Won the right to appeal…worried about outcome (Archie Battersbee)

[WhatsHoppening]

Firstly I can’t imagine the parents pain and I understand they are deeply grieving and are desperate. They’ve been led on by the Christian charity lawyers and are very vulnerable. I also understand the want to fight to the death for your child even if I disagree with it personally.

As a HCP I am very concerned if the next court case rules in favour of the family and to continue to keep the poor child ventilated/continuing intervention. My perspective as well as anyone I know in healthcare understands he is brain dead and deteriorating. Caring for a patient like that would be traumatic for the staff although of course that’s not the point.

If we allow families to ‘choose’ whether people continue to be ventilated against medical advice this sets a dangerous precedent. We need to able to trust health care professionals and, in my opinion, the focus should have been supporting the family emotionally rather than starting a ‘fight’ and ‘purple wave’. It costs hundreds and thousands of NHS money to keep this poor child ‘breathing’ and more in lawyers fees. You can’t keep brain dead people alive like a living shrine because you’ll be sad if they die. I so hope the court agrees with the original ruling and the family get the counselling and support they need.

No-one is discussing this for entertainment. It raises some very important issues of potential relevance to each and every one of us.

And why is it just this thread you are getting so exercised about? There are countless threads on MN where people discuss personal and public tragedies of various types. It's a discussion forum. If you don't like it, no-one is forcing you to stay.

I think that is more or less it, and the CA are saying that wasn't the right approach.

Well, essentially it will include his wishes but that will only be one element. There will be a different guardian involved whose job it is to consider for themselves what would be in his best interests - which might or might not coincide with what he is supposed to have said to his brother - bearing in mind that it's highly unlikely that a boy who was only just 12 ever really had any understanding of what it might be to live for years in a coma dependent on others for every function including breathing; or indeed of the possibility of his dead body being kept nominally alive whilst all his systems failed and his brain and organs necrotised.

So no-one really had to argue the brain death point at all - I have the impression that they're saying that, had the judge decided it wasn't in his best interests for ventilation to be continued, then she didn't need to consider whether he was brain dead at all

She did discuss that component though?

I wonder as well if the brain stem issue is being shelved for now because there’s no counter argument regarding his imaging and brain dead status. The High Court case included evidence from a US doctor but IIRC it was largely picking out “miracle” cases from around the world. He hadn’t seen the images.

presumably if you are going to argue (not Inappropriately) against newer ways of determining brain death you need to say the medical team (who provided multiple opinions) is actually wrong and provide a counter argument?

The thread I am talking about was deleted for the reasons I state and remained deleted, and for good reason. The thread you are talking about is a different one - I wasn't aware of that one until a pp mentioned it tonight. So as there is a current thread, was it really necessary for this OP to start yet another thread about poor Archie?

I am giving my opinion, just as you are giving yours. Having been around a long while, I'm not going anywhere thank you, although this ghoulish thread is perhaps one to hide and I don't do that very often.

I have the impression that they're saying that, had the judge decided it wasn't in his best interests for ventilation to be continued, then she didn't need to consider whether he was brain dead at all

Im more cynical than that. At the onset of the case to the High Court the Christian legal group put forward that they wanted to redefine the definition of death. I expect Archie’s faith will be given a lot of weight

Don't worry. The appeal is essentially a kindness to let the parents feel they have done everything. This boy is, very sadly, dead and nothing will change that.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Archie-Batteresbee-judgment-2-1.pdf

Court Doc. Para. 98 onwards is a good indication of the mothers thinking. The medical evidence, I believe, speaks for itself.

My father was dying in ICU last year and the consultant told us straight but not 100% because they can't. 99.9% was enough for my family as we got it. He looked well on the ventilator, better than he had done for months. Within minutes of his passing it was plainly obvious this was artificial. His own body couldn't do that. Different situation I know than with a child but still very difficult for us.

This thread should be deleted

It's a very sad situation.

No-one knows how they'd react in their situation.

I'd hope I'd have the strength to let go.

Intense grief, disbelief and the feeling of utter powerlessness can make people aggressive, angry and irrational. We all hope we would be calm and accepting and reasonable in extremis, but at this time I can't feel anger towards Archie's mum

I agree with this and I can't begin to imagine what the family are going through.

But it is interesting how differently people process things. Tragically, parents are dealing with switching off their children's life support every week. The vast majority are able to make rational, balanced decisions in conjunction with the medical staff.

