Archie Battersebee case-thread 2

[whynotwhatknot]

ongoing from previous thread

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

I don't really blame the UN. They set up an optional mechanism to review cases where a disabled person's rights might be infringed. The UK government signed up because, let's face it, there should be a way for those cases to be looked at.

If a case is referred to they can't just dismiss it out of hand, they have to give some sort of proper look at it.

The system wasn't set up to deal with the sort of agenda and funding that the CLC has.

As far as I have read, they have no jurisdiction to overturn the decision of UK courts, but presumably that is being looked at as a matter of urgency.

Best case scenario is that they pull out the stops this weekend, read the court judgements and accept that the best interests decision upholds Archie's rights, including any related to disability.

I suspect in future the UK courts will include specific consideration of any rights as a disabled person (just as they include reference to, and consideration of, the other rights of the person concerned). That will prevent these sorts of games from the CLC in future.

I wish there was a way to claim the NHS's legal costs from the CLC 😡

An injuction is a court order that compels someone not a do a specific act by law.

A request is literally just a request.

They're completely different things & incredibly diengenuous for the CLC to present it as such.

Also using the phrase "UN tells UK government to keep Archie Battersbee alive." Again, it is a request, not a command. And that isn't what they said because the UN aren't agreeing the he is alive, they just are requesting time whilst they recieve information from our government/his medical team.

It seems likely that nothing will happen this weekend then , who knows how long UN consideration could take.

It may also give Hollie chance to reflect .
Hopefully CLC don't have any more tricks up their sleeve , they do appear to be very good at their job albeit in the wrong direction.

The Court of Appeal did consider the Convention on the rights of persons of disability, in paragraph 26(iv) of the decision. They said:

"These submissions, in the context of a person who is so disabled that they have no free-standing capacity for life without artificial and intensive medical intervention, appear to stretch the parameters of this convention beyond its intended boundaries. Be that as it may, it is clear from paragraphs 39 and 45 of Aintree and elsewhere that the approach in domestic law does afford due respect to wishes and feelings in a manner that would be compatible with the principles of CRPD, Arts 10 and 12."

In a way it would be quite helpful if the UN simply followed the ECHR's line on this and said that there is no breach of the convention - if only to set a precedent which can be used to slap this down next time CLC try it.

I also hope they move quickly. I suspect it's not a coincidence that this application went in just before the weekend.

I'm still wondering why nothing has happened legally in relation to the claim that Archie is breathing, particularly given that Hollie announced publicly that she wasn't going to be silenced on that (not that she ever has been). It could be that they haven't been able to find any independent medical opinion that supports them, but I do wonder if they're waiting till the hospital sets a date and time for switching off before they lodge an application for the order to be rescinded based on an alleged change of circumstances.

Well spotted. Hopefully this is sufficient for the UN to deal with the case quickly, and will block off this game playing in future, just as the ECHR judgements in Gard and Evan's have put the CLC off taking Archie's case to them.

Maybe because she claimed this before the High Court hearing as well, and it was quickly quashed by actual medical evidence.

So - not a new claim? Obviously a louder and more public claim, because she’s desperate, but she’s tried it before and it didn’t work

I'm not sure, the hospital have already stated it would be inappropriate to delay palliative care without a court order (i.e., they are going ahead with what the previous judgement had said)

I was just thinking earlier that I anticipate Hollie finding more “signs of life” this weekend.

Yes I think she will find some small thing to film and post to wind the AA up even more

Could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure she brought this "evidence" to the last court hearing, but it was very quickly quashed with pages of medical evidence?

It's very easy to disprove as they'll have the traces from the ventilator and if there is no negative pressure reported (which is generated when someone takes a breath), then he definitely wasn't.

the way the media have been reporting this is ridiculous.

Everything from “the UN have ordered Archie to remain on life support” to “another lifeline for Archie.” And these are media outlets not wackos on the internet.

TBH I think it’s safe to assume at this point that Archie’s life support isn’t ever going to be withdrawn and that the NHS will be covering the costs to keep him on it for as long as it takes, weeks, months, maybe years even.

Could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure she brought this "evidence" to the last court hearing, but it was very quickly quashed with pages of medical evidence?

She did, and earlier on as well.

Plus - grasping her hands (no one else), responding to her voice (One of the EEGs done was “provoked” and showed no response to any audio stimulus), looking with his eye (fixed dilated pupils, filmy corneas), opening his eyes (no eyelid muscular movement, eyelids will be lifted for the nurses to put drops in to prevent them from drying).

As well as how he supposedly maintains his body temp even though he is well covered up and temp on the monitor is in the low 36 range.

I'd see this as a great opportunity.

If he's breathing they can turn the mechanical ventilator off....

people still commenting on articles that now they cant turn it off because his mother says hes breathing so i quesitoned that and sadi why have the doctors not cinfirmed it then

because they werent there"

this is the crap people are coming out with its ridiculous

said*

Arguably not actually due to the requirement in the Equality Act for the impairment to be long term. More than a year generally and no matter what happens he isn’t going to live that long.
(Just playing devils advocate )

She didn't claim this at the High Court hearing. It came up on the day the Court of Appeal was giving its decision, and they said they couldn't consider it and that, if it was to be considered at all, it would have to be by the High Court, i.e. Judge Hayden. They didn't make any finding on it.

The Equality Act doesn't govern this, the definition in the Convention itself does. And the requirement for the impairment to be long term has nothing to do with life expectancy. If, for instance, someone with a terminal illness was in a wheelchair, no-one would claim that they were not disabled just because they were likely to die within a year.

To correct myself, she probably did claim it at the High Court, but what was claimed at the Court of Appeal was new evidence emerging the preceding weekend. And they didn't quash it, they refused to consider it.

Is it new evidence though, if the exact same claim has been brought up in court before, and the previous court has accepted the medical explanation? (Not breathing, machine picking up secretions in the tube).

Hollie saying something is new doesn’t make it true.

There was nothing like looked like actual spontaneous breaths on the monitor, just regular wave forms showing the pressure/flow/volume curves in the set ventilator rate.

If Hollie claims to have evidence that Archie is making sounds or moving, and then posts evidence that actually doesn’t show that, is the court obliged to entertain her every whim?

There's an information leaflet on the Great Ormond Street website "Understandind Brain Stem Death"

I'm not going to copy all of it , but the most relevant points
Also note its dated 2016 but as it appears on the website I take that as it hasn't been updated .

I'm not sure if a document can be copied and replicated but its on the website anyway

If this is the case, then the person has no chance of recovery, the damage is irreversible and according to UK law, the person has died.

It has been accepted that Archie has a decreased blod flow (maybe nil blood flow) to the brain stem. There is coning . There is no control of unconcious function
And yet they claim he isn't dead ?

If Hollie is deliberately making things up to mislead the courts that's so bad. But what on earth can they do about it when she is the mother of a dead/dying child.