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

He did wannabe its just more fake news.

So has it come out that actually Charlie didn't have irreversible brain damage like GOSH originally claimed?

No, writer, a "family source" has made this allegation in the Daily Fail. I suspect that this is where the family will shift their attack to after Charlie's passing.

I'm sorry if the gards go for suing gosh they will lose....big time.

However in the USA Gosh could suffer a backlash arranged by the nutters.

I am not so sure about that, Sostenueto. I am represented a fair few large public organisations in this kind of claim, and the truth is that they would always rather settle as the cost consequences and repetitional risk are not worth tit.

I can also guarantee that there will have been mistakes made with Charlie's care. Not huge mistakes, not mistakes that will have changed the outcome- but mistakes over scans, risk assessments, procedure. Could/should they have considered the nucleoside therapy sooner? Would that make a difference?

This kind of uncertainty usually leads to the public authority making an offer to settle. Of course, C&C won't accept it, so I suppose it will inevitably go to litigation. Whatever happens, I suspect it will be messy and in no-one's best interests.

GOSH continue to have their name dragged through the mud, whilst C&C are allowed to postpone their grief with another distraction.

*have represented

I have just read some papers from Oxford University, that a pp linked to, about the ethics of treatment for Charlie Gard.
Many present an extremely convincing argument for treatment, so much so that I began to wonder if we were all completely wrong.
Then I realised that, IMO, these arguments were an academic exercise and while their argument was well presented it could be applied to many patients in similar circumstances and took little account of Charlie's diagnosis by GOSH, long term prognosis, the chances of any treatment having any effect on his condition and the quality of life he would have if it did so.
Interesting read if you don't mind having your mind tied in knots.
I will keep away from CA tonight. That will be a step too far.
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2017/07/the-ethics-of-treatment-for-charlie-gard-resources-for-studentsmedia/

thy did consider it summer then he had seisures an went downhill rapidly thats when it weent to court

But Gabs the question will be - did they consider it quickly enough? Was Charlie's rapid deterioration entirely unexpected? We don't have answers to those questions yet as we have only had a thorough legal assessment of the situation as it was in April.

I am not attacking GOSH, or suggesting what the answers to these questions should be. I am simply pointing out that it may not be the slam dunk victory for them it may appear on the surface.

But Gabs the question will be - did they consider it quickly enough? Was Charlie's rapid deterioration entirely unexpected? We don't have answers to those questions yet as we have only had a thorough legal assessment of the situation as it was in April.

Absolutely agree - expect there will be a clin neg claim in due course whilst this is thrashed out

A slam dunk victory?

Really? GOSH have, and will continue to put Charlie's interest above anything else. To even suggest that this is about the most 'winning' is an insult to the staff there who have cared for Charlie for months.

They couldn't just give it to him at first because it had to go to some ethics thingy as it was untested on Charlie's type of mitochondria. Then while they waited for above charlie fitted continuously for 17 days due to his ench which caused catastrophic brain damage.

Don't forget Charlie inherited 2 genetic conditions one from each parent. His case is very comilicated medically.

As I recall it but can't remember exactly the time frame,,
GOSH applied, or were about to apply, for permission to use the treatment on Charlie earlier this year but did not do so as then seizures caused brain damage to Charlie.
Dr H agreed with them that any improvement from the medication would be vanishingly small.
Around this time court cases and appeals began so GOSH could not give Charlie palliative care as they wished
CA were posting images of one of Charlie's MRI scans online saying it did not show brain damage. Medics have said that MRI scans do not show the sort of brain damage, cellular, that Charlie has. This can be diagnosed by EEG and presumably clinic observations and other tests.

I can't begin to imagine what this is costing GOSH financially at the expense of other patients, Ths circus is just ridiculous and out of hand.

Tbh i am getting disgusted over all this. Utter farce and as for our press.
.... ..words fail me.

Yes talking of money...........wonder what happens to 2 million raised then if original order is upheld? Can't see those that donated the money being happy if it was used to sue gosh?

*A slam dunk victory?

Really? GOSH have, and will continue to put Charlie's interest above anything else. To even suggest that this is about the most 'winning' is an insult to the staff there who have cared for Charlie for months*

These current proceedings? Not about winning. All about Charlie.

Future litigation? I am afraid litigation is all about winners and losers. That is the cold hard truth of it, and the actions of GOSH and its staff will be taken apart and analysed from beginning to end.

As I said above, I don't think litigation is the right answer here, for anyone. But I am sure that GOSH and their lawyers are alive to this sadly very real possibility.

@Sostenueto you took the words right out of my mouth.

This must be costing millions! Such a pointless waste of time and money. Charlie is going to die anyway.

I feel so sorry for the parents of seriously ill children currently being treated by GOSh.

Apparently, some of them have complained about CA protests and the affect it's having on them and their children.

You also can't "just" prescribe and give experimental treatment.

Sorry, bold fail above. I was quoting Lelloteddy.

My sister has a rare genetic condition, not as rare as Charlie's but still not at all common.
She did not develop the illness until in her late 40s. Her condition is now terminal.
My parents, who are/were not unintelligent, were totally unable to accept that they had both passed on faulty genes to her.
They went through everyone in the family to see if they could find anyone else who had it. My mother was convinced that her MIL, who she never got on with, had passed it down to her.
If not then it must have been something to do with my sister's lifestyle.
A good example of parental denial but very, very hurtful for my sister.

So will there will be a police presence at the court? Because I reckon those pro lifers/CA etc will be out in force

Thank you Maryz for the recap of the hearing today upthread.

So does this mean that the hearing Monday will be for the judge to render his decision? Or will there be the opportunity for 'more new evidence' to be submitted continue the madness?

I really feel for the Gards' sanity if this hearing doesn't go their way. And I don't think it will.