But every couple of years we have one case like this where the parents are just unable to process what has happened to their child.

I'm not even sure that it's feeling they have done everything they possibly could but maybe some primal protective mechanism means are just completely unable to see what everyone else is seeing.

I think they are saying she didn't consider it in any depth. There was an awful lot in the judgment on the brain death issue but only around four paragraphs on best interests. The trust's barrister tried to argue that it was plain that she had had best interests fully in mind, but one of the judges said to him that it wasn't going to be sufficient to show that what she had done was "good enough" - given the importance of this issue and its consequences it had to be the highest standard.

Agree with @DasGirl decisions like this are not unique. I watched my brother's life support be turned off. I didn't want it to happen. I wanted my parents to fight. I know now as an adult that that would have been the far more traumatic choice but at the time I believed with every fibre of my being that he could recover.
I empathise with Archie's parents, but they are reacting like children not parents.

If by some miracle he did regain consciousness his quality of life would be very poor.

Such a beautiful young boy.

There was an awful lot in the judgment on the brain death issue but only around four paragraphs on best interests

That is true. Which is where the faith component will come in pretty strongly, given the initial directive of the Christian lobby group was to redefine the meaning of death. And in the High Court trial Archie’s family argued that remaining ventilated WAS in his best interested.

If the appeal is successful, if Archie’s team convince the court that staying ventilated indefinitely is in his “best interests” then there are far-reaching implications. This is one of the reasons the thread needs to stand

This is the best reason to have the thread deleted as you are indirectly discriminating against the family's religious belief

This is the best reason to have the thread deleted as you are indirectly discriminating against the family's religious belief

No I’m not.

This is exactly what their legal team said before the High Court challenge. I’m not passing moral judgement on this, just stating it will have far-reaching implications if successful.

I am not entering any further discussion with you as you clearly stated your position that you felt that "initial directive of the Christian lobby group was to redefine the meaning of death" - do you have any idea have utterly ridiculous that sounds? This family is living through the most distressing of circumstance, they derive their strength through their faith and here you are mocking them - you should be ashamed. Sleep well and ponder upon your ethics

I wonder if the family's reactions are more to do with the nature of the actions that led to this.
Once the inevitable happens they will be forced to face the circumstances which caused this.
To keep him 'alive' means they don't have to ask themselves the more pertinent questions, which may be more difficult and painful than those they currently face.

This is indeed about redefining death.

Andrea Williams is the Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre. Before the High Court case she said this:

There is no clear definition of death in English law, and a case like this has never come before an English court before

The outcome is crucial for Archie and his family and anyone who cares about the value of life in this country

That is what I thought when I heard the news on the radio.

I realise this case is messy, but it’s also very important societally that these issues get tested legally from time to time, and that there’s legal recourse in cases of dispute.

Im not a lawyer or a medic and a fell down an absolute rabbit hole a couple of years ago, reading up on how the States and the UK came to have such a different medico-legal approach to these issues of brain death, persistent negative state, coma etc.

Most of us don’t have cause to know about these things in detail. Some citizens don’t have much general knowledge at all. They still deserve compassion when they find themselves in horrible situations that they are not equipped for, and they’re entitled to due process if they want to make a legal challenge, even if that’s frustrating for doctors,

Its so sad and I hate that the courts and doctors can overrule parents wishes this is just the latest case its worse when they stop the parent moving the child abroad for a chance too I know if it was my son I would fight till the very end even if he only had a 1% chance of living, I used to work in a home and a family had thier daughter on life support for 12 years they paid for it she was in a coma she sadly died after 17 years but with this case its worse as he has only been in hospital a few months I think they need to give them at least 6 months and fully prove no chance of life not even1%

This thread prompted me to read the judgement in full. I must say it is beautifully written in clear English.

This little boy has a brain with zero blood supply that has rotted. Some of his brain has fallen down in pieces into his spinal cord. Those pieces now sit in the lumbar region of his spine. It is the most graphic description of coning I have ever read.

he has uncontrollable diahorrea because his gut and brain can no longer communicate. Despite having a dedicated dietician and 24hr 1-2-1 care he has lost 10kg and his mother has accused staff of starving him.

This little boy has been dead for weeks and weeks - legally since noon on May 31st and his body is literally rotting whilst being mechanically ventilated. This is macabre.