beliefs, and fail to register those that don't. Like noticing coincidence in a way.....), and I can see why desperate carers could quite honestly and legitimately believe that they are interacting with someone and there is a reaction to their actions. I guess it must happen all the time with patients in various types of coma, for example.

As compared to what? As regards EEG, say, AFAIK these are complicated multiple-channel signals, where the patterns being looked for are complex and varied, plus lots of interference and confusion possible. So, an 'experts' reading of an EEG, compared to what you so desperately want to believe, and what you think you have seen for yourself many times whilst you have been sat at someones bedside through the long dark hours of the night...............

Add to that the cases where it has been the carer who has noticed those little signs and indications from their loved one..........I think it would be almost inconceivable that a carer wouldn't see such signs, to be honest, we are just primed by emotion and deep needs and our own human fallibilities as observers for this not to happen.

Did Laura Gard really post that? Dear Lord no wonder Charlie's parents cannot make the correct decision for Charlie with family quoting that. C&C need their family to help them make the decision to say goodbye to Charlie and let him pass peacefully.

I know this is crude, but fact is that Charlie doesn't give a fuck about his birthday, no one year old does, it's universally accepted as the birthday that's really for the parents for getting through the first year! they kids don't know what's going on!

Which is usually fine

But should NOT be used as a reason to prolong his life if it's decided that life support is not in his best interest

Yes that quote was from LG. She meant to say,
"What a sad world we live in when people who have no understandng themselves, write a load of bs on social media and other people believe it to be the truth".

TinselTwins, it seems to melike the decision has been made then, to not treat charlie, was there not a meeting today?

TinselTwins, it seems to melike the decision has been made then, to not treat charlie, was there not a meeting today?

Wow...the Grauniad article was interesting..the loving father who wanted his son to die in his arms at gunpoint if necessary...polar opposite of Charlie's case.

muckypup73
I believe there is some meeting for the lawyers only tomorrow.

Omg! I have been so naughty! I have just posted on laura cards fb asking her to clarify her post because I was confused! Bet she deletes it!

Ellie56, I thought there was a meeting today? somethings definately been said for laura Gard to say that, that is not a postive statement is it?