Charle Gard 21

[11122aa]

While discussion is almost over I have set up this thread incase anyone wants to post any comments to posts in the previous thread.

Well I don't think there is a negligence case. There was nothing that could be done when the disease spread so rapidly. You can hardly give more treatment if someone is fitting for a long period of time. Surely that has to be brought under control and the patient stabilised before starting any new treatment. There was no new treatment in this case and then the disease progressed rapidly so really all that could have been done was done. A tragic case from beginning to end but no one is at fault except maybe giving someone false hope, the media hype and pressure from CA and all and sundry that used this case for their own agendas. I really feel sorry for the family because they were unaware and still unaware they are being used.

Derxa you'll find the 'hide' button at the bottom of your screen above the 'add your message' box. You don't have to look at or open threads you don't want to participate in.

I agree there isn't going to be a successful negligence case, but I'm pretty sure there will be an attempt at bringing one. Thank you to the pp who shared the position statement links, they made informative reading.

Derxa you'll find the 'hide' button at the bottom of your screen above the 'add your message' box. You don't have to look at or open threads you don't want to participate in. Thank you. Very useful to know.

As well as the social media implications and potential CN claims, I hope this gives rise to a discussion on legal aid funding in situations like this. I made my view clear on previous threads and will restate it again: it's a disgrace that the legal profession ended up carrying the can for Parliament's fuck up here. We already have legal aid for parents involved in care proceedings, regardless of income, behaviour and chances of success. The reason for that is that the implications, loss of a child, are so important that nobody should have to go unrepresented. I think that should be mirrored in cases like this too.

The judge made that clear to. People just cannot access justice without legal aid.

The parents' position statement makes me very uncomfortable. There are points in it that are so very directly at odds with the other accounts, and which should be clear from the transcript of the MDT meeting - E.g. were Profs Bertini and Hirano really still offering to treat Charlie? It feels like even their lawyers have had to bend to their view of things, even when it doesn't seem to be supported by facts.

MontyP This is an issue which struck me - and I'd be interested to hear views from posters with a legal background. I'd thought the parents' lawyers were at the meeting, so the position paper would reflect that, but actually seems they have written down what the parents thought/understood, which does seem to be at odds with everyone else's recollection. Is it the case that the lawyers are just there to channel what the parents' say are their views, or are they there to record what happened in the meeting?

There were no lawyers present at the meeting which Connie was allowed to sit in on accompanied by an ethicist (clinical meeting) and full transcript of meeting was given to the judge.

Then the results were not available for press I think. May be wrong, not sure.

What do people think of the ethics which will be involved with the latest gene research where they have isolated genes to cure a disease? Should they continue or not?

Well IF the US doctor said something like, "we could still have a go, if you like" (because after all, Charlie could have provided valuable research material for him), then one could see how Connie might interpret that as being still a viable option.

It seems from the mentions of the medics meeting in the Guardian's position statement that Dr H. said something along the lines of there are unrecoverable brain cells and some that might be unrecoverable, and no way to know without trying the treatment which is which. He seems to have gradually played down the potential success of the outcomes through the meeting, the Guardian records him saying three versions of the same thing rephrased, each one getting less and less definite or positive about outcomes. He seemed more or less willing to have a bash and see what happened, and no doubt would have been very interested in the results.

The difficulty is that Hirano has always seemed to say that he would give it a go if someone is prepared to fund it. The April judgment recorded that he accepted the chances were vanishingly small but he was still prepared to try. I'm not too clear whether he took on board the risks posed by the journey itself, and of course everything he said was further tainted by the fact that he'd never examined Charlie. But it's not surprising that C&C latched on to that and got the impression that the odds were better than they actually were.

Mary's, AFAIK the hospital first took the case to court when they applied for permission to switch to palliative care only, not the parents. Hence the fact that the parents were denied legal aid to oppose such a claim then seems even worse.

Think the parents earnings may have had something to do with legal aide? Think it depends on how much you earn, again not sure so awaiting correction on that.

Is anyone able to repost the link for the position statements? The one posted at the beginning of the thread says 'page not found'
Unless I'm being dense? Thank you

It can do, but no legal aid exists for this type of case however poor you are. And in care proceedings, where there's the possibility of losing ones child, all parents get legal aid regardless of income. Many of us think that's what should've happened here.

It can do, but no legal aid exists for this type of case however poor you are. And in care proceedings, where there's the possibility of losing ones child, all parents get legal aid regardless of income. Many of us think that's what should've happened here. Yes

Legal Aid is only available for very limited categories of case. Anyone applying for legal aid has to satisfy both a means and a merits test. If they qualify financially, they still have to demonstrate that the case stands at least a 50% chance of success, usually. Also, once Legal Aid is granted, it's usually only for a limited amount and/or up to a certain stage in the case: every time the lawyers apply for an higher limit or an extension to the next stage, they have to justify it. Often that's by way of a barrister's opinion, though it might also be by reference to something like an expert's report. The lower the percentage chance of success at the outset, the tighter the rein the Legal Aid Agency keep on it.

There are also very limited types of legal aid where it is granted irrespective of means, child care cases being the most notable one. The point very validly made here is that it is irrational to grant legal aid automatically if the body claiming rights over your child is the local authority, but not when it's a hospital.

As a complete lay person I would like to see a system of legal aid involving children to be covered where there is a reasonable chance of success.
We cannot have everyone using the trump card of 'child' to take any spurious cases to court against a hospital or any agency involved in the protection and welll being of children.
In terms of charlie's case it seems evident that barristers/solicitors specialising in the field of medical cases were not forthcoming with offering pro bono support to his parents. One can only assume that in their experience it was a case with no merit
Sadly a barrister unfamiliar (or at least not specifically experienced in this area) has taken the rogue ball and has run with it.
Maybe they were looking for maximum exposure or maybe they genuinely believed in what they were standing for. Or maybe they felt it an injustice that the parents might be forced to take on a legal system with no representation so felt that they were better than none.
Who knows.
But it's a part of the story I would love to be party to. The relationship C&C had with their legal teams and how they felt as parents dropped into a naturally, and rightly, adversarial legal process when they were only equipped and able to respond in an emotional way as parents of a dying child.

Oops sorry, some of my points were addressed and explained by Ceto

It's possible to strongly disagree with the legal case a person wants to make, but still believe in equality of arms. That is, that as Gosh were going to have damn fine lawyers, so should the parents. I'm a solicitor and I do. I don't know that I'd be generous enough to take on something like this pro bono, but then there's been a lot of publicity.

Re misuse of legal aid, people have raised this, but honestly its so bloody hard to get these days that it shouldn't be a significant concern. We provide universal representation in care cases and there isn't a misuse problem there. And the lack of legal aid hasn't and doesn't function as a deterrent in cases like this either. We can extend the principles of legal aid in care cases without allowing everyone to sue hospitals whenever they feel like it.