Archie Battersbee thread 5

[henryhihat]

New thread...

Counsel for hospital trust and child’s guardian argue against appeal and any further delay.

I've copied the above from Joshua Rosenberg's Twitter feed.

Why isn't Holly and the rest of the family listening to the child's guardian who is there to actually serve Archie's best interests. Are they to be vilified too?

I suspect if it was possible to transfer the child everyone involved would be very glad to commit the time of that team just to end this situation for the child in the least distressing way for all concerned. The only reason at this point the hospital would continue to say no is to protect the child from circumstances they cannot agree to subject him to. It cannot ever be in a child's best interests to plan a situation in which it is very likely they will collapse and pass away in crisis, in a hallway or a lift or the back of an ambulance with a team of medics, particularly when the only reason the child has been put in that situation is the emotional desire of a parent.

As others have rightly said: it's vital that the court process is open to parents. We live in a democracy and it would be far more damaging to society as a whole if these processes and rights to appeal weren't available.

BUT...
I really hope that when this is over, from some source a team of shit-hot lawyers will be funded to scrutinise whether anyone involved in this utter fiasco could potentially be prosecuted. Some of the things HD has said/ written are disgusting and look to be possible defamation. As for those steering the dreadful organisations which are fuelling this.... you wonder whether incitement to hatred or violence, threatening behaviour etc might be relevant here.

That will be the only 'positive' outcome from a tragic event which then turned into a despicable farce. People need to know that whatever grief they might be suffering, they are still accountable for their words and actions.

At this point they must absolutely know in their hearts that an appeal is going to fail so why spend all that time and energy away from Archie and just being with him quietly holding his hand and telling them they love him.

As they old phrase goes, if you love them let them go.

Really?!

I mean there you have it right there.

Last chance.
<face palm>

It just beggars belief. He's dead. He's been dead for ages.

There's legal wrangling over the terminology but surely anyone who is not emotionally involved in this has no excuse for peddling this wooly rubbish. If i can understand the court transcripts enough to understand then so can the journalists. The writers of some of these headlines need to account for their part in whipping up this dangerous circus.

Because of the way the courts work, you can open a new case if it's a new avenue. I think the first submission in these cases needs to cover all points. Everything from best interest to the date and time of withdrawal and exactly where, ruling out home or hospice at that point.
The only reason she has been able to bring all these is because they keep finding a new avenue to explore and I,m sure it's a very deliberate tactic on behalf of the CLC. I m glad they dealt with the 'breathing' and treatment in Japan at the time of this hearing otherwise that would have been the next stalling appeal.

I’ve wondered this. I don’t know enough about ICU and withdrawal procedures to know what would happen to Archie’s body and how distressing it would be to watch and administer, or even what’s usual. Also, how could you tell if the parents were agreeing because they know that’s what you want to hear, but privately think it will be ok, or finally get that they are actually agreeing to withdraw life support in the understanding that Archie’s heart will stop beating.

I think they will take refuge in the normal procedure. I think any deviation from best practice will leave them open to criticism. In addition, they legally have to abide by the court order. And that could be what’s happening - they are agreeing a process, even timings, in court which makes everything definite and protects the health professionals involved.

It would be utterly awful if everyone involved did the right thing, and the CLC (via Hollie) started going after individual HPs, even through the proper channels. Not only would it be devastating for them (even if they are proven to have done nothing wrong, the process is horrendous) but then individuals may be too intimidated to treat (or stop treatment) in cases like this. If all the staff are too terrified for their livelihoods to do it and go off sick, then what?

Because it's not about Archie. And hasn't been for a very long time. It's about her getting her own way. This isn't showing how much she cares about him at all. She just can't even let him die in peace.

In her mind, everyone associated with the hospital is 'the enemy' so she's obsessed with moving him. I just hope she doesn't cause a scene when life support is finally removed.

I’ve tried to read as much of this thread as I can but no all of it. So I’m sorry if this has been asked and I’ve missed it, or if I’m being silly in asking.

What are the actual reasons why they’re not allowed to move him to a hospice? I’ve read that it’s because he may die in transit, but then I’ve also read several times that he is already “dead” so what difference does it make?

Yes there is the ethical argument that a patient who is dead deserves dignity at all times, which I fully agree with, but would it be undignified if he were to pass on the journey? Wouldn’t his heart simply stop beating?

