Archie Battersebee case-thread 2

[whynotwhatknot]

ongoing from previous thread

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

No, they can only do that if there has been a full appeal in the Court of Appeal. In this case they were refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, so that's the end of the line for the UK system. However, I guess they can go back to Hayden about the issue of whether Archie is breathing because, if it were true, that would be a major change in circumstances that could lead to his decision being withdrawn or revised.

Surely the fact that scans have shown his brain tissue is necrotising should tell anyone that sadly there is no hope. I can understand the need to hold on to any tiny slither of hope though. I hope Archie is at peace.

You posted while I was typing my response. I don't think there's really any need to point this out.

The TikTok Challenge and suicide theories will no doubt be tested at the eventual inquest. There will presumably be a number of stages after AB is finally, formally deemed to be legally and medically deceased. These will be processes that I personally think may be strenuously resisted by certain parties: post mortem examination and inquest being just two.

Yep, and then that can be appealed and round we go again..
Though the alternative of a court not being allowed to reconsider a change in circumstances is worse.

Eventually they will exhaust the legal process though.

@Runnerbeansflower one of my ds's friends did the same also age 13. He survived (one of those 'about to switch off the machine/edge of miracle' cases one hears of), but his resulting extensive disabilities mean he's never been able to communicate why he did it. The friends certainly didn't process the event in the same way as the adults around them. It took some years for them to appreciate that the actions he took that day had a permanent impact. They were of course at the same developmental stage as he was when he did it.

Eventually they will exhaust the legal process though.

Indeed. However, the longer the process is drawn out, the more likely it is that the medical interventions required to sustain his limited bodily functions (that his brain is no longer able to control) will fail and the end will not be planned or peaceful.

It may happen when his family (or some family members) are not present.

The only blessing is that whatever way this ends, Archie will be unaware of it.

Any medical persons here? Just wondering if the mother refused testing on Archie's brain would the Glasgow coma scale not be sufficient?
The reason I ask is that my dad had a stroke, he had swelling on his brain and it was the Glasgow coma scale that told the medics he wasn't going to recover, and they made the decision to stop further treatment. As horrific as it is we accepted it, we knew he was gone and it was only machines keeping his body going.

It's horribly sad for poor Archie and his family. His mother will know in her heart of hearts her little boy is gone and rightly or wrongly she's going to fight for her baby. I think her rationale has left her.

It's just been announced that the hospital (& common sense) have prevailed. Thank god, poor little soul ✝️

Maybe the parents will accept it if they sort themselves an independent review?

I thought that, at some point in this case, they'd done that - wasn't there something about an independent medic who'd produced a report without having seen Archie's scans?

Anyway they could get any number of such reports, and if they said the same as the hospital I really don't think it would make any difference; driven by the "Army" the family could easily claim they were all wrong too

I can't help feeling uneasy about this thread as it it's a type of online voyeurism of another's plight.

I'm not sure what the OP wanted to achieve.

If anyone here was in their situation how would they feel having their motives and decisions discussed?

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.

I don't think this is correct. Parents can consent to treatment for their child - I've signed consent forms for operations for example or vaccinations. When it's more complex, over 16, or there's dissent you get best interests surely?

Sadly and horrifically, parts of his brain and spinal cord have already died and are now decaying....He is in effect decaying inside whilst the life support machine delays the inevitable.

@SeptimusWarrenSmith that is so desperately sad xxx

This is so very sad. I wonder about the chronology of how his parents end up being 'supported' for want of a better word by these people. I agree this would all be better off conducted privately as there does seem to be some sort of ugly [social]media fuelled prolonging. But what comes first? The parents presumably look people who will 'help' them?

what does that mean?

she was outside the court showing the video of him apprently breathing and want to go to ECHR its just prolonging it really

then says the doctors say he'll only hang on for a few weeks so why cant we wait

I've never understood why these (thankfully rare) cases are allowed to have every detail reported. At the centre of this is a child who has the same rights to privacy and confidentiality as every other citizen.

Why, in these cases, does the court allow reporting? Surely a public guardian should be appointed to safeguard the privacy of the child. I would have thought that person could then apply for a reporting ban and anyone releasing any medical details or photos which dhow his his medical situation eg. on a ventilator, would be in contempt of court.

Does anyone know why this is allowed in this case but not in other cases involving children or vulnerable people who cannot communicate their own consent?

The mother is giving TV interviews and money is being raised by public crowdfunding.

They have an active FB group.

The family have not asked for privacy, they've courted publicity for the case, including sharing photos of the child in a nappy in hospital.

They've made serious accusations against the hospital and HCP's caring for Archie.

They've invited comment by the actions above, especially when trying to promote their cause they have made statements/allegations that on occasion have been untrue and contrary to the court records.

There is also a matter of public interest in how long it's ethical to maintain the body of a person who is brain dead. Most importantly re; the dignity of that person and frankly the scare resources it takes to do so that could be arguably better utilised elsewhere.

did they decide the option for removal of life support?

TBF im glad its public otherwise all we'd have is hollie stating the doctors arelying and want to kill archie and that hes reacting and breathing on his own

we can at least have access to the truth

@PinkPair it doesn't seem right does it. People at their most vulnerable having all their medical photos and details shared all over the world. You'd be in trouble if you did that and the person could speak for themselves 😣
I keep trying to put myself in the mothers position...I just wouldn't be able to share such private details.

TBF im glad its public otherwise all we'd have is hollie stating the doctors arelying and want to kill archie and that hes reacting and breathing on his own

But surely @whynotwhatknot if there were restrictions in reporting his personal medical details the family would also be very limited in what they could report and Facebook, twitter etc would have to take posts down?

I don't get why the scum at christian concern/the christian legal center are still allowed to operate

@Georgeskitchen it really is. xxx His mother has been a full time carer ever since and she'll never know the reason although to be honest I think the situation as it is now is what one focuses on. He remained on the school roll and, effectively, graduated from school with them all. He was in the yearbook, when that time eventually came, and they wore buttonholes for him at their prom.

From what I understand with these young boys they do this on an impulse because they're terrifically upset about something that's happened suddenly and they just don't get that the upset feeling may be short term or dissipate with time. They also, horrendously, don't understand that what they're doing to themselves can very easily not have short term effects and doesn't always dissipate with time.