Archie Battersbee - Thread 3

[BongoJim]

Follow on from previous full thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/4596573-archie-battersebee-case-thread-2?page=1

I agree with this.

There were news reports yesterday suggesting that the government was looking at setting up an independent mediation service for cases like this. Sounds like a good idea, but I’m afraid I’m pessimistic that somebody like Hollie would be any more willing to engage with them than with the myriad doctors, nurses, lawyers etc who’ve tried already. In the end the route to court, including appeals, has to remain (or at least, I can’t see how it can be removed without creating very serious difficulties) in a civilised country. I’d not really want to rush to change things because of one, or even a handful, of cases like this. As the saying goes, hard cases make bad law.

It does seem part of the reason for keep going back to court to stop the life support being turned off is because mum anyway not sure about dad feel it's taking it away from being a natural death and out of God's hands. In the court transcript anyway its been said time and time again that it has been accepted he is gone, which doesnt seem to be the case and its a matter of time and about the manner of his pasing.
Probably doesn't help being supported by the Christian group who also seem to have the same views.

Guess also its a distraction from reality. More time and focus she has on court cases less time has to focus on what is actually going on.

The medical experts should have been able to do what they needed to do at the time they needed to do it, in Archie's best interests.
Instead time, money and most importantly dignity has be wasted

The protracted disagreement is what is unusual here.

Very sadly, decisions to end treatment for children who have suffered brain death are taken every week up and down the country, mostly without the accompanying circus. Those parents don't love their children any less.

As much as I hate all the furore around this case, it's right that we live in a society that allows decisions to be challenged and for those decisions to be publicly accessible. I think the system, whilst not perfect, actually works well.

What could be changed though?

The brain stem testing couldn’t be done without parental consent, hence the court. By the time the permission was given the motor (withdrawal to pain) test couldn’t be done because his peripheral nerve testing, the prelim test, showed no response (too dead).

Posters here have wondered whether the brain stem death criteria could include MRIs and MRI angiograms but the beauty of the current tests is that they are clinical, and can be performed at any bedside anywhere. If imaging became part of the criteria then some patients would have to be transported to other hospitals just to prove they had died. They would need a full transport team and everything and would be an unsustainable service.

ICU/PICU staff do this every day and are good at it. There will be social workers, chaplains and experienced staff at end of life care.

The hospital did their job with Archie. When he arrived they stabilised him, scanned him, monitored his progress and realised there was no chance of survival. His body is very very unstable and they have kept it hydrated, feee of pressure sores and intact for nearly ; months. They have fed it, cleaned his waste, suctioned his breathing tube from secretions, given it blood transfusions. They have done this while Hollie has demanded more and more time and they have some of knowing he would not ever wake or move or respond.

what would have helped is the CLC not getting their grubby, rich fingers into this case and the Army not getting involved, but I’m not sure how either of those things can be banned.

"There were news reports yesterday suggesting that the government was looking at setting up an independent mediation service for cases like this. Sounds like a good idea, but I’m afraid I’m pessimistic that somebody like Hollie would be any more willing to engage with them than with the myriad doctors, nurses, lawyers etc who’ve tried already. In the end the route to court, including appeals, has to remain (or at least, I can’t see how it can be removed without creating very serious difficulties) in a civilised country. I’d not really want to rush to change things because of one, or even a handful, of cases like this. As the saying goes, hard cases make bad law."

I agree with all of this @BrownTableMat
I don't think she would have engaged with mediation and it would still have ended up in the courts. And the doctors would have wanted a legal ruling in order to protect themselves in a situation where they were going totally against a family's wishes

"There were news reports yesterday suggesting that the government was looking at setting up an independent mediation service for cases like this. Sounds like a good idea, but I’m afraid I’m pessimistic that somebody like Hollie would be any more willing to engage with them than with the myriad doctors, nurses, lawyers etc who’ve tried already. In the end the route to court, including appeals, has to remain (or at least, I can’t see how it can be removed without creating very serious difficulties) in a civilised country. I’d not really want to rush to change things because of one, or even a handful, of cases like this. As the saying goes, hard cases make bad law."

I agree with all of this @BrownTableMat
I don't think she would have engaged with mediation and it would still have ended up in the courts. And the doctors would have wanted a legal ruling in order to protect themselves in a situation where they were going totally against a family's wishes

Of course the QC has checked every legal authority going, but the point is that the law on the applicability of the relevant conventions is rather less tried and tested than other aspects of the law and the legal team felt it was worth trying. There was an interesting little exchange in Joshua Rozenberg's Twitter feed yesterday when the judges said that Devereux's submissions were "adventurous" which is usually recognised as a polite way of saying "batshit". One QC commented:
"we should not underestimate the legal and emotional pressures of acting for A’s parents in this tragic case. Every statable argument must be tried, even if doomed"

To which Rosenberg responded:
"It’s a huge responsibility, I agree. And probably better to try a line of argument and fail than wonder whether a proposition everyone thought was hopeless might in fact have made all the difference.".

The court gave permission for the brain stem test weeks ago, but it proved impossible to administer according to the required criteria.

I think she probably will " the army" will move on and sadly leave Hollie to greive alone ,in both Charlie Gard, s case and Alfie Evans once life support had been removed the families quickly faded into the background .

