Archie Battersebee case-thread 2

[whynotwhatknot]

ongoing from previous thread

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

It’s 930 in Australia and I have a daughter who swims early. I’m invested in this, obviously(!) but not that I’ll stay up late.

It’s not really over though, is it? Appeal to the Supreme Court to come?

news.sky.com/story/doctors-can-lawfully-stop-life-support-for-brain-damaged-archie-battersbee-appeal-judges-rule-12658897

They’ve lost their appeal

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-62292655

Out of interest, where are people picking the FB news up from? There used to be a "purple wave" one, but I can't find anything now and wonder if anyone has a link?

Just as well the adjournment/appeal were refused, though I doubt the family will accept even this. As with "he's breathing" it's sadly clear that they'll say anything - anything at all - to stave off the final outcome, but none of it changes the amply demonstrated facts

Cross post with Quia

I don’t think the “breathing” will take them very far.

How can they say he is breathing when he is still ventilated?

Oh my goodness this is like watching a long, painfully drawn out somehow-slow-motion car crash get even slower and more painful as the hours tick by.

I sometimes feel like a voyeur reading about the details of this situation, but at the same time i've wanted to understand how it's come to this. Because it seemed inexplicable to me that this is really going on.

Am i right to understand that it all comes down to the brain stem tests? The lack of oxygen for 5 minutes, twice, tests. Permission was refused by H back at the beginning, and so there was no way for the doctors to officially pronounce Archie dead.

How can we address this? Permission has to be given for tests. So how can we ever ensure this won't happen again?

I thought cameras/recording equipment wasn't allowed in British courts

I would imagine the "breathing" issue can be dealt with pretty quickly. Independent medical witness testifies there is no sign of spontaneous breathing and misapprehension behind family's claim there is, done. It's not an issue which requires extensive investigation.

I'm so sorry for your loss.

I know what you mean. It's some years ago now but seeing a family member in a hospital bed, after a severe stroke, paralysed, unable to speak, with no hope of recovery - death was a merciful release.

the judge didnt even allow for any delaying tactics.
phew

Hollie submitted a witness statement for the breathing, and the hospital responded with a 40 page document to refute her claims with actual medical evidence.

Hollie’s tried this before, it’s in the High Court transcript. She said she could see evidence of breaths on the monitor, medics said, no, he’s never triggered the vent with breaths, but sometimes the monitor will register secretions in the tube.

I can see why she’s giving it another go but it won’t work, he’s not breathing.

now the decision about how to stop life support,

I would imagine the "breathing" issue can be dealt with pretty quickly

If it is, I haven't the least doubt there'd soon be something else - perhaps another handgrip or even a blink which nobody else has witnessed, or maybe an illness for Hollie herself resulting in a request for the end to be delayed so she can be present

The whole thing is desperately sad, including the fact the courts have had to be involved at all, but in a tiny minority of cases the need for their objective judgement becomes ever clearer

As permission to appeal to the CA has been refused, that means they can't appeal to the Supreme Court

Isn't there still something about the ECHR though, Quia? Or does being disallowed the Supreme Court rule that out too?

if you have a functioning brain stem and aren’t heavily sedated or paralysed and are on a ventilator you’ll breath up against it.

This is a good and desirable thing, especially after a catastrophic injury, but it can take a while for breathing to be efficient and regular enough for the ventilation to stop.

It’s very clear on the monitor when someone is taking their own breaths and ventilator settings can be adjusted to ensure that the patient’s own breaths are supported by the machine.

In one of the hearings when Hollie claimed Archie had breaths registering on the monitor the medical staff disagreed. Also, when they stopped it for 2 minutes there was no breathing activity at all - normally a rise in carbon dioxide is a powerful stimulus to take a breath.

Oh my word, what a thread. Calling a child a "corpse" and a traumatised mother a "weapon".

These devastated grieving parents are following the legal process available to them at a time when the roadmap they thought they had for their lives has been completely destroyed.

If anyone feels so very strongly that they shouldn't be able to do that, maybe campaign for a change to the law. Opining on individual cases is pretty pointless unless you do that.

You could even start up your own Facebook group for such a purpose.

im glad for archie this is the conclusion i do hope his father is ok how awful

The verdict given is the correct one. His brain is literally dying, as CTs have shown evidence of necrosis, and shown there is no blood flow to the blood vessels in the brain. The mother and family need to accept their child is dead, keeping him on life support is delaying his death.

Not really. It’s about consent. No one can consent to or refuse a medical procedure on behalf of anyone else. No one. Ever. Not even a child.

If a person cannot consent, because they cannot take in or process the information needed to make a decision or communicate that decision unambiguously, the medical staff and the person’s family have to decide as a team what is in the person’s best interests. Obviously the medical teams are best placed to make clinical judgements and the family are best places to say what the person would have chosen, if they had been able. Very, very rarely, they just cannot reach a unanimous decision.

But neither of these groups is infallible. There are people who sadly do not or cannot act in the best interests of their children. There are medics who are incompetent, malicious or criminal. There are cases where it can’t be known what the best persons interests are, or where either, or neither, choice is in the persons best interest or is clearly a least worst option and there is no right answer and no compromise.

And then we need courts to step in. It is highly unusual for this to be a necessity and it’s an awful process for the individuals involved, but the process is right and necessary. I wish it wasn’t, and there is cost involved, but it’s the price of a fair and just society.

The other thing to bear in mind in relation to Hollie (and it must be hell for her) is that people with capacity to make decisions retain the right to make poor decisions. So a person making an unwise decision, does not automatically become unable to make that decision. Even if it is unambiguously ‘wrong’ or for the wrong reasons. If they understand the risk consequences, they can make the decision. However awful.

This is all as it should be, awful though it is. The thing that is not as it should be is the involvement of a religious pressure group who just possibly have an agenda that has nothing to do with any individual’s best interest, and a large number of individuals who did not know Archie, and clearly do not have even the most rudimentary medical knowledge and. This has muddied the waters significantly and the courts have rightly refused to engage with their agenda. It is not appropriate to use a dead child to further your political cause. The courts must decide what is best for Archie, nothing more. The family is entitled to support from relatives, friends, strangers and organisations and I don’t see how they can be prevented from being involved with Hollie, even if they are not well-intentioned only that the court and the medical team must (and admirably are) remain totally focussed on Archie’s best interests to the exclusion of all else. Poor Archie.

Can anyone post a link to
the most recent judgement?

Todays refusal for the application to appeal? It's still being read out in court.

This is the sort of #bekind philosophy that tries to say it's not ok to call out bad behaviour.
She may be a traumatised grieving mother. She can also be a weapon. And certainly her grief is no excuse for what she has put her son and hospital staff through.
I wouldn't use the word corpse myself because of the emotive nature of the word, but he is legally dead. It's very sad, but he is.

It is easy for me to say but they need to let their boy go in peace now. They’re trying so hard to stall and I can only imagine how much pain his family are in but they need to let him go now.