Charlie Gard 14

[GabsAlot]

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 would assume there would need to be some real evidence to delay the decision again - and as this is a specialised field with a small number of experts, it's difficult to see how there would suddenly be results from a completely unknown trial that made a difference.

Sostenueto thankyou

lelloteddy, no i don't see the difference as both are publicly available to view, so no need to do either.

I think to attribute 'gleeful' to posters who did it is really rather rude and unnecessary.

And as I said, the CA is the whole reason that the situation has arisen.

yes wve been discussing this stop

can iask about this suppsd other child thats being treatd are thy here? why has noone mentioned them before

how advanced are they

tbh until this thread if someone had said to me. 'Do parent's have rights over their child?' I probably would have said Yes. So it figures that lots of people would think the same.

(However had it been worded 'Does a child have rights and a parent simply responsibilities? ' at that point I would have understood more.)

From what was mentioned on Friday, little could be said about this child due to confidentiality. I wonder if that family want to be dragged into this mess, as it's very unlikely they will manage to stay unidentified if they are discussed at court on Mon/Tue.

High Court now starting at 2pm tomorrow according to Joshua Rozenberg, no reason given.

I wonder if that family want to be dragged into this mess, as it's very unlikely they will manage to stay unidentified if they are discussed at court on Mon/Tue.

I had read that the family involved have already said they are willing to provide evidence in order to support C&C's case.

But like most things I read, I don't know what's true and what isn't.

Friendly it's interesting that in any of the analysis of the 'social media phenomenon' aspect of this case, mention is made of people's use of social media a step a means in being noticed, and heard. Collecting the most 'likes' is a badge of honour. Stating the most concern fulfills a need in people. Stoking the most outrage is considered a goal. Threatening to leave a group but being begged to stay is a sign of how 'popular' you are perceived to be. All these criticisms can definitely be levelled at certain FB groups.
And there have been signs of it in these threads as well. Racing to start the next thread being the most overt example.
That type of behaviour minimises the value of these threads. This case WILL have a significant impact on future policy and law. Screen shooting the latest ramblings from CA contributes NOTHING.

I also think from the tweets of the court session on Sky news, the judge was clear that this is about Charlie's specific situation rather than treatment not being available, and that GOSH were sorting out the ethics for Charlie to have the treatment and were ready to fund it before his condition deteriorated to the point they felt it was no longer the right thing to do.

He asked (again) for Armstrong to produce a list of new evidence in clearly written terms (how many times has he asked for this now?). It does seem that the hearing may be more hares set running such as this child getting treatment when Charlie isn't, rather than a proper court response to clearly presented new evidence.

Rozenberg Gard: one reason for delaying a hearing is that judge has not received all the papers and needs time to read them. But that’s my speculation

Or maybe it's been delayed because they want Dr H on video link and they need to obviously do that around the time differences?

Lelloteddy, in your opinion, several people disagree. It was certainly useful in the beginning as many had no idea about what was being said, two set up FB accounts to view the posts.

As I said previously, the attributes that you pin to others but not yourself is not conducive to a balance of views.

I think it's useful to have Joshua Rozenberg's tweets copied here, if someone is willing to do it. He's a reputable journalist and lawyer and his tweets are live news reports, not commentary. It's helpful to have them available to refer back to in the course of discussion.

So judgement could be delayed to later this week, depending on length of time for evidence

MrGrumpy the rights/responsibilities issue really frustrates me. For those who claim that parents have absolutes rights over their child, do they extend that to abusive behaviours? It's an issue often seized on by MRSs in relation to their own children and one positive that may come from the follow up to this situation is there will be a much greater awareness about the fact that it is the child's interests/rights which are enshrined in law.

I hope there are no more delays. It would be awful (and we have all seen from the recent photographs how much Charlie has sadly deteriorated over the last few weeks) if he passed away while still on the ventilator, and his parents were still in court presenting more evidence.

*MRAs

Just catching up after a few days away from this distressing case.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40685461

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40691478

Probably all been covered here, but sharing in case anyone wanted to read latest BBC news stories.

MRAs

What's an MRA?

So increasingly unlikely a decision will be able to be given on the 25th. Fuck. More delay achieved.

Why is that MissH? Sorry trying to catch up...

DorotheaBeale, the argument against not using CA posts in the discussion was that 'anyone could view for themselves', I just used the tweets as an obvious comparison as anyone could view those too, there was no need to copy them.

I clearly am in a minority but I found some of the CA posts here formed part of an interesting discussion and they too could be referred back to as to how the momentum took hold, what was being said.

If MN don't want them from a legal point of view, I understand that, it's the posters objecting from a moral superiority point that I found baffling.

I am not going to post any but from thread one, these were the foundations of the discussion (I namechanged after I linked to RL).

Back to the court case, I thought that more time was asked for, in order to produce new evidence too.

more delays thisis getitng ridiculous now

Joshua Rozenberg on twitter that the court hearing is scheduled for 2pm instead of the 10am agreed on Friday. Considering the judge moved the timing from 10.30 am to 10 am on Friday and said he may not reach a decision if evidence was heard all day Tuesday too, losing half a day of that time isn't going to help any.