Archie Battersbee - Thread 4

[BreadInCaptivity]

Previous thread:

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

Absolutely.

Except we also have some people that think it should only be discussed if we agree with certain POVs.

Or if you don't agree you aren't empathetic.

Imo that's the wider issue than not discussing.

It has a lot of hateful language on it about various sections of UK society, be warned

And who was it that told us this was an online challenge?

I can't claim to be any sort of expert, but my understanding is:-

Initially the family said they would apply to the EHCR: that would be an application based on the Human Rights Convention. Then they said they weren't going to do that because the outcome was inevitable, as the EHCR has already considered the issues in question in the Gard and Evans cases and wouldn't find anything different, so they approached the UN instead.

The UN application is based on alleged breach of the Convention on the Rights of Persons of Disability, and possibly the one on the Rights of the Child. They don't have any jurisdiction within our system because, although we've signed those conventions, we've never adopted them into our law as we have with the HR convention. This was raised in the original appeal to the Court of Appeal, who basically said no, doesn't apply here. The UN asked for more time to consider the application, the Department of Health passed the buck to the courts who basically said no.

So the idea of applying to the EHCR came back into play, but as the lawyers more or less conceded that there is little the ECHR can do it's blatantly a time wasting tactic.

How dreadful

There's no evidence of any online challenge, Archie wasn't filming and had made multiple references to suicide and depression online. Hollie came up with the explanation that it was an internet challenge.

I'm sorry about your mum

Indeed. I worked with patients with complete spinal lesions. No communication between legs and brain at all. Suppressing unwanted reflex movement (which your brain normally does a lot) was a big part of treatment.

It’s very likely that his hands are fixed in a resting shape by now. PTs do their best not let people get stiff, but with someone as unstable as Archie it’s got to be nearly impossible to do stretches, without de-stabilising him, and everyone’s just too focussed on basic life processes. I would imagine that just getting physical acces when another member of staff isn’t in the way doing something more vital is difficult, tbh. Any PT who a window of opportunity will be focussed on maintaining positioning and secretion management for better breathing.

That poor poor boy

I think it is part of the reason why this is such a problematic case. Death has become a spectrum, with modern medicine being able to halt it at a point where a patient has some semblance of living (ie a beating heart) and yet not reverse it and make progress towards life. (Someone put it really well earlier. Something like they could prolong death but not progress toward life)

When I first heard of Archie, I thought we might see ethical issues around the point of death. And we are, a bit. A lot of people are feeling that whether or not he is ‘legally dead’ and how that is determined is the issue here. But that isn’t really what matters (except to the CLC, who have an unrelated agenda) All that matters is whether treatment is in Archie’s best interests. And the courts have rightly set aside anything else.

Read the thread.

Plenty of other brave and selfless parents on here have made the heartbreaking decision in their child's best interests not to keep them artificially alive.

Some are - understandably - still grieve if 25 years later as it's not something that just goes away.

These parents are feeling extremely uncomfortable (and I think they should feel down right insulted) at the insinuation they didn't fight for their children hard enough.

Death is finite. It's the only guarantee in life. Artificially keeping someone alive who won't recover or won't recover with a quality of life or a quality they'd be happy to accept isn't fighting or being a great parent. In many cases it's about the parents needs and wants and not the child's best interests.

As is the case with Ms Dance.

This isn't about what's best for Archie. This is about Ms dances need for control and to be very public in her life and to fight authority.

Good points.

Especially the end paragraphs. She's said the societies want to murder and execute Archie by switching off his life support ventilation and withdrawing infusions.

If she now agrees to just that course of action.......

Yes, him. He's not been talked about much but I've caught a couple of mentions of him in connection with this case and that he was working on behalf of the smaller firm. Wish i could remember where I saw them! I will have a look around.

I think she's confusing the pituitary with the parotid gland. I believe that's under the ear and not controlled by the brain.

It is. Many brain damaged children produce too much and they can wear medicated plasters on the gland to reduce the amount of saliva they produce.

I dont understand what she hopes will be achieved. Does she just want his physical body there to visit as there is no hope of him ever having any sort of life or does she truly believe that all the doctors are wrong

I couldn't believe how it really isn't about what Archie would have wanted.
Reading the judgment, when mentioned early on even if there was a chance of survival Archie would be severely brain damaged or even in a vegetative state, Carter says that it would be "better than nothing".

Let the poor boy rest with dignity.

Hollie needs to except his death , the press need to stop reporting on it .
The sad fact is he has died and no amount of court cases and press coverage will bring him back .
Sadly thousands of other families have lost children and loved ones only they have given them dignity in death .

I am glad I came across this thread. I was becoming increasingly frustrated at comments mainly on FB about this, blaming tiktok and saying he should be given more time. I was beginning to think I was the only one who thinks keeping him on life support is cruel.

Does anyone know if the EHCR has confirmed receipt of the appeal and given any indication whether it will be considered and if so when?

Well said!

Spot on. All very sad but he's blocking a much needed bed now. Thousands of people have to turn off life support every year. Imagine if all those kept the machines going with endless court cases, all NHS beds would be full of the dead.

We know what the conclusion will be - the legal avenues will be exhausted and his life support will be switched off. It’s just how everyone - including certain posters on this thread - conduct themselves until then that will give this situation a modicum of dignity. There’s not much to discuss as the above is inevitable.

It's just been announced on ITN that the ECHR has denied their request.

news.sky.com/story/european-court-will-not-interfere-with-decision-to-withdraw-archie-battersbees-life-support-12665026

I think hearing about the legal teams pontificating about correct definitions of death is leading people to sort of forget the actual finality of the fact of his death.

As if, if we could somehow trip up the legal team enough, it would mean we can press 'revive' or 're-play' and bring him back.

So now she'll be given another date and explanation of how they plan to withdraw the infusions and ventilator.

But she'll delay trying to get him moved abroad or to a hospice? Can she make a new application at this point?

And if she does will anyone has the guts (media - I'm looking at you) to ask why in one court case she refused to have him moved for more mri scans because it would be dangerous to him.