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I'm hoping that the media silence from the hospital means that Archie will be withdrawn from life support sooner rather than later.

That poor soul in his battered and tired body deserves release and peace now.

Honestly there needs to be a way to bring charges against these hideous people who spout such awful information.

No child is anyone’s property for a start, but secondly exploitation of the vulnerable like this ie. His parents who are going through a difficult time and can’t think straight, should be a crime.

Of course it's fine to ask.

But to be fair you've already anticipated my thoughts, which is really centred around Hollies reaction.

If she's not given time to present another appeal I genuinely worry how she will respond to that.

I really hope she and the rest of the family can start to come to terms with the fact that there are no more options.

No child is anyone’s property for a start, but secondly exploitation of the vulnerable like this ie. His parents who are going through a difficult time and can’t think straight, should be a crime.
I agree. They're vultures swooping in, despicable people.

The media should follow agreed protocols that such children can't be publicised. The parents shouldn't be allowed to splash them across the world.

If that wasn't happening, the awful hanger's on couldn't drive things so vigorously.

Maybe the debate we should be having is on the mental health services in this country and why she didn't have access to counselling as soon as the hospital knew death was likely. It might have helped her process that grief a little more productively.

Do we know that counselling wasn't offered?

....why she didn't have access to counselling as soon as the hospital knew death was likely.

We don't know that she didn't, do we? She did say she had spoken to the chaplain, who must be well accustomed to counselling patients and relatives.

I think she knows it but it's too much to bare to face reality.

She's losing everything. Losing my child is my worst nightmare.

I think she's also battling herself. She says she wishes everyone could go in and see him as he's fine.

She knows that's nit the case. But it's what she needs to believe.

I hope she can spend time peacefully with Archie and let him know how much he's loved at the end.

I sagged when I read the news just now. It must be such a dark night for her but I feel so relieved that that little boy’s body won’t be subjected to this much longer.
I hope someone can get Hollie to a place of being able to hold him and say her goodbyes.

@GiantSpaceHamster but how do you enforce it where the family actively seek out the media?

In family proceedings there is the threat of and on occasion imprisonment for people that break Court Orders. They are held in contempt. Judges are willing to send people to prison for breaches of orders.

But in cases such as these, where a mother / father wishes to be with their child in the most tragic of circumstances where time is limited but is communicating with the media through either manipulation of third party groups or desperation or grief (whatever you think is behind this). No Judge would hold them in contempt and send them to prison.

So without effective enforcement, you can't make a law (I.e to keep the child's details private) because people know a Judge wouldn't be the person to send the parent to jail (and possibly the child be without their parent when they die) so the parent will always be someone that pushes its.

This is just one very small reason why these cases are horrendously difficult and tragic. There is no easy answers and one point that works in one system, won't easily work in another.

What if the damage has already been done, i.e. the case has been publicised before any no-publicity order is pronounced?

And what do we do if the parents disregard the order anyway? Who wants to be the judge who imprisons the mother of a dying or just deceased child?

But @Crazycatlady83 surely it would be the media (not the parents) that would be in contempt of court snd therefore couldn't broadcast or print anything, including online

She stated in her latest interview that Archies dad has gone home for the night and she will not allow anything to happen until he is there!!

@bloodyplanes - surely it's not up to her now? They can't use Paul not being there as a delay tactic forever...

I absolutely agree with those who say we need to move discuss the idea a child is a parents property. Or that people still believe that.

That's why we have safeguarding rules. Because some parents can't make the right decisions for their child for whatever reasons.

Someone gave an excellent explanation on the previous thread about how no one can consent to medical treatment on behalf someone else - not even a child. They can discuss and give permission on their behalf but when their is a conflict of views the courts decide.

And so they should. We are a democratic country (just about nowadays).

The judgement was made on best interests.

The same judgements are made day in and day out in family courts.

I don't know if that will stop it or not but that's what she said. Its obviously the latest delay technique.

we come back to the point - how is (anonymity) to be enforced if the child's family decide to plaster details all over the media? I know the Family Court manages to enforce its orders, but the fundamental problem is always going to be that there will be a massive reluctance to imprison the parent of a dying child for contempt of court

Precisely, Quia. As I said earlier it's one thing to demand these things and quite another to ensure they happen

If she's not given time to present another appeal I genuinely worry how she will respond to that

Yes, I kind of realised that's what you were referring to, Bread, and I've no doubt the hospital will have factored it in
However I do hope that others' reactions - no matter who those others happen to be - won't stand in the way of them doing the court-mandated best thing for their patient

Maybe the debate we should be having is on the mental health services in this country and why she didn't have access to counselling as soon as the hospital knew death was likely. It might have helped her process that grief a little more productively.

I don't think the date of when she first received counselling has been said.

Regarding anonymity, media outlets and online platforms and all the rest of it should be subject to reporting restrictions full stop.

How else would the parents get the information out to the general public then?

I know there are ways, but without TV, radio, the press and respected internet platforms it would largely be futile surely.

news.sky.com/story/archie-battersbees-family-given-until-9am-tomorrow-to-launch-legal-bid-to-move-him-to-hospice-12665108 Archie Battersbee's family given until 9am tomorrow to launch legal bid to move him to hospice

Now Barts Health NHS Trust has said the treatment will end at 11am tomorrow unless the family apply to the High Court by 9am to move him to a hospice.

The above is from the link @bloodyplanes posted.

And if the HC refuses permission.......?

oh dear another appeal another stall for the poor boy

how can he got to a hspice when he cant even be moved for scans

But it has been seen that we cannot control all media. The internet is just too big and too anonymous. It would be completely futile to try (not to mention costly). If a parent is set on putting this out there, realistically they will be able to.

The UN, then ECHR rinse and repeat.

She will never forgive herself if that child suffers a cardiac arrest in a hospital corridor or the back of an ambulance.