Archie Battersebee case-thread 2

[whynotwhatknot]

ongoing from previous thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4573803-archie-battersbee-case?page=40

Given that there was only a week between hearings, and they also swapped QCs at the last minute, something must have been going on in the background. I suspect Moore Barlow, which is quite a big firm with relevant expertise, certainly wasn't letting CLC run things as much as CLC would like. But it could have been down to a simple disagreement about how to run the case.

Christian legal concern

I suspect Moore Barlow, which is quite a big firm with relevant expertise, certainly wasn't letting CLC run things as much as CLC would like

CLC have been very consistent with their aims, and they’ve been echoed by Hollie.

They’ve been clear about wanting to codify into law that beating heart = alive. This is presumably in line with those few US states where a beating heart = living soul and in those with strong religious views ventilation can go on until the body gives way. Hence Jahi McMath. The interesting think about the McMath case though was that her catastrophic bleed and brain injury occurred in California, where once you’ve been declared brain stem dead the ventilation is quickly stopped, by law. This is in the basis that ICU beds are s valuable resource.

From the link:

“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

So - I suppose even lawyers making lots of money still care about a having a degree of professional autonomy and get fed up with overly prescriptive clients, like the CLC.

I note that in every appeal the issue that “Archie’s religious beliefs haven’t been taken into consideration” is shoehorned in, even now

In the latest interviews Hollie keeps saying that what the NHS is spending on legal costs would cover the cost of six months of ICU care. She must think everyone in ICU works for nothing.

Someone needs to tell her how much a ventilator costs, as a starting point

These idiots in her army are responsible for so much of this. They blindly egg her on, screeching at him to open his eyes. One of them told her to go to the canteen and get him food when she said the hospital were starving him ffs. They are so fucking ignorant and stupid - they don't read the judgements, they don't watch the appeals. They don't actually care about that level of detail. It makes them feel important to help fight this invisible enemy.

Problem is anyone who mentions the Court details are deleted and mum has told them that it's lies and a lot of details are missing so don't think that helps them see sense. There is much sense. Someone on there was going on about protesting and although there was a few no comments there was also a few of course let's do this comments too.

She's also still saying she's not allowed to file information at court. It's utter nonsense - she can file whatever she wants. AND she gave evidence in person last time round when no-one was standing in front of her with a gun stopping her from saying what she wants. I wonder whether it was that sort of statement that pissed off her last solicitors, as if it was true it would imply that they didn't know how to do their jobs.

She submitted evidence of Archie 'breathing' and the court responded with a 40 page document, presumably proving that she was wrong. I heard it myself. But she still pretends that those big bad judges stopped her.

They all deserve each other tbh. Especially the complete weirdos obsessing over a child they haven't met - from tattoos, phone backgrounds, to the woman who encouraged her DD to have a crush on a child in a coma. Absolute creeps!

I hate fighting cancer etc too.

My mum fought through all her treatment but nothing she did mentally or physically was ever going to stop it taking her away from us like it did

Yes. Absolutely. I've looked after several children who have had a 'successful' ROSC after a prolonged out of hospital cardiac arrests, with downtimes of up to an hour. And it is really not pretty.

So have they appealed to the ECHR? IIRC they only have until 12 PM tomorrow to do it, at which point life support will be removed?

She mentioned United Nations in an interview today?

@Butteryflakycrust83 she might be referring to the convention for the rights of the child which is by the UN. It sets of the right to life and various other things. She must be so desperate to do whatever she can and I think that is blinding her to what is best for Archie.

I've lost nearly all sympathy for this woman now having seen the photos of her child bloated, in a nappy and legs akimbo. She not thinking of his interests posting those or the thumbs up and big grin pictures taken next to him.
He's a human being I think this is just vile.

Once they've filled the appeal, the hospital will have to wait for the outcome. Given they are playing for time, I expect the appeal to be filled as soon as it safely can be too the deadline, to give them more time before the ECHR responds.

TBH I think that at this point someone just needs to pull the plug. Literally.

Obviously that’s not going to happen, although I’m guessing if there are no more appeal routes then the ice support will just be withdrawn. But I wish with all my being he would just have a cardiac arrest so that this farce could be over.

And tbh for so many reasons, his dignity, the cost, the people who are missing out on treatment because resources are being wasted here, the length of time this has gone on is a disgrace.

*life support

@Lougle thanks for explaining that's really interesting.

Not true. The court didn't consider the evidence because the court case was about whether the judge had made errors that give rise to appeal, not about Archie's situation.

I think she's right. To file new evidence there would have to be a court case to consider it. The court yesterday refused permission to appeal (on the grounds that the judge didn't err in law, so there is no prospect of success). The court yesterday wouldn't consider the new evidence because it's not their job. The court case before that is closed because the judge has given his verdict. I think they could only now present the evidence (which is disputed) to the ECHR. However, they won't automatically agree to hear the appeal.

Apologies - the Hospital responded with a 40 page document, presumably explaining that he isn't breathing. As it is not applicable to the appeal they couldn't use it as a reason.

Ahh, well yes, the hospital refuted the claim. I do have some sympathy for Hollie in that matter, though. The ventilator showed a difference between the the 'breaths delivered' rate and the 'respiratory rate'. People told her that it meant Archie was breathing.

When people breathe, the diaphragm descends, and the ribcage expands, causing negative pressure in the lungs, and air rushes in to the lungs. That shows on a ventilator as a slight downward spike from the baseline. When a ventilator delivers a breath, it uses positive pressure - air is squeezed into the lungs, forcing them to expand and pushing the ribcage out and the diaphragm down. That's why the medical staff know he's not breathing himself.

The legal hearings for Charlie Gard seem to be quoted in the judgements as the relevant case law. Do people who know how the law works think that these cases are doing the opposite of what CLC want?

Not sure how to explain myself, or if I am completely wrong, but as the legal principles get heard and ruled on, does it cut short the number of appeals and hearings for future cases. Presumably the WAY in which a decision is made is being clarified with every legal challenge, so future cases will have less to argue?

It is true that she submitted it, though. I had the impression the 40 pages was primarily copies of medical records.

She wasn't talking about being unable to file evidence in the future. She was saying she had been prevented from doing so throughout, so that the court hadn't had all the facts. But we know from the judgments that she filed witness statements and evidence, and also that she gave oral evidence before Hayden.

So far as the issue of breathing is concerned, I think they can go back to Judge Hayden and apply for a stay on his order. If Archie really was breathing, there is absolutely no way that the courts would insist on the order being carried out. In the discussion in the Court of Appeal it seemed to be agreed that that was the way to deal with the new issue.