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

This is the lack of damage in January post

The Italian bloke is a paed neurologist, so I guess it was sent to him for "independent" not gosh interpretation?

I can just about see this madness morph into a two headed monster - with one head transforming into Alfie's Army or Harry's Army and another becoming Justice for Charlie after he passes. I come back to a point I made previously- this is part of a massive rise in populism in western democracies in the recent years. Trump UKIP Le Pen CA are all part of this populist supposedly Anti Establishment tirade. We have not seen the end of this when Charlie passes.

So Tinsel, if the parents had allowed all the tests the hospital wanted to be done before the court case, this wouldn't be happening now because all the results would have been available to the judge last week

I think there's probably a lot of factors

1. C&Cs refusal to consent to tests & the court order
2. Making sure that reports are watertight (so it probably got checked and double checked)
3. If C&C aren't engaging with GOSH, how are they to be told results privately

4 the court cannot just wait for C&C to agree to go back and meet with GOSH docs to talk through results, they do have to carry on

Ultimately C&C don't have to be there, their lawyer could carry out their wishes without them, if they're there I think they can't expect the kind of kid gloves they'ld get if they were being updated from charlie's bedside

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/21/charlie-gards-parents-back-high-court-judge-analyses-new-evidence/

Just in from the Telegraph, apparently C&C have found someone with same condition as Charlie who is being treated

"As they prepare for a last-ditch legal battle, lawyers for Connie Yates and Chris Gard said that they may call evidence from someone connected to the other child. "

Be fair @Maryz how are they supposed to virtue signal to their equally barmy peers on the school run without props?

I wonder why the hearing wasn't stopped so that the parents could be taken aside and have the results explained to them?

All this storming out and name-calling is just so uncalled for.

With both my parents (horrible diagnosis, crap delivery of bad
news, wrong doses given, ignoring of a dnr, infection that caused death...) I felt like ripping someones head off with my bare hands in the hospital but kept it polite and civil.

The scans will have been read by a Paediatric Neuroradiologist, most likely double read in these circumstances.

No one ever said the earlier MRIs showed extensive STRUCTURAL brain damage. Charlie's brain damage is at a cellular level and so would have and did show up in EEGS, which were shown to the court as part of the original case. His parents will KNOW that.

My guess is that this latest MRI has either shown a lack of brain growth, brain atrophy, evidence of a stroke or quite possibly all 3. At some point the cellular disease will start to show.

And if, as was reported, the parents blocked the scans until ordered otherwise, I can imagine the evidence had to be presented last minute. I don't for one minute believe this is the way anyone wanted it done.

None of that makes it any less heartbreaking for them. I am so sad for them right now.

If there wasn't "catastrophic brain damage" in January then what implications would that have?

Although I'm not sure whether CA is the most reliable source and could it be deflection against what would appear to be not positive results from recently?

She should have submitted it as evidence and offered for someone to go through it with them

for how long?
C&C could hold up for DAYS saying the court said the could have time to digest the report and want a 5th/6th/7th opinion

I do not believe that this result was whipped out of thin air, I suspect their lawyer will have warned them about it but it didn't sink in

I wonder why the hearing wasn't stopped so that the parents could be taken aside and have the results explained to them?

the hearing doesn't need to be stopped though, C&C could in their go to GOSH at any time and ask to have the results explained to them. They won't though, so they're hearing it via court

Now they say even evidence of brain damage means nothing as he "brain can rewire itself in yang children". And that there needs to be an investigation of GOSH after this. And thus it begins

place marking, sorry.

These threads move so fast.

Would Katie Gollop necessarily know that the parents didn't know the results of the scan? They must have been given an idea of the results, mustn't they, even if the detailed report wasn't yet available.

If there wasn't "catastrophic brain damage" in January then what implications would that have?

The Jan MRI isn't proof of that
all of these scans in isolation only show so much, thats not how diagnostics work, MRIs are good at finding tumours etc, but not so good a finding non gross structural brain damage. There were other clinical indications of brain damage in Jan. But CA says "if it's not on a MRI it can't be true". MRIs have limits.

Either I'm losing my mind or that Telegraph article is odd. It's dated today, timed at 10.40 am but yet it says:

"

Miss Yates broke down in court yesterday when Katie Gollop QC, acting for the hospital, said that they had received the results of his latest MRI scan, believed to show how much his muscles have wasted, and it made "very sad reading".

Sobbing before she ran from the the court, she said that the parents had not had the chance to read it yet. Mr Gard shouted "evil" at the lawyer.
"

Telegraph article speculates that the upsetting MRI result is related to "muscle wastage" rather than brain damage?

(And I know it's pedantic, but the "effecting" is jumping out at me from that article!)

originalbiglymavis it's a reflection of the emotional incontinence epidemic that has swept through our society over the last generation or so.

Also, I don't think C&C are particularly bright and although all the medical evidence will have been explained to them many times, I doubt whether they really understand it.

I've just read that apparently C&C have found another child with Charlie's condition who is receiving treatment?

And I also read that following the meeting Dr H still stands by his belief that he can help Charlie.

It's so hard reading all these different articles and knowing what is the truth.

I honestly don't know what to expect from the hearing next week - I feel so confused by it all.

This is completely off topic - I have just had a message from my eldest about "the baby eating the cat". I would be worried if (a) I actually had a baby (all my little ones are big little ones if you know what I mean) and (b) we actually owned a cat.

Thank you for all the updates - it has been appreciated but I had better go and "rescue the non-existent cat from the on-existent baby"

Yes I thought that Gin I thought I was losing my mind too!

Would Katie Gollop necessarily know that the parents didn't know the results of the scan?

Nope
And if C&C were phoned this morning by GOSH and asked if they wanted to come in to discuss results, and got told to F-off, we wouldn't know that either

Thank you those explaining about the January scan.