Archie Battersbee - Thread 4

[BreadInCaptivity]

Previous thread:

Archie Battersbee - Thread 3 http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/inthee_news/4601962-archie-battersbee-thread-3

I'm so sorry you went through that. You did absolutely the right thing by your child

Those people are appalling.

They will have learned a lot though, and will be able to fine-tune the process for next time

@nolongersurprised How do you know about his brain liquifying into his spine? Is it just from medical knowledge/experience or has it been reported? Genuine question, as I'm interested in this but with no medical background I would have no idea of this unless reading it in the media

But here’s the thing. The only reason why Archie is still here is because of medical intervention.

If the life support is switched off it’s not even going to be a case of his dying minutes hours or days later. He will be instantly dead. In fact the chances are that his heart may stop beating as soon as they start to withdraw the infusions, something which will happen before the intubation is removed.

Were it not for the existence of ventilation Archie would have died at home the day he was found. 100%.

Because it's been ruled that continuing treatment isn't in Archie's best interests.

If we allow parents full autonomy over refusing to allow the natural death of a child who won't and can't survive against medical opinion do we then allow parents the full right to withdraw care (such as gastrostomy feeds/ epilepsy meds etc) where they feel that the doctors giving orders how to keep their child alive are wrong and their child should have the right to die?

We have an independent legal system for a reason.

I think it's a bit of both. There are a lot of strange people in the world who believe impossible things, and there are a lot of charlatans. Some of them are doctors who think they have the answer because they got lucky once in a very different scenario. And afte that they'll happily relieve other people of quite a lot of money while offering this "miracle cure".

If I recall correctly, it was detailed in some of the medial reports submitted as part of various court proceedings.

The full report described the findings of the MRI scan. It revealed necrotic brain tissue had traveled down the spinal chord and was located in the lumber spine.

Thanks @BongoJim

Eek brilliant post summarising the importance of the legal system and why it's used as well as pointing out how causes use these situations to their own gain and not the patient or their family.

I'm so very sorry for your loss. What an awful situation you had to go through.

I agree entirely - I think people encouraging and enabling people in these situations when they have no medical knowledge or knowledge of the medical situation of the child in question are doing a terrible thing. But I suppose from their perspective, it comes from a good place - a place of wanting to offer hope. We as a society are not very good at dealing with death anymore and acceptance of it is incredibly difficult for many people. People like to believe in miracles, don't they? Joining these sorts of armies is a bit like - for me - joining a religion. Religion promises that you will never die. That's why religion was invented in the first place - to help us deal with our inability to fathom that one day we will all cease to exist.

I'm glad that you were able to do what was best for your child and put their interests first. It is obviously regretful that Hollie Dance can't do the same for her own child, but I would never judge her for it. I haven't been there, and hope I never will be.

There is unfortunately becoming a pattern here in these awful, distressing cases, each family setting pathway for the next one, and taking the child abroad to someone promising a miracle has happened before. In the Gard case, when that doctor was brought to the UK and into court it became apparent he was speaking without full knowledge of the child's condition. Once he had the full facts he told the court there was nothing he could do. There were also at the time arguments that it was better for a child to suffer than to remove parental rights and that no one but parents should make this choice; this is a line of thinking going on here against the line of child protection and child's objective best interests.

This is a family frantically trying to find any route to prolong the situation, while being manipulated by a group with their own political agenda who finds them a useful tool, backed up by a lot of sentimental idiots on social media, and a legal and hospital system who have to follow the process while trying to ensure this poor family are treated as gently and as fairly as is at all possible. With the Gards, huge efforts were made at every step to make it as gentle to the family as was at all possible, and I'm sure the same will happen here, no one in particular the courts and hospital staff want to make this any harder than it already is.

My main takeaway from this incredibly sad situation is the pernicious influence of the CLC/Christian Concern. I agree with a PP that they are honing their methods; they don't give a stuff about Archie or Hollie, only their fanatic "cause". I'm only glad that our judicial process has again been shown to be robust against this hideous and exploitative behaviour, however tortuous the process.

