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 am a bit thrown by the idea of celebrating the baby's birthday in the circumstances.

Wouldn't you want to keep memories of the day of his birth, when everything was wonderful and he seemed fine, as clear as possible?

Every now and then the sheer awfulness of this case overwhelms again.

I posted in the American ca group supporting Gosh and have been reported for trolling apparently.

I imagine if Dr. Hirano could potentially treat Charlie, that option would have been fast-tracked by the judge and Charlie would already be on his way to the US. The writing is on the wall, as it has been for a while now.

Such a tragic and sad situation.

I don't think specifying a deadline for life support to be withdrawn is part of the judge's remit. I imagine he will leave that decision to the doctors.

In legal terms, isn't the judge's role simply to either uphold or overturn the hospital's decision?

Marking my place. These threads have been very measured and informative.

I suppose it's just possible that there's been a radical change of stance on the parents' side as a result of the latest scans, as a result of which there won't need to be so much time for the hearing. I have thought about whether GOSH likewise might have changed their stance, but it seems unlikely judging by Friday's announcement about the MRI.

Puzzled. Please read the details of the court decisions. GOSH wanted to move to palliative care. That was the view the parents challenged. Courts, in most circumstances, do not make decisions about this. It only comes to court if there is a disagreement. The hospital then has to seek clarity and have reinforced legal backing for its planned course of action. In most cases parents and hospitals agree.

I do also agree that this case will set a precedent for the future and it could be that we see many more similar cases. Barristers could be doing a lot of pro bono work!

My goodness this is a tricky one. Put a date on when to move to palliative care sounds like an execution.
Not putting a date on it could continually put off the inevitable and make it worse for Charlie and the parents.
I cannot make my mind up on this one at all. Ethically I don't know what is right or wrong, if. In fact, there is a right or wrong way.

The judge may well feel he has broader shoulders than GOSH, given the threats against staff etc. so I could see he might well recommend a 'no later than' date for Charlie to move to palliative care.

"GOSH applied to the High Court for judges to decide whether withdrawal of ventilation and providing palliative care instead of experimental treatment was in Charlie’s best interests.

The High Court ruled this was in Charlie’s best interests on 11 April 2017.

Charlie’s parents then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal ruled on 25 May 2017 that the High Court decision still stood and that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.

The parents have applied to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled on 8 June 2017 that the Court of Appeal and the High Court decision still stood and that it would be in Charlie’s best interests to be allowed to die with dignity."

www.gosh.nhs.uk/frequently-asked-questions-about-charlie-gard-court-case

goodbyestranger I completely agree

pastorwanker

If the judge upholds his original decision I think GOSH proabbly would act fast given how it turned out when they give family time- give parents couple of days to decide among the choices of where they would like their baby's tube taken out & organise it swiftly as they would very much want to stop prolonging the child's suffering.
I wonder if the judge will direct when it has to be done by or if any further appeals allowed etc.
I am sure there will be complaints saying family aren't being given enough time to say goodbye & they/CA want to celebrate his birthday (they are already making plans from the sounds of it), but for the poor babies sake I hope there are no further appeals & the is allowed to pass away with dignity & privately with loved ones & this media circus ends soon.

That's a good point, maybe it's moved later as the parents have effectively dropped their case since getting Fridays results?

Hope so beyond. If the hearing was a two-minute job to say that everyone was now on the same page, case dismissed, no we won't be publishing the medics' transcript as no need, that would be the best outcome from where we are now.

I think it will be very difficult for parents to just drop the case even if they have changed their views- it has gotten a lot bigger than them & they will face their supporter's warth- especially the pro-lifers will turn against them- it's easier to let someone else (the judge) make the decision for them.

It's occurred to me that the latest results may give those poor parents pause for thought, but they are now under great keep "fighting" because of the international scrutiny. So, making things even more difficult. I hope if they are minded to reconsider, they are able to do so without any backlash or judgement.

It's sad as well how many people have just not understood the principle of the child having rights independently of parents. If the treatment/operation in question was, for example, cosmetic and clearly unnecessary, or FGM, people would be in uproar at the idea that the parents might claim that only they know what's best for their child. This is not the case here, but the principle is still sound- parents don't get to override the child's rights, and it's that little boy's right to only endure more treatment if there is a realistic prospect of it working and giving him a quality of life without pain.

So very sad for all.

I think that the judge will have to say by X time and date if the decision is made to move Charlie to palliative care.

The potential can't be left, imo, for all this to play out yet again just incase someone finds some "new evidence".

I can't see the judge being swayed by any birthday stuff. It is the adults that want to celebrate, not Charlie.

From where I'm standing there seems precious little to celebrate. He was able to do more the day he was born than he can now. Poor little Charlie.

Frankly, I think they have enough on their minds now with tomorrow so close than to waste their time worrying about a backlash from the likes of Pastor and CA. They've distanced themselves by deploring the death threats, they've got away from KipperTwat, and what the US people do it basically far far away mostly (OK, the silly man is at the CoJs right now but so what?).

Quite agree Fairy. The judge will want to ensure everything is watertight so there is no room for any more delaying tactics.

I feel so so sorry for Connie and Chris, Chris having to actually take time out to write that statement because a UKIP member went rogue.

My fear now is when the judgement results in life support being switched off - they'll demand more time to 'make memories' (hate that saying because Charlie won't have any). And because it's his birthday. All of this (if the judge agrees) is so that C&C could finally be at peace, I'm sure somewhere in their thinking it's about calming them two down as much as possible.

From there I imagine some sort of Charlie's Law will be created about parental control. It's just a mess, an utter mess. I'm still at a loss as to why it wasn't switched off the last time and this has been allowed to continue. For every day it does, the harder it'll be for the parents. With Charlie gone there isn't anything for them to fight for.