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

Maybe it's just so the judge knows for a fact the parents are made aware of all test results, so there can be no further accusations of them hearing results for first time in court again?

MRA is a magnetic resonance angiogram, specifically for blood vessels inside the body.

I think Connie looks really ill now. I want to say to her please stop, curl up in bed with your son, drink some soup, talk to your baby and block out the world. Sleep, rest and just be with your baby. She really does look gaunt :(

Having read other posts on future cases having media blackouts, I wonder how this would work in a case where there has been high profile crowdfunding for treatment and THEN it goes to Court. Surely it would be impossible for things to be kept quiet? Although there would be no Court reporting with names or places, people would still know where the child was, who they were, who the parents were and it could still escalate extremely quickly to the chaos that has surrounded this awful case.

Is there any chance that the delay would be so that the Judge can tell the Gards (et al) his decision in chambers rather than them hearing it for the first time in open court?

I don't see that the birthday is relevant either. The courts won't be sitting after next Monday either. It's about Charlie's interests, no-one else's and a difficult celebration on the ICU wouldn't be helpful to other parents or patients.

This latest hearing did not start until 13 July so not yet 2 weeks. However all the arguments about who has seen what do seem to delay the proceedings. I do not think for one minute that the judge has lost sight of the fact that the needs of Charlie are paramount. He has said this and it is enshrined in our laws. He is not going to override that or GOSH could appeal!!!

Didn't the judge say further testimony from Dr Hirano is unnecessary as they will rely on the transcripts from the meeting?

MyCat, I think there would also be an issue with overseas comment - the Court's writ only runs in the UK AFAIK - look how Prof Hirano was being named in comments outside the UK.

I'm hoping that too Across but I'm embarrassed to say I don't know if British judges do that! Much of my picture of court proceedings is from movies.

Yes, the judge did say that but if there are questions that need to be answered that arise during consideration of the evidence from the parents' barrister or from others, it would seem sensible to have him available.

For anyone wanting more information about how our courts actually work, they do have web sites. Info from films, which are mainly criminal cases, is not really relevant. A court cannot sensibly impose a media blackout when the participants in the case have already resorted to social media for months before any case appeared in court. Clearly that would be impossible.

if the judge says on Tuesday "life support to be withdrawn by 5 pm Thursday" there will be an outcry and candlelit vigils and the pope being quoted and the pastor yelling praying through a speaker ...

I really don't care about noisy vigils or the ludicrous pastor, and I care about the pope even less. What I do care about is the tortuous half life little Charlie continues to endure, which seems to me to have been almost forgotten among the noise and fury

All this talk about just making this allowance, just allowing that bit of time and all the rest is surely futile when it's becoming so clear that Charlie's poor mum and dad will never accept that the time has come to end his ghastly ordeal

If I'm right and they're not going to make that decision then someone else has to, and the sooner the better for everyone's sake - most especially Charlie

The whole reason this went back to the High Court was because the parents asserted there was new evidence. GOSH asked for the new evidence to be submitted in court so that a decision could be made with the new evidence taken into account. From everything I have read, the new evidence has not materialised, so far, and it was supposed to be about the success of Dr Hirano's treatment of other patients. The judge therefore intended to rely on the transcript of the meeting where Hirano was present.

I don't think the judge could give a private decision before he holds the hearing - as otherwise where is the point in court process? He can't hold a hearing having already announced what he's going to decide.

Charlie's guardian asked on Friday why it was necessary for Armstrong to cross examine DrH, since he contributed to the meeting and the meeting was asked to agree a professional way forward. Armstrong clearly still wanted to cross examine DrH. Then came the info about this other child.

I'm getting old and cynical, but it looks to me like Armstrong will plan on making this take as long and to go into as much detail as he can manage, and rather than be a presented case of new evidence to decide on it's going to be all kinds of threads and ideas and possibilities as it usually is, the main aim of which is delaying reaching a decision.

If a decision is reached, then there will be a plea that the family get to celebrate the birthday, and everyone will look like monsters if they refuse, however based on Armstrong's track record giving another two weeks grace will very likely lead to more legal challenges.

I was hoping the judge was going to sort out a way forward with a very firm hand, but I'm really starting to wonder.

Hello All, I have been lurking for a while and have just joined Mumsnet. The thread has been interesting and compassionate towards Charlie, Connie and Chris. I have learned a lot through the contributions from health care professionals and contributors' experiences of health issues and loss I hope you don't mind me joining the debate.

I really can't see that the possible existence of another child with the same condition getting the treatment has any relevance. There is no issue that GOSH did consider trying it for Charlie, but gave up when he had several days' worth of seizures and it became clear that it could no longer conceivably be beneficial for him. The other child, if s/he exists, will presumably be considerably healthier so that there is a better chance that it will benefit him or her. Even if it results in a measurable difference to that child, it won't change the fact that Charlie has dreadful brain damage which can't heal.

Puzzled - GOSH had made the decision! The parents challenged it.

The case will also establish, or re-inforce, some important principles Bubbles, so the case will inevitably be widely discussed anyhow once the court report is out.

It seems a bit daft to have a rally outside the RCJ at 3 p.m. on a Sunday. Self-evidently, the building is close, and there's not that much room outside it for a big demonstration. Plus, it's essentially a business area of London, so there won't be that many people around to observe the demonstration.

You have to give the police 6 days' notice for a march. If they attract any numbers, I suspect they'll be firmly led away. They'll get even more paranoid then.

Welcome BGB. I love your username! And I agree, these threads are an astonishingly rich and measured source of information - even when we're spinning our wheels, like now, the quality of conversation is good.. And I have found also, as this case has gone on and on, and for whatever reason I and others have been very preoccupied with it (I have a very remote and tenuous connection to one of Charlie's parents), it's been good to have somewhere to come and talk about it.

GOSH had made the decision! The parents challenged it

Actually I believe the (multiple) courts made the decision, but it's true the parents challenged it - as they'll certainly continue to do by any means possible

I don't believe a delay until Charlie's birthday would help anyone either; all it will do is send a message to the parents that just a little more fuss or a little more publicity will make the whole thing go away, which is surely no kindness at all

And in the meantime little Charlie continues to endure his own private hell