Archie Battersbee - Thread 4

[BreadInCaptivity]

Previous thread:

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

That ruling was overturned on appeal because none of the medical witnesses said that Archie is dead.

In fact I would go so far as to say that people should have the discussion on their end of life care in the same way they are encouraged to have the discussion on organ donation.

Because while the family still have the overriding say on e.g. organ donation, they are more likely to agree if their loved one’s wishes are known. The same could apply to end of life care.

I don’t want to be kept alive by machines and if I end up in a vegetative state then I do not want to be resuscitated. Ever. And in the same vane I carry an organ donor card, and my family are all well aware of my wishes.

Maybe the organ donation site could have a section for end of life care as well as organ donation. After all, if you end up on a ventilator, then organ donation is often something which is discussed.

This mobile.twitter.com/Poppyjuice/status/1538944237105979393 is a very good thread on what brain stem death is, how it is diagnosed, how it differs from cardiac death and from a minimally conscious state etc.

I believe similar offers were made in the Guard case, which came to nothing.

If the decision has been made he will not be transferred to a hospice, then being moved abroad is not going to have any traction.

He's simply too unwell. The staff are making hourly micro adjustments to his medication and treatments to keep his body functioning. You can't do that on the move.

Finally, again it's not in his best interests. He will not recover regardless of where he is.

There isnt, her story apparently changed several times about the circumstances of his death.

In my view, from what I read its unfortunately suicide.

I doubt that will be her decision to make, the Courts will step in.

www.gosh.nhs.uk/conditions-and-treatments/conditions-we-treat/understanding-brain-stem-death/

Thanks for posting. Definitely worth a read.

Possibly but not relevant in this case because the deceased is 12 years old. His parent is expected to act in his best interests, its assumed that a parent does not cause their child harm or expose them to inhumane or cruel treatment

I have read around this as much as I can because I wanted to understand -
so apparently the hospital initially wanted to do peripheral nerve test to check for brain death - mum said no -so the hospital had to go to court to get permission. The 2 (independent?) doctors could not get any reaction so the next stage was (another I read he had had previous scans initially?) The family said no. back to court to get permission.. The Scan showed no blood supply to any part of brain (they checked electrical impulses in brain none) the brain stem was necrotic. This all meant the pituitary gland was not working either - which affected urine output (apparently) so they have archie on complete life support for nutrition as well. Its unlikely that his body will keep going and he could get infections which will be untreatable - the mum has fought to stop them checking and keeps proclaiming that the scans are an irregular and untested way of checking brain death which is untrue. There was also the video which was suppose to be proof he was trying to breath for himself - it really didn't. I have said this before but I think poor mum feels guilty (and that is unwarranted) because she was in the house and this happened and she didn't know

Exactly, for everyone saying (or perhaps implying) that the hospital should have had more empathy or communicated differently or that the relationship has broken down due to hospital processes......its very clear that mum has been obstructive all the way disabling the ability for the hospital to gather information to determine the next steps.

By the time the court was able to hear the hospitals application too much time had gone past, she has sabotaged their work throughout.

This sort of thing was never going to be solved by mediation because she simply wouldnt engage in mediation or permission for tests

Can anyone shed any light on the claim that he can’t be brain stem dead because he is producing saliva? I’ve seen that his Mum has said several times that he is producing saliva, and is being suctioned for it and that saliva is produced by the pituitary gland, which can’t be dead like they’re telling her because of the saliva.

l didn’t think the pituitary gland had any great role in saliva production beyond hormones telling you when to eat and drink.

@prh47bridge
That ruling was overturned on appeal because none of the medical witnesses said that Archie is dead.
Ah, thank you. Do you happen to have a link to that? I can't find one. No problem if you can't, I've seen your posts often enough over the years to accept what you say.
The explanation of the medical evidence still stands though.

Its the parotid glands that produce saliva. they are in your mouth not your brain. Its the parotid glands that swell up when you have the mumps

And I am troubled by the mother saying he would react when he had his hand held sometimes. I am confused about that because as far as my limited googling went - brain dead means no reflexes whatsoever. So he couldn’t have moved his hand whether intentionally or not. She might have lied to buy more time, or being having a psychotic break with the stress, but what if it’s actually true.

No, that's not correct. Reflex movements can certainly happen in people who are brain dead - www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2729975/

Just a point of note re: potential requests from the family to move Archie abroad.

On 25th May (from the BBC):

A hearing is held to decide if further MRI scans should be conducted. Archie's parents did not consent on the basis that moving Archie could harm him.

Is that Pawel Stroilov? If he's definitely on the smaller firm's books, the Solicitors Regulation Authority could definitely get involved, because they do have jurisdiction over solicitors' employees. He was severely criticised by the judges in the Evans case, and there seem to be large question marks over his compliance with professional conduct standards in this one.

I wonder how long the ECHR are going to take to come back with a decision.

It’s probably not saliva, but lung secretions resulting from dying organs.

I didnt really understand the UN involvement, what is the current application to the ECHR?

I've read less than half of the judgment linked upthread. The poor kid is dead and deteriorating further all the time. Were there to be a miracle, he's never going to make any meaningful recovery. His family are desperate and this case just shows how damaging social media and the internet can be - I mean in terms of his mother believing things she reads on the internet rather than numerous medical professionals. I also wonder if guilt is playing a part too.

No one understood it really. They were trying to be clever.

www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/935.html&query=(Battersbee)

it’s this one - although you can see that the parties all agreed in the end that Arbuthnot J shouldn’t have diagnosed death so that doesn’t feature as heavily in the judgment as you might expect had it been fully argued.

I know this may not have been sensitively handled, but what actual evidence is there of that? Archie is in PICU, staff there are normally extremely sensitive In this situation.

Asking about turning off life support after three days for a child with massive brain damage isn't at all unusual or unfeeling. As various people who have contributed to these threads have confirmed, often that question has to be raised within a few hours of the patient becoming ill or being admitted to hospital - in fact, I suspect that if anything that is the norm. The idea that everyone has a right to several weeks or months with their relative on life support in order to get used to the notion that they have died seems essentially to be one that I've only heard from Ms Dance and AA.