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

I hope to God that this isn't how these kind of difficult medical ethics case are going to have to play out in future: in the midst of some fucking social media storm with everyone thinking the dispute will somehow get decided based on who gets the most "likes". I was thinking the other day about the case of 'Re A (conjoined twins)', which was heard when I was a law student. I dread to think how that would have played out if the doctor-hating, conspiracy-theorist Twitter mob had been around back then - they'd probably have been wallpapering Facebook with shite about the babies not being joined, they're just cuddling, you can tell from the photos, and the doctors are making stuff up because they just want an excuse to murder them, or something...

I mean, as medical science advances, the dilemmas it raises are going to get harder - the last thing we need is for the online lynch mob to get involved.

If in doubt..re-write history. From CA.

who post that summr its just a load of crap

I think the narrative on CA has now changed from "he is not brain damaged" to "he could have been saved if someone had acted earlier".

All set up nicely for a lengthy and expensive Personal Injury claim.

I don't think the drama or publicity about this very sad case stretches to everyone in the entire country, or anything close at all really.

People might keep an eye out alright, but it seems to me to be quite muted in MSM. And that is good.

Online ranting only affects those who are on the same channel so to speak. And we know what channel that is.

Until Tuesday or whatever day the judgment is made I suppose. Then it might all kick off again.

Is that post from a genuine newspaper story.

Gabs it is an excerpt from a Daily Mail article that was separately posted on the CA FB page.

"A relatively normal little boy' before April? As though he just had a cold or something and was like most other babies... wasn't he on life support and unresponsive well before then? Who is supposed to have issued that statement and presented it as 'fact'?

Is that post from a genuine newspaper story

Well, "genuine" and "newspaper" are not two words I associate with the Mail. But it is up online.

It's in the mail but is a quote from a family member.

I throught so. The family are stlll not anywhere ready to accept it.

Sorry - a family source. So I'm not sure it is withoht bias is it?

but its rubbish h was brain damagd

they really dont help

No they are really stirring it all up in the media.
The thing is when C and C wanted a delay it was originally to have more time for family and friends to say goodbye and they were originally saying they were more upset because they couldn't take Charlie home.

This has somehow escalated to 'he wasn't that ill' and 'GOSH have lied.'

The fact that they did not read the scan in January correctly is barbaric. Anything that has happened now to his brain is their fault completely. Reading those scans incorrectly and producing that evidence in court as a defense has now led to Charlie being withheld medication 😡 it's appalling

Lots of posts like this, it really is very worrying. I wish they would take the page down.

It's rare that the comments section in the DM is worth looking at, but there is a massive swing to support for GOSH and the judge, and away from the likes of CA.

And now the language has shifted to getting Charlie "justice".

Isn't there a part of the transcript from April where C&C accept that Charlie has no quality of life?

To be fair the DM comments section have mostly been in favour of GOSH, which was a massive surprise to me. I hardly know anyone who isn't in favour of GOSH IRL, I'm not on Facebook but even on twitter the tweets in support of GOSH and allowing Charlie to go peacefully are getting most likes. I do think the majority of people across the board know what's right it's just that CA are just so vindictive, nasty and stupid that those minority voices are the ones we hear the loudest.

Thank you maryz I got chucked offline. Surely the parents knew about MRI scan cos the judge ordered it at the weekend and surely they would have been told the results so wtf did they storm off? I interpret sad reading meaning that Charlie's brain and body is a lot worse than thought. God help us all if these parents appeal yet again after Tuesday.

If the screenshot genuinely reflects the parents' and the familys' thinking, it is notable they have shifted to the simple past.

Was not brain damaged

Was not a hopeless case.

We have generally hoped that the family and particularly C&C would come to accept how hurt Charlie is. Because as horrendous as it will be to have to sit there and hold their much loved child as he dies, it would be a million times worse if it happened in a context where they still didn't believe he had brain damage and they still believe he could be successfully treated, and saved.

How things are worded could mean a lot of things. But I'm bearing in mind that some members of CA can be very vocal and quite vicious in tone. While family members may bear some responsibility for how the group's outlook evolved, I can't blame them if they take defensive measures (via wording) to avoid becoming the new target of all that ire,

I think the Judge raised that recently that the parents had said they didn't want him (Charlie) to continue as he was - but that was refuted too!

That poor stricken child. This has dragged on for far too long. I'm confident the judge will do the right thing.

Does anybody know why the parents were allowed to appeal the original ruling?

online I think any shift to acceptance of brain damage now will be accompanied by more blame for gosh that either they have allowed this to happened by denying treatment, by negligence or by deliberate act.

I think Grumble is right, unfortunately. The parents can't (or won't) accept that there is no fault to be found with the medical treatment and no one to blame for a tragic illness.