FFS is this ever going to end? They have dragged it out for way too long and it’s frustrating they are allowed to do it. If they are that bothered then they can personally pay for his hospital bed, rather than draining the funds of the NHS with legal bickering and continuing to keep going. They are taking up a bed that someone else could be using, who might actually make a recovery. His mother has no medical or health training as far as l am aware and is just seeing what she wants to see

I think @Eeksteek has summed it up very well.

Years ago, I met a woman who had a strong faith who was told their fetus had a rare genetic syndrome where life would be shortened and quality of life would be poor. There was no concern re pain though. They were recommended to terminate but her church community rallied around and she didn’t.

He had no eyes, no verbal responses, no form of communication with his mum, no affection or even awareness of her, had constant seizures and was enterally fed. It was years ago and I remember it because his mother was hollow, and crying, and talked about her life before, as an accountant, and how she had been told what to expect and it was all true and she wished she’d made another decision.

Some people are very lofty with their “life at all costs” approach but they are ignorant.

Im sorry for your loss. You made the right decision.

It’s in the High Court judgement.

The Gard family were given longer because of the extremely complex transfer that it took to take Charlie to the hospice where he spent his final hours.

Nothing remotely similar about this case.

The point to, it’s the right thing to do. Medics aren’t just in it for the kicks. Anyway, they have no choice.

It comes back to consent. No one can consent on behalf of another person. No, not even a parent on behalf of a child. If a person can’t receive, understand or process the information to make a decision, and then communicate that decision, the medics and the family decide together what is in their best interests. Almost always, they agree. The medics try to take the burden of decision from the family, but also to give them input, which is a hard line to walk. Occasionally (only very occasionally), they can’t. Then the hospital have to go to court and the court orders whatever is in the child’s best interests to be done (or stop being done)

The courts have already ruled that continuing treatment is not in Archie’s best interests. It could legally have been withdrawn already. It hasn’t been because the hospital is an ethical, compassionate organisation who want do the right thing and to give the family all the space they can to work through the process. Once the ECHR have refused (and they will. I flipping hope they’ve seen it coming and prepared to make a fast decision. They won’t want the CLCs agenda beating heart agenda on their watch either) then Archie’s life support will be be withdrawn. Just like all the cases before it.

it’s being driven by money from the patriarchal and misogynistic CLC and fuelled by ignorant (and exploited) keyboard warriors on social media, and a very naive and heavily exploited family. I feel sorry for almost everyone involved (not the CLC, to be clear. I think they are utterly despicable)

Agree.

Nothing similar.

Especially because in both the Gard and Evans case they boys could and did survive for a period of time off life support. They had some brain function but in both cases had respiratory difficulties due to their illnesses.

I feel very sorry for Archie’s parents, no family should go through this.

I don’t see how he can be transferred to a hospice though, with all the equipment needed. And what happens then? As far as I know hospices don’t keep people on ventilators, they don’t have ITU wards or staff.

Unfortunately his parents seem to be being fed stories of he’ll wake up and start talking, they don’t understand brain damage and the damage done is irreversible.
I don’t think they also realise their language of “ murder” and “execution” could have traumatising effects on other people who have also had relatives on life support.

''There are other countries that want to take Archie and they want to treat him," she said.
"Other countries are so supportive and they want him for treatment. They've got high success rates and I personally don't see the harm. If they can offer the slightest bit of hope..." she added.

"Why is it so cut and shut? He has to die in this country because this country doesn't want to treat him any more? There's other countries that want to treat him and I think that he should be allowed to go."

When pressed on what the overseas options were, she said "Tokyo... Italy".

www.channel4.com/press/news/my-babys-life-who-decides

Did anyone watch this and remember it?

I felt it was a very cleverly done documentary and very balanced.

The opening blurb about whether because we can now sue to medical advances we should is so important and powerful.

I'd question the ethics of other countries inviting him over (if indeed they have)

Why would another country want to take on the cost and care responsibilities of a British citizen?

I can't help feeling - again - it would be for their own medical experiments and benefit and not for the benefit Archie.

Most people would do this to try to keep their child alive.