Archie Battersbee - Thread 4

[BreadInCaptivity]

Previous thread:

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

It’s just getting more and more batshit now.

Talking about going to another country and other stuff like that.

People are giving her hope when they should be helping her come to the truth

I'd rather you stopped trying to censor the debate. You made a big song a dance about how you've reported the thread yet you still keep coming back here to bait people. Agenda? Much?

How was he left to his own devices accessing stuff on the computer like this (if that is the case)? Is the mother trying to deflect? Surely some responsibility has to fall to her for not making sure he is only seeing 'fluffy kittens' online ?

Making a big noise now and blaming everyone else is madness. I have been in a lot of hospitals and recently in TRL and the staff there are the best hospital staff I have ever been cared for by in my life.

Frequently, when threads start to annoy me, I just stop reading them.

@Reallybadidea , my DH had only been by himself for about 10 minutes when he was found. The paramedics tried all they could , and I will be eternally grateful for all they did, but clearly it was hopeless. I was just trying to correct the impression that the paramedics can't decide that life is extinct. (In his case, the PM showed that death was inevitable given the underlying health issues)

They can easily come on here and explain themselves.

No, I don't think Ms Dance needs to waste her time explaining herself to you in order to escape being vilified on the internet.

No one is conceivably disparaging the choice to acquiesce when life support is withdrawn. Every medical case is different and everyone reacts differently. There's no better way. You do what you have to do. There is no need for you to disparage and publicly shame a parent who made a different decision. Let them alone.

Debate the issue by all means but it's callous and unethical to publicly denigrate a vulnerable parent while doing so. I don't know what aspect of Ms Dance's life or character hasn't been considered fair game on this thread which is not remotely in the spirit of the site. It is indeed toxic, vitriolic and deeply unethical.

Here is a link from the university of Warwick, on ambulance clinicians declaring life extinct. Essentially unless it’s absolutely clear resuscitation is futile, they need to try. They try longer for children.

The problem is that there is this myth that the minute someone suffers grief or trauma, they suddenly become someone who cant be criticised.

If someone is a toxic person or a narcissist or has anti social personality, they dont suddenly change into someone else at the point the awful event happens to them. They remain that person.

Just because someone is a parent it doesnt mean they are automatically a good person or even a good parent.

You’re part of the AA aren’t you Thorn

If you don't like this thread discussion, you have the choice to hide it. You do not get to censor what people say.

And if so, could you take anyone who had died in the last hour and achieve the same outcome?

in spite of what you see on TV hardly anyone survives a cardiac arrest, especially out of hospital. So - no.

I’m amazed we haven’t had anyone from the army or even anyone who believes the spin that is being put on this case has posted on any of these threads

I believe there have been a handful, though I'm also surprised it's not more, but on the whole these threads have been respectful and well argued, so looking at the "Army"'s style I doubt it would suit them since MN isn't really the place to come if you want an echo chamber

I strongly believe that children in these cases should be given anonymity in the media

I don't disagree, but how would you see that working when there seems no way to prevent parents it info all over social media?

I just want to give Hollie a big hug and tell her that she has done everything in her power to help hhim. It's ok to let him go.

I'm sorry for anyone who has lost a child in any circumstances or has had to make such horrendous decisions about end of life withdrawal of supports, but different people respond very differently when faced with such grief, and your comment that 'we took the decision to put our children first' is in itself a judgement on Archie's mother. I don’t think anyone can argue at this stage though that Archie’s mother is putting her child first. She very obviously isn’t.

Now, it might be her grief which is causing her to not put her child first, but that doesn’t alter the facts.

The thing here is that now a lot of people are being more reserved in their judgements because of what Holly is going through now. But when this is all over, and as time progresses, the fact this case played out in the media as it did means that more people will speak out about what they think and feel. in years to come people will talk about the Archie case in the same way they talk about Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. And more people will judge.

By the very virtue of this case being so public Holly has opened herself up to public scrutiny and judgement probably for the rest of her life.

Because most people will forget that the CLC were the driving force behind a lot of it, because Holly has been the mouthpiece for most of it, and that’s what people will remember.

She is the one making it public.

She's the one spending his last moments - however long that will be - in the media and giving interviews calling those keeping her son "alive" murderers and executors.

All this "be kind" at all costs stuff is just pushed out to silence critics.

Many people can understand people will take different decisions and paths. No one has no sympathy for her in the fact Archie will die very soon.

Plenty of people (quite rightly imo) are concerned about her very public fight which takes her away from him, her MH and her being exploited by CLC for their own personal agenda.

If Ms dance didn't want to invite comment she could have done this privately.

That's ridiculous - how many parents of 12 year olds in the UK are fully aware of every single thing their dcs have ever seen on the internet? There cannot be a single person here who can hand on heart say they know their child's full internet history. So many children that age have smartphones, it could just be someone showing them something on the way home from school - you can't be fully aware at all times.

I dont think the things he said or saw or posted were in secret, he had various social media account so she would have been very aware of his thought processes, there are images from when he was 10 of things he posted on accounts.

He was clearly very troubled.

I dont think mum has MH issues I think it would be more likely that she has PD of some sort.

Of course it’s a judgement on Hollie. Her son has shown no signs of life or any chance of recovery for nearly 4 months. She’s abused the hospital staff, accused them of being murderers and liars. She’s posted pictures of her emaciated son in a nappy and posted a hospital letter, naming staff, on the Internet. She states that there are now 8 security guards outside Archie’s room. There are other families in that ICU, also potentially making difficult decisions and under extreme stress.

Her behaviour is poor, not in Archie’s best interests at all.

I understand - what I was trying to see is that she may think she is putting him first, and is clearly being fed false hope from different quarters. It's absolutely tragic, the whole situation.

Really? This thread has steered away from the rumours and allegations about the family’s background, in a way that other less moderated forums have not. If you think there are specific posts that cross the line then report them but the thread itself is entirely appropriate and your attempts to censor discussion of important issues, put into the public domain quite deliberately by Archie’s family, is entirely inappropriate.

I don't disagree, but how would you see that working when there seems no way to prevent parents it info all over social media?

Social media companies legally have to remove stuff that infringes court orders/the law. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for anonymity to be triggered as soon as legal proceedings are instigated.

I know it's been said on these threads these Christian Law people want this as a test case in law.

Does anyone know what their agenda is? I presume it's to do with a beating heart, even if maintained externally by another source = life?

Do they want brain dead people to be kept on ventilators for months/years? Or is this an anti-abortion agenda? Does anyone have any insight?

Yup.

That is from 2006 guidelines. Extremely out of date. There have been changes and additions since then.

Yes this happens in the family courts all the time, posting or pictures about the children or the case are not allowed.