Archie Battersebee case-thread 2

[whynotwhatknot]

ongoing from previous thread

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

In the Daily Mail:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11066763/Archie-Battersbee-case-sent-High-Court-life-support-treatment-set-end-tomorrow.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ico=taboola_feed_desktop_news

The case has been sent back to High Court again.

"This afternoon, the Government Legal Department has dramatically referred Archie Battersbee's case back to the Family Division of the High Court for ‘urgent consideration.’
It is understood that the matter has been referred by the Government Legal Department to an out-of-hours duty judge, who is expected to respond within hours."

Surely that's just a little political posturing, showing willing for the UN's request but being fully aware nothing will change.

Yes, just rubber stamping on the part of the NHS lawyers. Its a wise move

You'd like to think so.

Maybe now a decision that can not be appealed or otherwise delayed can be given.

How many times can they do this?

There must be a way for courts to say enough. No more.

What an absolute farce. I really hope the withdrawal of treatment goes ahead tomorrow as planned. That child needs to be at peace and laid to rest and his mother needs to start the grieving journey.

those so called Christian lawyers need striking off as well

Department of Health passing the.buck there. I would hope the judge decides he has no jurisdiction to overturn the previous decisions and passes it straight back. The UN is not part of our court system.

That was my instinct also, but I'm not a legal professional.

The report suggested a decision could be made in hours.

The article also has this quote:

"We are relieved that the government has taken the UN’s intervention seriously. This was not a "request" but an interim measures injunction from the UN."

I confess I'm confused. My understanding was it was a "request". Any legal people able to clarify? Thank you.

His mum just will not accept that he's gone . I hate to say it but right from the off when it was stated she thinks he may of been taking part in an online challenge had me thinking a little bit .
What if he wasn't ? What if he was desperately unhappy . Is their another reason she is being so blind sighted to whats infront of her .

The implications of this are potentially going to be devastating. If the CLC win, and it’s looking increasingly likely that they’re going to win, then this opens up massive other potential for the illegalisation of abortion, the illegalisation of removal of life support, the illegalisation of organ donation.

For them this is about the fact that a beating heart equals life, and that is going to open up the avenue for whole new legal changes, and for the UN to start dictating UK laws.

The CLC are not going to win. It's just politicians being frit of crazy online activists (again) who are prolonging it now.

The UN has no jurisdiction.

Archie's rights under the UN Convention re disabled people were considered and addressed in the court judgement regarding best interests.

I suspect this is belt and braces rather than any realistic possibility of going round in circles again.

I’m not sure about that tbh. If they can drag this through court after court after court until Archie’s heart stops beating, then they’ve won.

And that is looking increasingly likely.

I think you have to remember that in most awful sad situations like this, the parents/family accept the inevitable with dignity and grace. The exceptions like this are rare, thankfully.

It's really getting to a point now that someone needs to say enough and stop this horrific so called Christian legal group from any further actions.

It's being looked at now. The judge will rule. Nothing has changed, it's a political manoeuvre.

What makes you think it's looking increasingly likely that they'll win?

The UN has no jurisdiction. it’s been made clear that the UN passed an injunction to stop the removal of life support until this is considered further. So clearly the UN does have jurisdiction. We just didn’t know it.

It was a request. Hollie is the one claiming it was an injunction. Hollie claims a lot of things that aren't true.

What makes you think it's looking increasingly likely that they'll win? every time they are ruled against by the court they appeal, and although appeals are not upheld, every time they appeal they are given more time. And every time they’re given more time they’re closer to the time when Archie’s heart will stop beating on its own.

If he dies naturally then they can rightfully say that they won because they managed to get the switching off of the life support stopped.

I doubt the UN wants to get played by an extremist group derailing its mission by redefining 'life's.

There's plenty to be done for those with disabilities without taking on making the world accept that bodies should be ventilated indefinitely. If they did I suspect there would be a wholesale withdrawal from the optional protocol.

Apart from anything else, it would bankrupt the NHS, and although I am generally in favour of international scrutiny, in those circumstances i would support withdrawal.

TBF, that would break most parents. Knowing your child has committed suicide.

It would be “easier” to think it’s a game gone wrong.

They're at the end of the line now. There are no more appeals. The Govt lawyers sending it back to the High Court is a 'rubber stamp' exercise and hopefully will be confirmed in the next few hours.

But if Archie's heart just stops beating, CLC haven't won any binding legal principle, have they?