What should we do differently? Remember that this first came to court because the hospital took legal action, asking the court for permission to end Archie's treatment in the face of the parents' refusal. So, should we allow doctors to ignore parents when treating children and go ahead with turning off life support and other treatments without parental consent? Or should we prevent parents from taking their case to court? If the latter, all parents or just some parents? If it is only some parents, who should decide which parents should be allowed?

I have often wondered if like young peoples names and identities are kept out of the media for crimes if they need the same rules around medical situations like this.

To protect the child.

I think it should only be allowed to be published if the court decides.

But I then have fears if this allows true justice to be seen to be done because then we only get to hear the courts side. Iyswim?

I hope this doesn't offend, but if any are interested there was a court case several years ago in Florida in respect of Terri Schiavo who was in a persistent vegetative state. Her parents wanted to keep her on life support; her husband didn't, endless court cases until the feeding tube etc were permitted to be removed. At the PM, it was shown that her brain had basically turned to liquid. She stood no chance of survival . The whole case is messy and distressing, but at least the PM showed the fact that survival was not possible. I hope the family are able to,evetually, realize this after the PM.

FWIW, the PM in my late DH's case showed similar , death was inevitable with the underlying conditions that he had.

Yes @bellamountain 'only on mn' ... ffs. Plenty of different experiences being shared here, not nice though are they? It's life.

So what's happening this morning then, are they back in court?

These internet "armies" disgust me. All they do is enjoy the drama of watching someone else's nightmare unfold from the comfort of their own homes. They encourage it to be dragged out as long as possible. Each delay is a win to them and they make enemies out of the very people trying to help and support.

I just hope Archie's parents are staying off social media today and focusing on saying goodbye to their boy.

I can't see what you can change. This isn't a system failure. This is because his mum refuses to see the reality of the situation and the CLC has capitalised on her for their own ends.
This situation occurs because paramedics attend and they are not allowed to stop CPR until they get to the hospital. Unfortunately even with a long downtime its sometimes possible to get a heart restarted in kids, but the damage to the brain was already done before they even arrived. Once you get a heartbeat you treat.
No one knew how long he was without oxygen so the paramedics cant arrive and say "oh he was without oxygen too long, we won't try CPR because he'll probably be brain dead and we don't want to waste time ventilating him in case his family won't withdraw". That's not their decision to make.
The hospital will have tried multiple times to explain the situation to mum, but she is just refusing to listen and once the CLC get involved they discourage the parents from attending meetings as a stalling tactic. (they did it with AE, they told parents to agree to mediation then not turn up, to delay court proceedings commencing. They offer the parents false hope that is not there.
If you're a grieving parent in denial and someone arrives like a white knight on a horse saying we can save him, you need to fight for him, the hospital just want to kill him and takes his organs then you clutch on to any straw that's offered.
They and the army have actively prevented Hollie from accepting the situation and have driven a wedge between her and the hospital. I don't have enough swear words in my vocabulary to describe the utter disdain I have for them. Christians my arse.

I don't think it is 1% - it's more like 0.001%. The very fact that this receives so much publicity demonstrates that it's highly unusual. The last high profile case was that of Alfie Evans, four years ago, and as pointed out the reality is that these decisions are being made all over the country every day without any court involvement whatsoever, and with most grieving relatives feeling fully supported by the relevant hospitals and medics.

Obviously one case like this is one too many, but I can't see any way of changing the system to guarantee that it will never happen - and it's not as if this wasn't looked at very closely after the Gard and Evans cases with exactly these problems in mind.

loislovesstewie

Yes, like you, I hope when it's time for the PM, that the results give the family a sense of closure & realise that Archie could never have survived.

Sorry for the loss of your DH.

Least this lot haven't been too bad compared to others. Been the odd stupid suggestion and of course the whole judge is a murderer as is the doctors and there's a cover up etc but considering dering when someone said about protests it was quickly shot down...

This was a big different though, in that she wasn’t on a ventilator and the debate was about whether to remove the feeding tube. I agree no chance of recovery though

I don't get your point?

don't think it is 1% - it's more like 0.001%.

I agree. Most parents can see what the outcome/prognosis is. Hollie is finding movement, eye responses, signs of life where there is none

Two suggestions about what could be done, one would be a national panel with coopted specialists with expertise in the presenting condition that reviews the hospitals assessment. This should end the issue but if not, the courts test should be has this panel acted irrationally with a presumption that the panel's assessment must be followed.

The second is that we collectively agree a word for a state that is clearly dead but mechanically supported. Using the words alive or living for someone who is dead is providing a hook for the understandably desperate and for those behind them who may not be acting in good faith. Someone from whom organs are taken are similarly 'alive' but the courts don't impose their will to prevent the relevant operations. That will be until any interested groups seek to prevent organ donation for the same reasons.

Similarly recognition of the scientific medical caveats that prevent the use of 100% certain do not translate well into the courts and media and public who don't think with scientific rigour.

Even Charlie Gard’s parents eventually accepted things when the doctor they had pinned their hopes on examined Charlie and said he couldn’t help. I just so wish for Hollie that something would happen to help her accept this. It will be so much harder for her if she carries on believing Archie has been “executed”.

But if doctors are allowed to conduct a brain stem test without needing consent from family, at a time they feel it should be done, a court has far better information to make a proper decision at a much earlier stage than we are now.