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

thats th problem c an c want it dragged out as long a possible thy wont accept the invitable

There was new evidence, wasn't there, I thought the results of the tests Dr H he done were where the 1 had come of the ventilator had been published since April and was therefore new.
However, it doesn't really add anything new, in terms of his current condition re: brain damage.
At least, that was my interpretation of it?

thyre now accusing gosh of falsifying dr hiranos transcript

Gabs I despair I really do. More an Army of Charlies than Charlie's Army.

As the child in the USA did not have the same condition as Charlie, the judge asked Hirano to come and see Charlie. He did not accept evidence from a Dr who had never seen the patient or his notes. Therefore the new evidence was not accepted as such. Further info was sought.

GOSH will not have written the transcript. Highly unlikely. There was no indication in court that any party disputed it.

The possibility that the treatment could cross the BBB was also new, I think. But it was only a possibility and Dr H couldn't say whether it could help Charlie, even if it did cross the BBB, because he didn't have detailed knowledge of Charlie's case.

thats what thy dont get thy think gosh have control of transcripts and they can alter it

its ridiculous

This is damn awful all round! The judge is got to be more firm to stop this time wasting surely? He knows the nearer it gets to Charlie's birthday the more the outcry from everyone. He must make that decision whatever it will be no later than Tuesday. This circus cannot go on.

The notes can be copied fairly quickly. I used to do mental health tribunal work and it was not an issue if it needed to be. Some scabs etc may take longer but copying can be expedited.

The point here is that you have two parents who are clearly finding this very difficult (understatement). It really is imperative in an attempt to manage them and to cause as least disruption as possible that providing two days worth of notes is done

It was really common for patients to say that dicturs had falsified notes etc or something had happened in the last 24 hours that was in the notes but the notes weren't available blah blah blah. The easiest thing is to copy them and hand them over ASAP or else these arguments can go on and on and on

Wedonot - but that's dr hiranos educated guess based on the evidence of subjects with a different condition. It's opinion, not evidence.

GOSH will not have written the transcript. Highly unlikely.

There are companies which provide transcripts of court proceedings. One of them is credited at the start of the transcripts of these hearings that have been released. I should think they'll have used one of those to transcribe this meeting, then all parties will have been asked to sign the transcript to say they agree that it's an accurate record. Since Armstrong didn't say CY had any issue with the accuracy of the transcript, I assume she did sign it.

It was still a possibility based on another child. It was not accepted by the judge without the Dr actually seeing Charlie and his notes. You can assert that something is new, but evidence has to be tested.

mamagin I am pretty angry at that poster, I would go so far as to say that is a deliberately goading and causing trouble.

I have a severely disabled dd and am regularly on the SN board (under a different name) and am very disappointed by her doing this.

Surly it is straight forward for next weeks hearing?
Judge asks, "right, wheres the new evidence".
Parents lawyer replies, "Dr Hirano's opinion has changed".
Judge says, "ok I have read his opinion and digested it from the transcript, is there anything more"?
Parents lawyer stutters and says, "We need more time, GOSH is being obstructive, we have a new petition, Charlie is an American citizen ..."
Judge interprets, "any more NEW EVIDENCE".
Parents lawyer, " Umm, not as such but we will be appealing"
Judge says, "ok I am ready to rule then"....

Am I missing anything?

Yes. The provider of court judgments and transcripts is published. Without seeing the medical meeting transcript, I did assume they would use this company or similar. It avoids arguments over bias.

It was really common for patients to say that dicturs had falsified notes etc or something had happened in the last 24 hours that was in the notes but the notes weren't available blah blah blah. The easiest thing is to copy them and hand them over ASAP or else these arguments can go on and on and on

Yeah but once you do that, then they say that the new copy is a few hours/days out of date, do you just keep copying? every what 6/12 hours? there has to be a limit

And GOSH have already commented about there needing to be a reasonable limit to the requests, they can't be constant, you can't always have real time copies, at some point the court has to say "we now have enough information to make a decision"
CY cannot keep asking for another 24hours worth of notes indefinitely

I suppose that actual results are new evidence. Otherwise could it have gone back to court? Of course, anything extrapolated from them is going to be guess work/opinion. I'm quite confused about the 'new' evidence, as is KG, going by the tweets.
I mean, with such a small sample size there can't be any meaningful there regardless, the margin of error would be huge! I think C&C want him to be 'on the stand' as a PP said, to try and emphasise, 'you cant say that there is no chance, can you' etc.

I do think the issue of the notes is a stalling tactic. Possibly C&C's barrister may argue that the case cannot go ahead until they have seen the notes.
If the case is to be decided on the transcript of the meeting I am not quite sure what they could be used for except to try to prove either GOSH's culpability in not letting have Charlie have treatment earlier and I don't think the Judge will accept that argument as it is not valid to the case he is deciding.
Or to use them to try to prove that what was said in the meeting was incorrect.
Hope that makes sense as I am rather away with the fairies today.

They have to be given leave to appeal if the case goes in favour of GOSH. A well respected poster felt there would be no grounds for appeal. Therefore I would say that an appeal is not automatic. It really would be exceptional and there must be grounds other than you do not agree.

The case will be decided according to what is in Charlie's best interests. Do people think the parents will have an automatic right of appeal if the hearing doesn't go their way?

You copy up to the hearing Tinsel. It wasn't unusual for the psychiatrist to appear with the most recent to lodge.

I was always under the impression that both legal teams (and the judge?) had to see all evidence before it got to a courtroom? I'm basing that on crap American TV though!!

Afaik, c&c's team have not shared the evidence yet (which confuses me based on the above) and it was taken back to court by gosh as they were threatened with c&c taking it back with a JR.
(Sorry - nonsense rambling - hungover!)

This case is about new evidence. It is not about rehashing old arguments. All sides appear to have agreed the transcript. One would assume a medical evaluation of the "new evidence" is in the transcript so that is what will be relied upon.

Ellie. There is no automatic right of appeal. There may well be no grounds.

They cannot keep having appeals surely?