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

The narrative is a bit of an odd coincidence admittedly.

What are his dads views in all this, we dont hear much about him.

Just heard on the radio that the parents have lost an appeal to the supreme Court. Does this mean that they were given leave to appeal, then lost, or that they were refused leave to appeal? I'm wondering if they got the wording wrong as it would have been so quick.

Application dismissed

So now what?

Yes to all of this. I hope somewhere she has at least one person who will scoop her up and give her good solid support when she is going to need it most. Honestly, my heart breaks for her.

She needs someone to tell her it’s ok to stop.

I’ve asked this a couple of times but I didn’t see anyone replying to it. I took that to mean he’s taken a backseat in all this, he’s not put himself out there. Maybe he knows exactly what’s going on but is trying to not stir things up with his ex, Hollie? It’s his son too but I doubt I’d be fighting much if I could see the pain my ex was in in this situation.

I really don't think much can be done to alter the system - although with each case that occurs, further tweaks can be made, but nothing hugely dramatic really.

Some people have a good support network, they have sufficient education/intelligence/something else I can't think of the word for to know that they're not experts in what is happening but that they ought to listen to those who are, they don't have any underlying reason to crave attention or fear authority (or experts, some people are really really scared of and angered by, experts or highly educated specialist knowledge)...

And so such decisions are made relatively quickly and without much in the way of denial or fight-back.

There will always be some people who are not like that - it is hard to imagine but there are people who are, for whatever reason and most of them not remotely 'their fault', really offended, angry at, enraged by, scared of... people who know more than them, authority figures, experts, officialdom.

Some of it comes from upbringing, some of it lack of education, some of it personality - but I can absolutely believe that some people will HONESTLY feel like they're being deceived, that theres a hidden agenda somewhere, no matter HOW kindly or compassionately they're told something they don't want to hear, or control is taken from them.

It must be awful to live like that, constantly frightened, constantly feeling you have to fight 'them', 'the system' etc. Never fully understanding what you're told or what you read.

www.supremecourt.uk/news/dance-and-battersbee-v-barts-health-nhs-trust-permission-to-appeal-decision.html

Appeal denied.

Do we know what this was?

"The panel has also received an application to intervene by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, which it grants. It has considered the Secretary of State’s submissions in reaching its decision."

As in, what the secretary of state for HSC submitted?

Thank goodness. Let the poor lad rest in peace now.

Could mean they've asked for consent to go ahead withdrawing life support without further interruption of more appealing?

Or that the gov asked them to double check where they stood re the UN thing?

Watch this space. I anticipate an application to the European court of Human rights. Albeit just as futile.

I was just thinking what next. What appeal will they lodge next

Watch this space. I anticipate an application to the European court of Human rights. Albeit just as futile.

The SC seems to have anticipated this:

"First, as Sir Andrew MacFarlane has stated in his careful judgment, the courts have reached a decision which is compatible with Archie’s rights under the European Convention on Human rights, which has been incorporated in part into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. It is not clear that Archie has any more extensive rights in international law under article 10 and 12 of the UN Convention under which the Committee operates."

They want to move him to a hospice now for the withdrawal of treatment.

In some sick way I just want to walk into that hospital and turn the machine off myself now. Let the boy rest in peace.

That won't happen I don't think. A hospice can't provide the level of care he would surely need and there is considerable risk in moving him.

I expect this is what there next appeal is about.

Being allowed to remove him to a hospice for withdrawal of care.

I think it's a time buying exercise.

On one of the Charlie Guard threads a MNetter who works on a team doing this explained that there are procedures so that parents can take a child home to be extubated, or the child can move to a hospice for the extubation. A serious concern was that the parents have to be fully aware and willing that the child is moving in order for the extubation to happen.

As I remember in the Guard situation, it was assessed and found that their home and entry ways made the equipment inaccessible, and there were no ways around that, so in the end a hospice volunteered themselves to his family. The parents later posted an article that they found the firmness of it all very distressing, but it was very apparent the staff were all aware they were in a very difficult position with a child on travel equipment if parents refused to allow extubation, since their first responsibility was to the child.

I don't know the potential differences with a child of Archie's size compared to Charlie who was a toddler, but can see this permitted parents to move away to neutral and more relaxed ground and perhaps made it easier for all concerned.

"The panel has also received an application to intervene by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, which it grants. It has considered the Secretary of State’s submissions in reaching its decision"

I took this to mean the Department asked them to "intervene" by getting the case of its back and confirming the decision, but of course I may be wrong

Which is the point of moving him to a hospice if they will anyway remove the treatment?

and also would they pay for it or expect the taxpayer to pay for it ?

It will do him no good at all to be moved. There is presumably a huge risk that he dies in transit if a relocation is attempted, which would not be as peaceful or controlled as letting him slip away in the room he's been in for four months.

It simply wouldn't be in his best interests to be moved. I really hope the family don't make another application about that.

Presumably taxpayer money is paying for the hospital trust's legal representation throughout all this.