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

Those comments weren't posted on MN.
Friendly you seem intent on using these MN threads to criticise these parents. You've been told repeatedly that it won't be tolerated, by MNHQ or MN users. There was talk mooted about a FB group. If your only issue is analysing how badly you perceive Charlie's parents to be behaving , presumably you're free to do it there without moderation.

Just been on gosh page, still CA spouting their bile. (Sigh).and others insulting parents its like a drug looking at these awful posts. I haven't done it much because there have been some real shockers that have made me ashamed to call myself a human being.
I still believe there are a load of trolls on ca and they are goading the rest of the posters. They have had a field day. What a sick, sick world it is. ( sad). How on earth are we ever going to fix it?

I think there is danger in saying that Drs and nurses are used to it. That does not excuse it or make it right. There are MPs who become used to abuse, but it is still wrong. If we cannot say that abuse of people is absolutely not acceptable from anyone, then we condone it happening. Arguments can be put forward without abuse of those you disagree with. That's why professional advice should have been brought in to replace the family and other hangers on. A UKIP person? Why?

How can we say either way that C&C are not showing "empathy and kindness"?

They are two people who are in an awful situation caught up in a social media shitstorm who have been terribly badly advised from the looks of things and are vulnerable to whacko hangers on

I'm a solicitor and one thing that keeps being mentioned by colleagues is what a bloody disgrace it is that legal aid wasn't available. C&C would have likely had the same set of solicitors and counsel from the beginning who would have been in a much better position to advise strategically rather than reactively and would have have told them to avoid mad UKIP man and the pastor from the word go.

Lelloteddy, I wish you would stop attacking people for not agreeing with you.

We're all very aware of the need not to address the big issue of the parents too directly. We need to continue to do that as we respect the rules of mumsnet hq.

But you can't ignore the fact there is a substantial portion of us that are restraining ourselves, and wish to express our opinion, if only obliquely and as 'kindly' as we can.

Otherwise you really do wish to operate in an echo chamber.

no thy werent but why can we not say being in a hard situation doesnt excuse certain behaviour

"I think there is danger in saying that Drs and nurses are used to it."

There's more than danger.
It's not bloody true, for a start.

As a doctor on the frontline of patient care, you could never get used to it. And beyond providing emergency care, verbal or physical abuse cannot be tolerated - or excused.

Thankfully, the vast majority of individuals, no matter how horrendous the personal situation in which they find themselves, would never dream of verbally or physically abusing staff.

Grant Armstrong has been their barrister from the first case. I guess he has no control over social media and the wider family. They do not seem to be the listening type.

I imagine thinking about other families doesn't even register with C&C. They're in their own bubble of hell and I doubt anything outside of that bubble even enters their thoughts.

writer - I think that's spot on. My DH is a HCP and has said very little about this case but that absolutely chimes with his views.

Equally how do we know they are being badly advised, they could be ignoring advise. being involved with a petition being brought to gosh andhaving interviews outside gosh, invitiing the pro lifers into nicu does not show much empathy.

GA has been acting pro bono as far as I am aware so therefore (understandably) has limited time to spend on this and was instructed at the 11th hour. There's a big deference between that and having the same team from the beginning and being able to build up a proper solicitor/client relationship - it's normally the solicitor who would deal with day to day client management in any event

'Attacking' Straighttalker? Really? You may be aware of the need to not 'attack' the parents but there are one or two others who seem intent on doing that. If you believe my recent post to be an 'attack' on anybody, please do report it to MNHQ.
These threads contain to much measured, valuable information for them to be derailed because a few people are determined to shout down anyone who suggests they refrain from directly attacking two parents who are facing the most horrific time in their lives.

We know they've not had legal aid and we know they've accepted pro bono help. These are matters of fact. My point is that there is a body of professional opinion to the effect that legal advice and assistance from the beginning from the sane team would have helped at the most and, at the least, not hindered

What Lelloteddy said

Lelloteddy, you do seem to keep attacking me, so I am going to ignore you and carry on talking with the other posters on here.

I've just caught up with a whole day's worth of posts! Phew.

I see that the thread keeps veering back to a discussion of the parents and that there are concerns for the future of the threads of this keeps happening. Rightly or wrongly, I think it is extremely difficult to discuss much at all on this thread right now because nothing is currently happening with the case apart from the GOSH/parents "abuse" statements. Those of us who feel disgusted and upset that GOSH have received so much abuse will of course want to be discussing the dynamics of the other parties (CA and the parents) in that abuse.

It is frustrating. I've decided I'm going to jog on from that discussion and just mark time here until the hearings begin again tomorrow and we have something material to discuss. It feels like debate is being stifled on here, but I fully understand that that is how it has to be for now

[twiddles thumbs]

And does no one care about the other parents there going through a similar hell?

I meant on here, there doesn't seem to be much discussion on here about it. I don't expect C&C to consider the other parents there.

Gobbolinothewitchscat, I do think there should be legal aid available for cases like this.

Friendly I do care about that. And I don't think all behaviour should be automatically written off just because someone is a parent.

Friendlysnake please do report any posts where I have attacked you.

We have seen spokespeople saying things in their name. One would have assumed a good adviser could have headed this off. I think they cannot take advice at the moment, about anything probably.

Venusflytwat thank you, there seems to be a personal grudge here that I have no idea of as having just checked my posts, they do not contain any direct attacks, nor do they stand out from many other posters.

The legal aid situation is very, very bad but isn't it the case that the parents sacked the first pro bono team? I don't know that that's correct but have seen it written somewhere, either here or in the press. They're fortunate I guess in having lawyers prepared to work pro bono. Not all cases which should have legal aid but don't get picked up, there's no obligation to take on a pro bono case. I don't know why there's such a fast turnover in the parent's 'camp' (for want of a better word) but it seems to be a noticeable trait - several possible explanations for that.

I'd be interested if anyone knows that too goodbye I didn't realise GA had been instructed at the 11th hour and stepped in

I saw something today saying that the family's first legal team were appointed for them by GOSH? In which case I can see as they got further through the legal process they wanted to move to an independent team. At what point did GA begin acting for them?