Archie Battersebee case-thread 2

[whynotwhatknot]

ongoing from previous thread

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

Oh! My post got deleted. I'm not sure why. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone x

I think MNHQ are erring on the side of caution.

It's obviously a very sensitive situation and regardless of what anyone thinks about the choices of the family it's not a set of circumstances anyone would wish on even their worst enemy.

As I put in a pp we can't possibly know what Hollie's motivation is as she's inconsistent in her messaging. Her reasons may well be multifaceted.

It's perfectly reasonable not to agree with her actions whist being sympathetic to her situation.

In truth the only people who can be 100% sure how they would act in such a situation are parents who've sadly been there.

I do wish however she would stop criticising the NHS/Hospital and staff who are caring for Archie. That's pretty disrespectful. She can continue to exhaust all legal means (that's her right) but that does not rely on her making incredibly contentious claims about people trying to do their professional best for her child.

The letter from the UN was included in the press release by Christian Concern, so has all the details (think there's a pic earlier in the thread)

If any of the journos had bothered to read it they would have seen it clearly says "request" to continue life support whilst they consider the claims being made.

How long till the UN give their opinion?
Do they sit over the weekend?

Unless Archie takes a downwards turn (cardiac arrest) then the status quo will be maintained which is precisely what the parents want .

We don't know that.

It's been reported (BBC) that the hospital is speaking with Govt lawyers to understand the implications of the request from the UN.

It may well be decided there are no implications at which point there's a decision to be made on how to manage the situation.

To wait for the UN and the family to run out of road or press ahead specifically to stop any future cases using a UN request as a precedent to thwart U.K. law.

I suspect there's a lot going on behind the scenes between the U.K. Govt and the UN.

It's sad to have to talk about money, but the costs of this case must now be astronomical in terms of PICU care, NHS and Govt legal fees, plus the massive amount of admin time etc. All that could be used supporting a child who is alive.

Hollie wants time, but she's not footing the bills here and it's fecking huge to keep a brain dead child in a slow state of bodily decay.

FWIW the British ambassador to the UN is a highly intelligent and very sensible woman. I was at school with her though she was 3 or 4 years ahead of me.

I am very much NHS=Free At Point Of Use but I wonder if Ms Dance has an inkling how much time , expertise and money has been spent here ( putting aside the trauma and expense of relocating patients who could have otherwise used this bed) .

She very clearly doesn't, as she has been talking doubt Archie's treatment just being what is the norm for bed bound patients when we've seen the massive long list of medication and interventions. She also talks about legal costs being the same or more than the costs of keeping Archie in ICU for 6 months, which is obviously nonsense.

Not very Christian of the CLC to economise with the truth about the so-called injunction.

From what I've read, the conventions in question are basically along human rights lines, so I suspect the UN will simply follow the ECHR's lead and say a best interests jurisdiction is perfectly compatible with human rights.

I must say with all the holes that suddenly started appearing I was beginning wonder whether AA had noticed the thread.

Technically he is disabled - I posted the definition used in the Convention upthread. As he has not been declared brainstem dead he certainly meets the definition.

Strikingly different view on the reality of keeping a brain dead person alive - www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/family-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-20924669

@Quia The lady in the article was declared dead, she was pregnant and the babies heart was still beating pre abortion referendum.
The doctors could not refuse life support as they would be murdering the baby in the eyes of the law.
It was a horrible case, her living child was traumatised knowing her DM was dead and artificially breathing.

All in all as unbelievable as it is - Hollie must truly believe given time that Archie will come home as a severely disabled child but a live child.

The point of that link is that there no-one tried to sugar-coat the reality of keeping a brain dead person alive in terms of the deterioration to their body.

I'm not sure that Hollie does believe he will live. At this point it does seem to be about dying "naturally", although I wish I could understand what is natural about his present situation in her view.

As he has not been declared brainstem dead he certainly meets the definition.

As There's MRI scans showing his parts of brain steam and spinal cord have died, he's completely dead and I'm hoping the UN are clever enough to actually understand that.

upthread mention was made of expense including admin time,
i noticed that
the judges reports which are available so soon afterwards. so much work has gone into those for a start.
let alone all the admin involved in the hospital, no doubt they folow a path previously set out

Over the last 3 months the NHS have argued in court to have Archie’s ventilator stopped. There have been -,is it 5? - court appearances now.

Their latest court ordered directive is to stop the life support; unless the UN actually intervenes I don’t think the hospital staff will have any appetite to give Hollie “more time”just because she and her legal team are desperately pursuing other options to stall. It’s been nearly 4 months now.

I wonder if deep down it all comes down to she wants him to have died, not died from trying to kill himself.

Thankfully I cannot even imagine what she is going through, and although myself and my DSs have all had the conversations and agreed we should turn each other off, in the actual moment could I? Would I? I don't know. I hope so. I understand the wish for a miracle though.

The saddest thing is he is going to die. Its only a question of how soon and I believe its measured in weeks? The aftermath of this is going to stay with her for a long time, and the Army will be nowhere. Shell be on her own and shell be living with the outcome of this, of the decisions she's making now for the rest of her life.

I guess we have to be careful what we say. Understandable.

I hope they find peace and soon. Especially Archie.

We've seen these situations again and again and each time every avenue is thoroughly exhausted before the inevitable end of life, which for Archie will come too. Have any previous cases been extended this length of time? I'm not seeing this as too different from the other ones we've seen with parents fighting through every court available to keep them on life support. The end result is always the same.

@Sobriquet Oh yes of course, I completely agree. I'm just saying let's not confuse the situation by using terms that imply he is presently suffering (and therefore sentient)

The letter from the UN was included in the press release by Christian Concern, so has all the details (think there's a pic earlier in the thread)

Ah, thanks 1blossomtree - I tend to steer clear of organisations like this, so hadn't realised that detail

I think it will be a disaster for the country if the UN get involved here.

It will absolutely open up the floodgates for anyone with a legal dispute to go and seek intervention by the UN, we might as well tear up the British law books.

As an aside, who knew it was so easy to approach the UN? I mean they did it and gained a response within hours. Who here would know how to do that?

The saddest thing is he is going to die. Its only a question of how soon and I believe its measured in weeks? but what if it isn’t? The thought is that it will be weeks, but fact is that no-one knows. What if it’s months, or years. It’s likely, but it could happen.

I'm not sure there is a huge difference between 'request' and 'injunction' here. I think, if I'm reading correctly, that by signing up to the relevant code, the UK agreed to abide by requests, which makes it in all practical terms an injunction. But I may be wrong.