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

Interesting that the publicist's article is entirely silent about the period when she fell out with the family in a big way, and the involvement of people like UKIP man and the pastor.

I can't see why MN should have any objection to posting tweets from the court, even if they are negative about the family - and that's unlikely anyway given that to date all concerned have been extremely careful to avoid that. Joshua Rozenberg is a very reputable journalist who will be reporting purely factually, and they've had no problem with it up to now.

I remember as a student in London in the late 1960s, early 1970s being 'Anti-Establishment' with very little understanding of what it actually meant.
Well what we wished for seems to have come to pass.

I can't see why MN should have any objection to posting tweets from the court, even if they are negative about the family - and that's unlikely anyway given that to date all concerned have been extremely careful to avoid that. Joshua Rozenberg is a very reputable journalist who will be reporting purely factually, and they've had no problem with it up to now.

I'm taking from this MN have intervened and said we cannot share the Tweets?

11122aa. Can't see the word baby is less emotive than little boy personally. I would just keep away from news reports and read the twitter from Joshua Rosenberg. He will use the language of the court.

I like JR'so tweets because as a PP said he has a great ability to choose the key points of the case and get them across. His tweets really upset my point of view at various moments and although that was difficult to take, i felt it was good for me and gave a strong flavour of how the case was coming across in the courtroom.

Sorry online, I'm confused now, clearly having a dopey moment - what do you mean?

Might be me being dopey rather than you. Temps in the mid 30° and raging humidity make my brain go slow. I saw the threads about the proposed bill for self ID and assumed that is what you were talking about.

How can removing life support be less emotive? There is no way of being fluffy about this is there?

Distracting side note- I've worked with Dr Ranj and he is lovely 😊

I work in children's palliative care and currently have a similar case ongoing which will now go to court and I do not doubt that the publicity surrounding Charlie has influenced this. In a way I think that this is positive for the family and for the HCP to be able to have someone independent make a judgment, however the resources it has taken to get to this point and the strain and disentergration on the therapeutic relationship between with the family has been tremendous.

I've read that the court is not due to sit until 2.00pm today, rather than the 10.00am start proposed - I wonder if something has gone on behind the scenes to make a decision possible today (or if no new evidence has actually been put forward).

I haven't seen any of Dr Ranj's comments on the matter but I will look them up later.

I hope it is sorted today.

Yes yes it is don't worry, my thoughts are mush too, I'm having a bed day today!

Well Bubbles it is certainly better than the sun calling him a tot.

MNHQ have said nothing about us not sharing the tweets or anything else reported through the court.

The only issue is not bashing the parents here. The screen shots of fb ca extreme weirdness also not helpful,

@cj110t no they've said nothing about tweets so I say go for it.

Would the position of a judge acting as a mediator be helpful or make the situation less strained though? One problem that springs to mind is how parents will see themselves as being up to the job in the mediation process. CY sees herself as an expert when she cannot be that in medical training or experience terms. What if parents still feel the hospital holds all the aces at mediation with no barristers representing the parents? Will this "judgement" ever be accepted by parents if they are not represented?

It's amazing how many words we can find that mean "baby" isn't it?

@LapinR0se I'll grab some lunch now and will start Tweets later then.

Protestors at the High Court...

Thanks for your comments - happy to clarify our position. As ever, we'll remove posts that break Talk Guidelines, and because this thread concerns an ongoing court case, please do also refrain from speculating about any elements of the case that aren't already in the public domain.

Do also remember that Mumsnet is primarily a source of support for parents; Charlie's parents are real people dealing with a truly horrendous situation - please keep that front of mind when you post.

We don't want to stifle debate and we certainly don't want to delete these threads, but we will remove posts which we feel are parent-blaming or goady; that includes screenshots or direct quotes from FB pages.

Thanks all,
MNHQ

That second bit seems quite clear to me, thanks AmyG.
No parent blaming, even if it's not from you and is a quote.

I guess the only way to know what is okay to post re court speculation is to see what gets deleted? As I'm honestly not sure where the line between commentary on the court case ends and speculation begins. Obviously out and out speculation is exactly that, I just mean the more middle-y bits.

I've read that the court is not due to sit until 2.00pm today, rather than the 10.00am start proposed - I wonder if something has gone on behind the scenes to make a decision possible today (or if no new evidence has actually been put forward).

Hirano can't be present via video link until 2pm, it'd have been 5am for him at 10am .

They knew Hirano was not available until 2 pm when they originally agreed 10 am.

Also, the quotes from the court will not be parent blaming. What the new evidence looks like will be of interest though.

Is it known that Hirano will be giving evidence?

But I thought the judge said his decision would be based on the transcript of the medical experts' meeting? Surely Hirano was present at that, so would have given his views about the claimed "new evidence" then?

Unless Armstrong has asked to cross examine him, I guess ... in which case anything could happen