Charlie Gard 20

[CremeFresh]

Don't know if anyone else has started a new thread .

Have reported it to FB..wether they will remove it is debatable. It had to get past a mod..posted within last two hours. So no one sensible is looking after the CA page at all.

That must be the same photo that was doing the rounds on twitter last night. It's appalling. Will go on and report it myself too now.

Is scary how extreme some people with no direct links to the family have been in their responses. Although I wouldn't ageee I could understand people feeling GOSH have let the family down however to take that as far as threatening behaviour or making links to nazis is just bizzare and says a lot about the bandwagon mentality.

SomeDyke it's worth remembering that in the USA it's quite usual to see court proceedings televised; the O J Simpson trial always springs to mind, when it sometimes felt like half the nation was glued to their TV sets. Of course, that's no reason for them to act with disrespect and break the rules in ours

And I very much agree with your David and Goliath analogy, Aridane, especially regarding media coverage. It seems they always want an "angle" rather than just reporting straight news, and a contest involving an innocent babe and a big hospital - plus the courts, no less - was always going to be catnip for them

Which hasn't necessarily been helpful, least of all to the parents

Sos - so does the parents right to appeal always trump the needs of the child?

That's a very interesting post SomeDyke.

I think tweeting from court does open up court proceedings to lay people. This case was public and had a wide audience. I would rather read tweets from a seasoned commentator than poor reporting in the press or from other biased commentators. Also, the courts are keen to be open and accessible so people understand what their role is. I think the clarity of the judgemrnts does our system great credit.

I also think it is correct that the needs of the child come first and I have been horrified that so many people have publicly not understood this. The press, broadcast media, SM commentators and CA. It is correct that a child has a guardian in the court to represent them.

The hospital will undoubtedly review their mediation procedures. However one does feel that it couldn't work after Dr Hirano fave false hope and that was in January.

We must remember very few cases like this go to court. I would like to say that there were essentially 5 hearings/stages in this case. Two in the High Court, one in the Court of Appeal, one in the Supreme Court and the case was considered by the EU Court although that didn't get anywhere but it took up a lot of time. If we are to offer justice according to our law, these stages are inevitable in the most contentious cases. I do think the Judge closed it down in the end, and rightly so.

Nate: parents do not have a "right" of appeal. There are rules that govern if an appeal is allowed or not. Everyone has to abide by them. Some cases cannot be appealed because they don't meet the criteria and in fact the last one in the CG case could not go to appeal. If every case was appealed, because the aggrieved party had a "right" the Court of Appeal would need significantly more courts for the workload.

It was a very unusual case. Here's an alternative look at what GOSH does:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hannah-jones-the-girl-who-had-change-of-heart-over-transplant-gets-her-degree-mjd720xb8 (behind a paywall unfortunately)

Giving a child with capacity the choice to resist life-saving treatment and then providing it years down the road when the child changes their mind.

Nate, I think that is in essence what the appeals were about - the point of law in issue was whether the parents' rights come first. In essence it had to be resolved before the original order could take effect.

Congratulations to th poster who is fostering after loss

Ellie The Independent article is good, IMHO, but the comments below show how the people will never see eye to eye on this case.
Hirano I feel was hugely pivotal in this- promising rainbows in a storm-
Had it not been for Hirano, this case would never have been in the public eye, and ultimately a load of suffering would have been avoided.
Hope Hirano examines other patients in future before making offers to treat them

Scroll down the CA page and you'll find a post from an American family who are following in C&Cs footsteps. Of all the M-depletion experts they have contacted, Dr Hirano hasn't responded at all , the others have booked appoinments with them.

nauticant heres a free link www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/schoolgirl-who-changed-mind-after-10886549

TinselTwins, I read that post yesterday, very poignant wasn't it?

Yes Tinsel I saw that about the American family following in C & C's footsteps. Interesting about Dr H.

The child's needs always trumps the parents. The child cannot make a choice. Parents can't make the right choice sometimes because they are too emotionally involved. That is what our courts are for. The parents refused to agree with unequivacable medical evidence proved to be justified in several courts. Yes it was parents right to appeal but at what cost to Charlie's needs? The outcome was always going to be the same. Can't blame parents for trying, only natural BUT this whole case from beginning to end was about what was best for Charlie, not what was best for anyone else.

Thanks ItsNachoCheese. I had a quick look but didn't find an alternative. Looks like it was a year later rather than "years down the road" as I originally posted.

An interesting alternative story to see what can happen with a child having capacity.

I read The American Spectator piece 'The baby the British courts sentenced to death' which slates the UK government for having the ultimate say over parents.

In contrast, I do agree with the Cambridge academic who was quoted in a more balanced piece in the Chicago Tribune

" It's the role of the state and the courts to make an objective assessment of where the child's best interests lie," she said. "It's a devastating case on a human level. On a legal level, it's not as controversial."

Not American by the way, just curious to see how it's reported elsewhere.

I can't see that Elena, maybe they've removed it

Yes, legally it wasn't particularly controversial at all. It's legally interesting and unusual in the way it was managed, but based on the info we have, there was only ever going to be one decision. In particular, the parents Article 8 case was almost entirely without merit (that's not a value judgement, just they never had any chance of succeeding on that point).

Sos Couldn't agree with you more, which is why the Tribune piece bothered me. 'State trampling over the wishes of parents'

www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-charlie-gard-hospice-20170727-story.html

Don't read the The American Spectator - its pretty extreme right wing. Even more so than the UK one.

The child's needs always trumps the parents.

Sostenueto I don't think the parents ever took that on board. Everything was always about their rights as parents which they didn't actually have. Even at the end, when doctors including the overseas ones, were more certain he was in pain, it was about having more time. With the result that poor Charlie probably suffered pain for 6-7 months longer than necessary, and would have suffered even longer if the judge had not stepped in when he did.

Parents need educating more about children's rights, because it is clear from this case that there are many parents who don't understand this. Not sure how this could be done though.

It always comes down to ' I have a right, parents have a right'. Just because you love someone does not mean you possess them like any other possession. Charlie has his ' rights' a d as he as a baby or vulnerable child could not voice them his guardian in court did it for him. Chris and Connie are Charlie's parents with parental responsibility to nurture him and keep him safe. But they do not own him. No parent owns their child. No husband owns their wife and vice versa. No partner owns their partner etc etc etc.

Middleoftheroad

Hiya, not disagreeing with you but I think the Americans assume that if an individual or body is not completely independent then it is automatically an instrument of the state. That isn't true in Britain. It's a weird, and in some way unexplainable thing about Britain and British people that we are independent and yet allied to Britain.

I used to work in the criminal justice system. None of my colleagues whether they were judges, CPS advocates or administrators saw themselves in such narrow terms. Sure, we operated within a system but the system does allow for a degree of autonomy otherwise we wouldn't have case law which has been built up over hundreds of years, to name but one example. We do not (for better or worse) have a single constitution. This gives us the flexibility to adapt IMO. It creates problems of course but it is not intransigent, thank goodness. I think some commentators, especially those outside the UK, forget this.

Great news for Nelliebluff and I hope that C&C find peace somehow.

Yes, won't be reading that again scottishclive!