Archie Battersbee - Thread 4

[BreadInCaptivity]

Previous thread:

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

Its difficult to understand what angle they are coming at this from though....

He took his own life and unfortunately this was successful. So are they viewing this that the child needs to be kept alive because he did something out of his own autonomy and it wasnt Gods will?

Because otherwise surely its not Gods will to artificially keep a dead person alive?

I totally agree.

I understand she is in grief and devastated and I do feel for her but the way she has been speaking about the people who have done nothing but put Archie first absolutely is not on.

I don’t think they have anything as organised and coherent as an agenda, they seem very reactionary and knee jerk, and are almost certainly influenced to a huge degree by various American churches/organisations/individuals

I was half listening to Thought For the Day on radio 4 this morning, and the speaker was basically saying there is nothing Christian about this, and in Christian philosophy, death is seen as a chance to meet God, not something that should be delayed at all costs

So I doubt the Christian legal lot are even particularly Christian either

It's basically that all life is sacred and must be protected at all costs. It was a bit different in Ireland (where abortion has been legalised) in that the withdrawal of life support has rarely been contested by Catholics. as society becomes more secular - not really the case if you witness the resurgence of religion in the USA, and certain strains of evangelism becoming more popular in the UK. That Archie was allegedly religious could be one aspect of this case that has enabled the CLC to prey on the family with. The language of doctors as murderers etc has CLC written all over it.

I would be amazed if this wasnt already offered to the mum. I suspect she would have refused to engage.

I think someone said earlier in the thread about people saying something is black, when its white and when there is proof and evidence of it being white,, they wont accept this but then change the goalposts and start talking about the bits of grey, and so on and so on

As a Christian, I don't recognise Christian values in what Christian Concern are doing. They are a campaigning group rather than a faith group in the true sense, with a political aim. Religious faith can give huge comfort at these times and many Christians would not want to impose intrusive treatment on someone to keep them alive. Death is less scary because it is not seen as the end.

I am a very religious person - not christian but another religion akin to buddhism, yes they can be useful in comforting another believer in times of trouble but they should never meddle in matters of science where only science can give the answers. I've heard all kind of nonsense recently about God resurrecting people from the dead and so on and so forth, sorry never seen it happen and never will.

I’ve been thinking about the staff very much over the last few days and how incredibly tough it must be. I think a card is the least I can do if it might be appreciated.

Case law suggests that the ECHR will not support her application:

Lambert v France 46043/14 [2015]

While Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights supports the right to life, the court does not uphold that right when the patient is no longer alive in the accepted sense of the word.

The heart of it all I think is that Christian Concern regard human life as a thing received from and owned by God.

Exactly. Except that if it had been left to God Archie would have died in April. That he is being kept 'alive' is down to science and technology, not God.

Yes I went over the top on that post and I apologise.

I've worked in palliative care with many religious staff members who were absolutely brilliant at their jobs and both spiritual and expert in their approach, always prioritising the individual and their wishes and needs. CLC's version of religion would be nearly unrecognisable to them just as it is to me.

I think because
He had a ligature round his neck the day before
Social media showing depressive thoughts
ADHD? Diagnosis
In the papers before for various things

The problem is that you can't prevent people's access to the courts if mediation doesn't work. I believe many hospitals do offer it, and indeed it may have been tried in this case. ISTR remembering something about one of the families that CLC got their hands on previously agreeing to mediation and then just not turning up, so as to string things out as long as possible.

I wonder if there is actual proof that doctors from other countries have approached her? Will they have seen his medical notes before 'offering treatment'

What 'treatment' are they proposing?

His mum has put some very public information out there that explains where these comments come from.

Yes, I do wonder if they’ve actually enquired/been approached, or if someone in the Army has said “I’ve heard of this treatment in Japan where they heal brain stems! You should try that!”.

Quia can I politely point out you've referred to Archie as Charlie numerous times now.

I think that needs to be rectified as whatever our opinions of Ms Dances words and actions he's still the most important person in this scenario.

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

All of this may be true in theory - as is the thing about the courts disallowing the publication of some children's pictures - but it's one thing to disallow something and quite another to stop it

No doubt FB, Twitter, etc. would delete comments about staff being "satanic paedophiles" if forced, but too often they're not, and it's passed off as all part of someone being "distressed" and "needing sympathy"

Which is all fine and good, because as they constantly insist they have rights ... but what about the rights of Archie who's receiving treatment already repeatedly deemed to be not in his interests, and the rights of all those being attacked?

It's been suggested that CLC's agenda is primarily an anti-abortion one. If they can get the courts to accept that a person with a beating heart can never have support withdrawn, it potentially opens the door to a case that that also applies to a foetus. They won't succeed, but it doesn't stop them causing havoc whilst they exploit people like Archie and his mother to try to achieve their goal.

I know it's a long shot given the circus around all this, but I absolutely hope and pray that when the time comes to withdraw life support, the family can spend some peaceful moments with Archie and, in time, come to terms with his death. While some of their actions seem distasteful, I hope the resolution is private and dignified in the end - again, a long shot maybe seeing how this is playing out at present.

Twice.

My apologies, but that isn't "numerous".

Will they have seen his medical notes before 'offering treatment'

they only have to read the medical evidence in the publicly available court papers.

someone pasted it in towards the end of the last thread, yesterday evening, if anyone wants to look. Warning - it makes quite harrowing reading.

Regarding the CLC
In the USA many states were unable to rule against an outright ban on abortiion due to roe vs wade. What they did instead was make accessing an abortion more and more difficult.By insisting it only go ahead at designated facilities with strict levels of care, by not allowing insurance companies to cover it and eventually in texas by passing a heartbeat law that a beating heart =life.
a 6 week old fetus shows electrical activity in its rudimentary heart. this is how they reduced the abortion limit to 6 weeks, which effectively rules out most abortions, as by the time you miss a period you are classed as 4 weeks pregnant

If you can change the law to a beating heart =life then you open the door to changing abortion laws and the laws around organ donation.

Absolutely.

To disagree with Ms dance approach isn't to have no empathy towards her intentions and motivations.

It's very clear she's clinging onto any hope because she cannot bare to let go.

But that doesn't mean what she's doing is in Archie's best interests (as ruled by court) or a green light to use the rhetoric she has done about staff.

I empathise with lots of people constantly throughout my life. Doesn't mean I agree with them.

Nor even 'Legal' in that none of them are actually qualified as solicitors or barristers. This of course means that no regulatory body can touch them, unfortunately. Going off at a bit of a tangent there is a firm of solicitors they work with, the ones who instructed them on the Battersbee matter in fact. If I was the Law Society I would throw the book at that firm on any grounds possible. This would stop them and discourage any other firm working with CLC.
If it was up to me I would proscribe CLC and CC completely. I would also send in auditors.

I M always confused as to why the fundamentalists aren’t up in arms about someone being kept ON life support, sureky unnaturally denying gods will?

the only answer I can think of is the abortion precedent. It’s completely different circumstances of course.