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.

Sophia Roper, barrister for the parents for the first case in April, is very much a medical case expert. She was however from the same chambers as the QC for GOSH. The parents changed solicitors and barristers for the Appeal. They did however get a QC for that. Whether they didn't want to stay with Sophia Roper or Bindmans we just don't know. For whatever reason they had an expert but didn't continue with her.

TheNightmanCometh I'm pleased to hear that because I really do think that this is an area that has really confused people.
Should, given the balance of evidence right from the start, this case very come before the court. Let alone all the cases that followed.
Again as a lay person following the case, it's been so hard to see that the parents ever really had an evidence based case but were allowed to continue along their path of self torture.
Why was/is there no way within the law to take people away from the process and say 'no more'.
It seems as if as long as you can get a barrister to speak for you in court you can bring forward any action you like.
I understand and believe on our legal system, but just sometimes surely someone just says 'no'.
BTW I'm not being adversarial I just want a better understanding of the system that protects us.

Bindmans are also pretty hot on this sort of stuff. Legal aid, civil liberties, parents rights type stuff. They're very much the first firm you'd expect to get involved with something like this.

It was GOSH that brought the original case. The parents did not. There was no resolution or agreement between the parties regarding the proposed end of life care for Charlie so Court was the only option for GOSH because they believed Charlie should not receive experimental treatment or indeed any treatment to prolong suffering.

The parents were given leave to appeal. I think the Judge did bend over backwards in allowing this but it is the life of a child they were talking about. The QC that took the case on for the parents in the Court of Appeal is a leading barrister in constitutional law. The Supreme Court case was put together by a further set of barristers neither of whom were QCs but were excellent barristers. I think the parents did have every opportunity to put their case forward but would we have thought that they had received justice if this hadn't been allowed? Indeed all the courts made judgements made on Charlie's best interests and the judgements certainly reinforced the rights of the child.

There is a view that medical/legal tribunals should be established whose decisions are binding. This could be the way forward but would C and C have been happy with any decision that went against them? If you will not mediate, then going to a tribunal with medics and lawyers won't seem a good prospect either. It all really came down to the parents not accepting the views of the majority of experts and believed dubious alternative views on Charlie's treatment.

It is so harrowing, I am not sure too many other parents will follow suit particularly with the legal aid situation.

i just dont think u should gt automatic legal aid if your refusing mediation in a case like this

and the statements arent based on facts from the parents it was what they thought-how can u say somone isnt blind when a team of doctors is telling you its true

Have the position statements been taken down? The earlier link leads me to 'page not found'. I'd really like to read them if anyone has a working link please.

i just dont think u should gt automatic legal aid if your refusing mediation in a case like this

The problem with that is that mediation, though completely brilliant, isn't a silver bullet and doesn't suit everyone. So if you force everyone to go through the charade of mediation when it has no possibility of working, you're just wasting time and resources. You're also making it more likely that parents like Chris and Connie will end up representing themselves, if there's no legal aid. And honestly, if you think this was a complete circus, multiply that by a dozen if you add litigants in person into the mess.

Additionally, I'd point out that there's no requirement for mediation in care cases. There's just no logic, as Ceto eloquently put it, in giving legal aid when the body trying to enforce rights over your child is the local authority but not if it's the local NHS trust.

The Transparency Project link near the top of the thread has links to the different position statements. They seem to have gone from the Serjeants Inn page. And finding a mention of the case isn't easy there either. I assume there's been a tsunami of abuse from the madder CA factions.

Why was/is there no way within the law to take people away from the process and say 'no more'.
It seems as if as long as you can get a barrister to speak for you in court you can bring forward any action you like.

I think it's important to distinguish two things here.

The first is representation. You're allowed to represent yourself in court. It's an important right. C and C would have been able/forced to conduct the case themselves if they couldn't have got legal representatives. Litigants in person are, for obvious reasons, not likely to be as skilled and professional as someone who's trained in presenting a case and emotionally distant from it. Can you imagine what it would be like if the parents had been cross examining some of the GOSH staff, or Dr Hirano, or the Guardian? Would have been even worse for everyone concerned than it was. It's in everyone's interests for parents in these sorts of matters to be able to get lawyers.

