Charlie Gard (16) Future implications arising from case

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

If anyone wants to post, perhaps we could consider what implications today's case might have for others in future ... ?

JaneEyre70 I hope not, the fighting has to stop. His home is GOSH where he has been for all of his life but two months.

It is unbelievable that concentration camp and nazi parallels are still openly being drawn and allowed to remain on the CA group.

The tabloid press have so much to answer for

I'm sure GOSH will set up a homely atmosphere for the couple and their relatives. I had a friend (since tragically deceased herself) whose 3 year old child very sadly died in the hospital and although there are no words of comfort to give to the parents, they had nothing but high praise for the way in which GOSH handled it (this was over 10 years ago).

Even if parents don't sue (which I think they will) would there still be an investigation (for want of a better word) to try and reflect on what's happened or to identify what could be improved should a similar situation arise?

I'm still baffled over the whole did me or didn't he have brain damage following the tests in January issue and I think unless a full report is written with all the facts included and made public, I worry that GOSH will always have doubters.

I have heard C&C repeatedly say the first MRIs and EEGs didnt show damage and they have said this was also backed up by various other Soecialists and Neurologists who have seen the reports over the last few weeks. I know this is hear-say and so may not be the truth but surely GOSH and the rest of them should release a statement or provide some proof that there was severe damage based on his January tests.

The argument of C&C is that his January scans were not as bad as GOSH are making out, and other doctors have agreed, and that's why Charlie should have been allowed the treatment and the fact he wasn't it what's negligent.

I guess I just don't understand why, when GOSH know the crux of the issue is the disagreement around the early scans/EEGs, they aren't doing anything to prove they didn't "lie" or "get it wrong" as C&C are suggesting.

As a HCP I just find it very odd that there can be such opposing views. GOSH saying there was irreversible and catastrophic damage yet others doctors who've seen the results/images are saying there is no evidence of that. Apparently one doctor said his early tests were "typical" of a boy Charlie's age. It just doesn't make sense.

From reading all the anti GOSH comments on SM it seems everyone is latching on to the scan/EEG results discrepancies as the basis for their anger and blame and I just think that until this issue is resolved GOSH will forever be held accoubtable and be seen as incompetent by many people.

That's why I just wondered if a full report would ever be released for the public to read including statements from all the professionals involved?

I think there needs to be some kind of written evidence from other neurologists/specialists that do not work for GOSH to say that January brain scans/EEGs did show severe damage. I know GOSH have said it numerous times themselves but I think they need the backing of others now because a lot of people have lost faith in GOSH and do believe they are "hiding something" about those initial scan results based on what C&C have said about the other doctor's opinions.

wright stuff are talking about it saying media have been very one sided which im glad thyve brought up

also saying becaus of death threats how are the mdics goin g to be protected if hes allowed home an they need to accompany him

The abuse seems worse than ever when I looked online this morning.

Writerwannabee
It is all written down in GOSH statements and the judges summing up.

The parents obviously want to take him home, GOSH aren't in agreement and that the Judge may be asked to rule if the two sides can't agree. I really hope that isn't true, it would awful beyond words if this went back to court

Bloody Hell.

How far away do they live from the hospital? I don't know London at all.

If I was GOSH I would tell parents about any potential risks but then I would just let them take him.

When we've had children at work that are terminal (and expected to die in 24 hours) or life support is going to be withdrawn we do all we can to accommodate either the child being taken home or being taken to a Children's Respite home, whichever is more feasible.

Some children's respite homes and hospices have a special room for children to die in which are set at very, very cold temperatures to allow the families to have more time with the children following the death as opposed to a limited time in the hospital setting.

I don't agree with C&C still putting the blame at GOSH's door but if I was GOSH I would be asking if dragging things back through Court is really the best option if the transport risks to Charlie are actually very small.

Ceto Thanks for putting me straight on the legal aid issue , and dispelling what I thought that a person without a property can run up an unlimited legal aid bill.
When my husband and I got divorced , both of our legal aid bills had to be paid for out of the property we had.
I paid mine off, expecting the bill to be cleared, but my ex husband hadn't paid HIS off!!...
Anyway..all sorted now, but knowing ex hadn't cleared his was a bit of a shock.

It is all written down in GOSH statements and the judges summing up.

I know - but people don't believe GOSH. That's why I said the other doctors who agreed at the time that there was irreversible/catastrophic damage need to come forward too with a statement from themselves to confirm the damage was there because I don't think people will accept what GOSH is saying is the truth.

Well, we already know they don't accept it.

Two main reasons why legal aid would have been better:

1. It already is in care proceedings, ie other child related proceedings, whatever the resources of the parents and without putting a charge on their property or other assets. And however badly they might have behaved. It's automatic, because Parliament has taken the view that people who stand to have their children removed from them ought to be entitled to legal representation.

There's a persuasive argument that the same principle applies here, in a child welfare proceeding where the outcome could be if anything even more serious.

