Charlie Gard 13

[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:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6rPmvGlNhA&app=desktop

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

However, to put it bluntly, that child is very likely to die soon either on or off the vent.

DH and I thought that when the most up-to-date photograph of him was circulated.

Part of me that the more C&C stall the less actual quality and peaceful time they will have with him.

Right - there are actually some BUNS in the office so I am away to eat some so that I can get into shape for any BUM fights that may occur.

You are probably right Ceto . Dr Hirano (as all the participants in the meeting were) was fully aware that the meeting was being transcripted for the court, so would have been very careful not to say anything that could be misconstrued or backfire on him later.

If I remember, the Judge asked the brief for that meeting to be for all parties to agree a way forward.

It sounds like this either hasn't happened or that it doesn't sufficiently support the family's case. Either way, relieved that the meeting appears to have happened without major incident for CY, that must have been unbelievably hard for her to sit through.

Fingers and toes crossed that Mr Justice Francis reaches a final decision swiftly on Monday.

Let poor Charlie out of the silent dark cage he is paralysed in.

the meeting appears to have happened without major incident for CY, that must have been unbelievably hard for her to sit through.

But she did insist on being present and I think it was right that she was, because she cannot now say the meeting was a stitch up/GOSH put pressure on Hirano etc etc, especially if what came out of the meeting was not what she wanted.

Totally agree Ta1kinPeece. I can't really see how all the so called new evidence can take 2 days to thrash out.

unfortunatly ellie ca are still saying those things even though she was there

But she did insist on being present and I think it was right that she was, because she cannot now say the meeting was a stitch up/GOSH put pressure on Hirano etc etc

except she is.
It's one of those situations I think for the judge where you get to a point where trying to provide logic and closure for CY is futile.. like, as a PP said, on the stately homes threads. It really doesn't matter how much transparency or evidence or copies of notes she sees now, she's in too deep to see any of it

Presumably she will have agreed the transcript as being correct though along with all the others present?

Maybe it all just comes down to what posters were talking about on the previous thread. People who grow up feeling entitled because nobody has ever said "No," to them. Is this the first time anybody has said "No," to Connie and kept saying, "No" ?

ca very confused by this morning hearing then again thyre generally confused

says gollop doesnt know what she talking about bringing up us residency- i see it as her making a point against all the wrong headlines stating he can go off to america so people arent misled

Is this the first time anybody has said "No," to Connie and kept saying, "No" ?

Whether or not you agree with her view, I do think she has a remarkable strength of will and conviction to hold for so long to her beliefs despite all attempts to persuade her otherwise and the many pitfalls and disappointments and stress along the way. That's a rare kind of resilience.

I've been trying to figure out what the tweets from this morning as regards new evidence:
"Judge asks Armstrong to deliver a detailed schedule identifying all the new material available since his judgment of 11 April."
SO, I think what this means is that the judge wants a list, in effect, of what they are planning to present. So everyone knows where they are at, and they can't just keep coming up with stuff on the fly???
Also discussion about cross examination? Since it was said:
"Gard: Armstrong confirms that the hospital multi-disciplinary meeting went ahead and has been transcribed. Further MRI scan done yesterday."
looks like there might be some information that wasn't available before the meeting hence will still need to be mentioned by an expert, and hence cross-examined??

But does sound like the judge was trying to get it all sorted, so evidence/whatever heard Monday (and earlier start at 10 rather than 10:30), and he will deliver his ruling on the Tuesday. And he has been trying quite hard to stop it being dragged out by arguments over who saw what notes and when, or can we speak to Doctor X again, he has changed his opinion since yesterday...................

"i see it as her making a point against all the wrong headlines stating he can go off to america so people arent misled"
Yes, I think the barrister for the Guardian just wanted it stated clearly again that Charlie cannot be moved without the judges permission. No matter some idiots in the US think they have voted through.............

That's a rare kind of resilience or shows a lack of empathy and inability to comprehend fully the fluidity of changing information and situations.

I have never met C&C so cannot say which it is only that it could be either. I have my own opinion about it but that is an opinion and not fact.

So no matter what is in the transcript, his parents believe that GOSH is deliberately and for no logical reason trying to thwart what would be a successful treatment for their son

Absolutely.
No matter what the outcome is next week GOSH will be the enemy. C&C will never accept that GOSH have only ever wanted what is best for Charlie and they will forever blame the hospital for his death.

I don't think that when Charlie dies his parents will ever be able to come to terms with it or make peace with the decision, I think they will hold on to the anger, the resentment and the blame for the rest of their lives which just makes the whole thing even more distressing. I don't think this will ever be over for them.

"Judge asks Armstrong to deliver a detailed schedule identifying all the new material available since his judgment of 11 April."

Judge has been asking for that for a while now. He wanted it in advance of the previous court session, the one when Dr H appeared by video link.

I hope the judge will make a ruling next week and not allow any more delaying tactics, for Charlie's sake.

Whether or not you agree with her view, I do think she has a remarkable strength of will and conviction to hold for so long to her beliefs despite all attempts to persuade her otherwise and the many pitfalls and disappointments and stress along the way. That's a rare kind of resilience.

I'm not sure it's something to boast about. My mother used to be the same and was proud of the fact that once she made her mind up that was that and she would never change it. She saw admitting that you've made a mistake, apologising and changing your stance on something as a weakness.

It really isn't. People with entrenched views about something often end up very unhappy and missing out. If my mother had said sorry, I was wrong to me, just once, she might have had the relationship with her daughter that she thought she deserved.

I realise this post is completely different to the situation that C&C are in.

In an odd sort of way, I was reminded of this issue when I caught part of an old edition of One Born Every Minute recently. The mother was shrieking for an epidural and loudly castigating the midwife and everyone else for not producing it immediately, no matter how often and how patiently the midwife explained that she needed to ensure that the baby was safe and that she was too near birth for it to be of any benefit. Not blaming the mother, by the way, I know we all get totally irrational at such moments. But that incredulity that she could not get her own way and that the baby's welfare had to come first had distinct echoes of the current situation here.

Judge: there was much common ground among the experts.
Armstrong: but what's its formal evidential status?

This is the tweet I found most interesting. Esentially the judge is saying the experts were all in agreement but Armstrong pushes back - what is Armstrong asking, exactly?

I think he's asking how much weight the judge will give to the transcript

We all know it will end with the family using charlie's army type statements in the aftermath while in america GOSH comes under more attack. I could easily see Chris and Connie giving a pretty toxic statement outside of the Hospital.

Whether or not you agree with her view, I do think she has a remarkable strength of will and conviction to hold for so long to her beliefs despite all attempts to persuade her otherwise and the many pitfalls and disappointments and stress along the way. That's a rare kind of resilience

resillient and strong people adapt to change
I think dogmatic is more appropriate
I think she's backed into a corner she can't get out of, even if she would let herself change her stance she's trapped by her "supporters"

And dont be surprised to see Trump tweet about it again.
I suspect the pastor will return again as well.