The second is appeals. This whole thing was actually done incredibly quickly, but I think most people agree it was too long for Charlie.

I don't know how far it's possible to speed things up further in the current system. This is why people are talking about some kind of alternative tribunal or something, although again I think people would still have to be able to judicially review it. There'd have to be some scrutiny.

These are important discussions and I'm glad we as a society seem to be having them, but I think we also have to be alert to the possibility that maybe this completely flawed and imperfect system is the best way to do it. Maybe the occasional parent who decides to fight it as far as possible is going to cause a great deal of extra suffering and expense, but the alternatives are worse? I don't know. I'm open to more information and views. This is why I think we need a sensible societal discussion.

Hope that didn't sound arsey btw Drivinmecrazy I think it's good you're asking these questions, especially as you're not a lawyer. These are conversations we all need to be having.

These threads are just so interesting and informative, thank you everyone who has contributed.

I suspect that Bindmans and the barristers they instructed may have bowed out or been booted because they thought appeals were hopeless, and of course, if so, they were proved right. It may also be that Bindmans couldn't commit the sort of resources needed - they do a lot of legal aid work, and given that pay rates for legal aid are a fraction of what solicitors can earn privately, they may not have been able to afford to continue.

Maryz I agree with what you said about NHS not being able to afford such cases both financially and emotionally. I read in one of the threads that about 10 such cases go to court every year. What's different in this case has been the huge SM frenzy and the misreporting in the press. I have feeling that there will not be any increase in the number of cases going to court every year, but we may see more attempts at publicising some of these cases. I'm also not sure whether this mob frenzy can be generated or sustained for many such cases. I could be wrong but CG case may not have any lasting negative impact in changing the Children's Act / increasing court challenges.

Even in this case, despite the huge SM pressure there really was no change in outcome other than a delay of few months. When the SM smears and accusations were increasing, more and more people spoke out in support of GOSH. The CA supporters were loud and papers were very biased but it didn't really reflect the reality.

So hopefully we will not see more of such cases in the future.

Do you think that it would put other people off going to court/appealing etc seeing how out of control the whole CG SM thing became? It took control of the parents in the end.

I think I take the view that not only are such cases going to occur, it would be very suspicious if they did not. When agreement isn't possible, for everyone's best interest who do we have left but the courts. Yes, streamline the process if we can and make sure people can get legal aid but the principle of a legal process where we have independent assessments of the medical evidence and what is in the best interests of the patient seems our best guarantee of legal protection of the rights of the patient.

lifebook Yes the out of control SM can put some people off too. For every one CG case there are more that quietly go to court and get decided and many many more that work with the health professionals and deal with the tragedies privately. If it is just a matter of going to court, I feel there will not be as much of a negative impact on the staff. They may be affected by some strained relationship and the demands on their time by the court case. But in this case the huge publicity and the SM attacks on staff was what made it very difficult for the hospital staff and other patients / families. I hope this was a flash in the pan and not a precedent for such campaigns in the future.

Guru I really hope that this was a one off with a view to all the dreadful SM and worldwide publicity that it garnered. Everyone suffered who was linked even tenuously.

Given that other cases do go to Court, we don't know about them because the parents have not used SM or the print media to raise money and publicise their case. Therefore unless parents want the publicity, it just does not happen. So it is in the hands of parents. Disagree in private or broadcast to the world. I too hope other parents choose privacy but I am not so sure now and others may be approached to gain publicity. Whatever happens, I don't think the law will change due to SM pressure because there is rational pressure to keep it as it is.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2017/aug/04/it-was-our-agonising-job-as-charlie-gard-care-team-to-say-enough

Interesting article here in the guardian that touches on gosh perspective a little.

Was just going to post that article too Mandy, a very interesting read. Wonder whether any of it will be read by Charlie's army.

I don't know if it would make much difference sadly.

I can't do a click link but there's another Guardian article from a GOSH medic that is also interesting reading