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

Hmmm Telegraph article contains two errors. Hold the Front Page!!!

Please could anyone help me with insight into the Gards' lawyers?

Do they - Armstrong - believe, personally, as strongly as CY and CG that C should have the treatment. Is that their motive for working pro bono?

Or are they doing this for the profile and experience of the case?

Could they disagree with the current course of action personally, but still feel able to represent these views in court?

ginsoaked - I'm glad it's not just me who was confused by the dates. It's as though someone has leaked tomorrow's article.

Hopefully someone can explain it to us, Betty ! It even says it was yesterday when this happened in court.

I hope DR H has sided with GOSH. The outrage in the USA if he still supports the parents but the court backs GOSH will be horrendous.

Exactly Writer.

First bit of text was probably posted this morning, and the second updated as it happened this afternoon

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

I think he will stand by his belief that the treatment would "have an effect" on Charlie
That's not the same as saying that it'll have a Life enhancing effect

He's not going to suddenly turn around and say "no this treatment won't do anything at all" because that wouldn't be true

It was always the case that the treatment could do "something" - it's just that it got past the point of it being the right thing to do for Charlie

That Telegraph article is confusing too. I know that articles can have their date stamp changed but it being this morning and talking about yesterday makes me wonder if it is meant to be tomorrow instead.

Just cross posted with Maryz

I wondered about that, Beyond but most of the news articles I see do show an updated time if extra - erroneous- information has been added.
Must be an oversight in this case, not surprising as she does refer to 'yesterday' too!

The telegraph often posts the article's in the afternoon as they will be printed in tomorrow's print edition.

Could they disagree with the current course of action personally, but still feel able to represent these views in court? of course! that's the job

It was probably the firms partners who decided it would be pro bono not the individual lawyer, then they will have told asked one of their bright young things to take the case

I've read CY quoted as 'We're not supposed to read it like that'. From that I don't think it's clear that they hadn't been told about the results..

I also wonder, if CY was in the MD meeting, would Dr H not have said before leaving 'I'm sorry I can't help him' if that was his finding?

My head hurts!
So it's possible that the article was written for tomorrow's actual paper newspaper and the online version hasn't been edited properly to reflect that it would be posted immediately, whereas the newspaper would be published for tomorrow.
I think that's what I think anyway.

Ah I think I misinterpreted "we weren't supposed to read it like that"
"We shouldn't find out like that" makes more sense in the context than mine ("read it" as in interpret the scan!)

they will have told asked one of their bright young things to take the case

Grant Armstrong isn't a young man, though. Maybe he just happened to be available, and was interested, when it came up.

Now I'm very confused. The Sky link says that KG Said all the medical evidence in the case made sad reading, not just the MRI.

Sad day when one journalist live tweeting a case (JR) appears to be the only observer capable of constructing an accurate, objective, correctly spelt, properly time stamped account of a news story.

I can't see the other child's treatment as relevant. Treatment is tailored to the individual. GOSH has already said he would have had the treatment if he hadn't suffered brain damage. This is yet another blind alley, wasting time. Its just grasping at straws.

ginsoaked yes exactly it will be in print tomorrow but should have been edited before it went online.

So there's another medic to give evidence, schedule to examine Charlie, come to a meeting.... that should fill another ten days or so.

Grant Armstrong isn't a young man, though. Maybe he just happened to be available, and was interested, when it came up

"young" in lawfirm years is different - think of the scene in Mary Poppins at MrBanks's work!

So there's another medic to give evidence, schedule to examine Charlie, come to a meeting.... that should fill another ten days or so

Fuck sake there has to be a limit? I thought the judge would have said that any new evidence they wanted would have to be submitted by X date?