1. It's too much to expect of the legal professions to do stuff like this pro bono.

Despite what people might read elsewhere, solicitors and barristers already do a great deal for free. This, however you want to slice it, was a case of some importance. It's a piss take that the highly qualified professionals necessary to help the parents and achieve equality of arms were expected to effectively pay for the privilege (they will have most likely turned down fee paying work to do this).

I also don't agree with the points about how legal aid for this type of case is a bad idea because of the potential for it to be abused. I've worked in legal aid, under both the old rules and the new. There was some piss taking under the more lenient rules, I'd never deny that, especially with divorce and contact.

But the reality is that people as desperate as the parents aren't going to be put off by not having access to legal aid. They would have the right to go to law regardless, and to self-represent. Which would have made the whole thing infinitely worse, both on the grounds of equality of arms and practicality.

If you think this has been a circus so far, you can quadruple that with litigants in person. Dispassionate legal representation helps people present their case, but it also keeps them disciplined. Think of Connie addressing the court yesterday, some of the outbursts during hearings. Imagine that throughout, how long that would have dragged things on for and how traumatic it would have been for the parents. Do you think you'd do a decent job at presenting your case in that scenario, at allowing the proceedings to keep going? I wouldn't, and I'm a solicitor.

Gabsalot Yes, surely Charlie needs accompanying by specialist team. Presumably the staff cannot just be 'borrowed'' from GOSH? ..I'm sure GOSH will cover this though.

Writerwannabee
It cleatly says it was not just GOSH opinion but of other leading experts as well.

It cleatly says it was not just GOSH opinion but of other leading experts as well.

I know it does!!

But if it's a statement written by GOSH then the doubters won't believe it because they say that GOSH are lying.

I'm just going to stop talking.

Surely any doctor who has been involved is required to maintain patient confidentiality and can't give out any details about scans or brain damage or anything else?

As to taking him home, it's still about what is in Charlie's best interests, and I don't see how he would benefit at all. It's not as if he remembers being at home, or would be aware of it.

Plus, what are the chances that if it happened, it could be kept completely private, and wouldn't turn into a circus?

Writerwannabee
Its not written by GOSH , its written by the Judge in the previous summing up.

TheNightmanCometh, thank you, I appreciate the legal input.

I definitely agree that in welfare cases there should be legal aid and yes, this possibly would come under that.

So probably, if public money being used, it wouldn't have got to the point of expensive witnesses being flown over?

But parents as determined as that would still raise money to fight the system anyway if legal aid refused?

I have been reading about the problems with litigants in person, it's very interesting (and worrying).

We have lots of lawyers in the family but they are all in boring things like M&A

A lot of the ca fb protesters have gone to join Alfies Army or the Harry's fight page. And they are being allowed to talk and discuss it all there.

But if it's a statement written by GOSH then the doubters won't believe it because they say that GOSH are lying.

But it's not a statement written by GOSH. It's evidence given to the first court hearing and recorded by the court. Even the parents' own expert witness, from Southampton, concurred with the others.

@TheNightmanCometh

I agree with you. I remember sitting in on a hearing in a family dispute, many years ago, where an unrepresented parent ended up wailing and screaming at the judge and using some highly emotive language. It frankly went down like a lead balloon and was awkward to watch - I remember feeling both pity and toe-curling embarrassment.

Plus, the backlash against the hospital would doubtless have been even worse if the parents hadn't been able to get pro bono representation and had be forced to give up or else represent themselves against the hospital's lawyers - can you imagine the headlines?

The parents obviously want to take him home, GOSH aren't in agreement and that the Judge may be asked to rule if the two sides can't agree. I really hope that isn't true, it would awful beyond words if this went back to court

Was this not the issue in one of the past court hearings? That the parents wanted to take C "home to die" and were not allowed? Why is it going round in circles?

I have just looked at the other two pages mentioned below, I am just so tired of seeing the abuse and defamation given out to the NHS staff and hospitals, I can't face reading any more.

Exactly the same mentality of follower too.

@writerwannabe83

The argument of C&C is that his January scans were not as bad as GOSH are making out, and other doctors have agreed, and that's why Charlie should have been allowed the treatment and the fact he wasn't it what's negligent.

To be honest it's C&C's interpretation of what the other doctors have said. The other doctors who hasn't seen the patient at the time. They also have publically interpreted '10% chance of improvement in muscle
Function' as '10% chance of him being a completely normal boy'.
Who knows what those Dr's really said.

So probably, if public money being used, it wouldn't have got to the point of expensive witnesses being flown over?

Mmm, I'm not sure about that tbh. The Judge could presumably order it as an expense on the parents legal aid certificate if he wanted. I haven't actually done care law in ages but that's how it worked a few years back, if it were felt a particular type of expert were needed.

I actually think that the way the parents had pursued this and it all unfolded, Dr Hirano was always going to have to be at least invited over at some point. As of course he was, early on. And he has to at least be offered his expenses covered. I think the unpalatable reality here is that if parents want to choose the path that C and C have, they can do so and cause considerable public expense if they want, and the least worst thing is probably to accept that.

That's not to say there aren't any ways this could have been better managed, and I wonder if we might see a move towards some kind of standard or practice direction or something that if you want to admit the evidence of an expert, they need to have examined the patient.