Sorry for my ignorance.

I had a quick look at that Kiwi farms thread too but only the first page with all the screenshots. I think they’ve gone too far. Whilst I agree with their arguments (as much as I can understand them), I’m shocked by some of the things they’ve dragged up which are very nasty in their implications.

I’m hoping this case comes to it’s only and inevitable end today - Archie’s last chance came and went months ago - beautiful boy

I feel for her, no one deserves to lose a child, but I no longer think she is acting in Archie's best interest, its not about winning against the hospital and the system.
I feel for the doctors and nurses that are looking after that poor boy, their jobs are so tough anyway and I am sure they do not enjoy turning off the life support from anyone but sometimes it has to be done.
You would have hoped from all the past pics and screenshots that have been dredged up that she would have learnt if its on the internet its there forever but then looking at the pics she has posted of Archie it seems not.
I can't stand it when parents post pics of their ill children on social media so to post the pictures she has is absolutely disgusting. My heartbreaks for that poor boy. Who know what he went through in those final hours/minutes (if it wasn't an accident) He needs his Mum now and she isn't there, she is stood in court or outside the hospital courting the press and been interviewed on tv.
Sadly when this is over I don't think this is the last we will hear about her.

She's said she accepts the transfer risks but would rather risk him dying in transit than in the hospital

I think this sums up the whole thing. I feel for Hollie I absolutely do and I can understand that rightly or wrongly the relationship with the hospital has deteriorated to such an extent that she doesn't want her last moments with him to be there, but the truth of this is its not about her. Its about Archie.

Sadly I seem to recall an interview where she said that Archie wouldn't want his parents put through this and if they knew him they'd understand all this wasn't in his best interests because of that so I don't think she's capable of separating hes and his needs.

Some of the media reporting on this has been so inaccurate and one sided it's actually quite dangerous. The correct medical information is all in the court judgments which are publicly available. Are journalists now too lazy and stupid to research, or is there another agenda going on here? It's quite disturbing.

Can members of the public make a complaint about this? Or would it be down to the NHS /hospital to do that?

This highlights, in my opinion, one of the very few real functions of managers in the NHS. To draw the fire of the angry patient (or relative) to defend the procedure, the best practice and the policy while allowing the actual clinician to preserve their relationship with the patient and effectively treat them. I hope that this is all aimed at ‘management’ and not clinicians, but it sounds like it’s deteriorating. I imagine todays court proceedings are hammering out a withdrawal process in detail, to protect the staff involved.

The judgement specified that if there was to be an appeal it had to be lodged by 1.00pm today. So we'll know soon enough.

She's said she accepts the transfer risks but would rather risk him dying in transit than in the hospital

If she truly believes he can be saved, why on earth would she risk a journey that make his condition deteriorate? She's making this about her now and wanting to beat the hospital at any cost. I wish she had people around her who had her best interests at heart, as those Christian lawyers are just about making a name for themselves.

You can always complain about bias. However this is unfortunately very much the style of journalism at the moment, and if for example with the BBC you point out to them that what they're saying is a very, very carefully spun version that evades sharing the facts fully in the public domain if you take the time to find and read them?

They just tell you they identify as being unbiased and are sorry you don't agree.

Which leaves you really wondering wtaf is going on and where the regulators are.

Well, she has her nurse friend who apparently knows better than the ICU and respiratory experts. You have to wonder whether she really is a nurse, a qualified nurse should know better

I'm not a doctor, but just from what I've read (and my own experience being with family members during their deaths)- I think that him passing away in transit/in a hospital corridor could be extremely unpleasant and profoundly distressing for anyone witnessing it. I sort of understand the argument that if he isn't alive, how does it affect him, but I disagree. I, for example, would want to know that my dignity was being maintained even if I wasn't aware of it, so I would want my family members to not make choices that could lead to me dying in a hospital corridor in front of strangers (for example.) I think most people would want their privacy maintained after death, and I don't see why it is any different for a child.

Well it sets a precedent for the parents wishes to be held as taking priority over those of the patient/body.

Desecrating a corpse (obvs he isn't a corpse) is illegal even if you are the next of kin and really want to desecrate it.

He's just a child and they're trying to make sure he has a good death. There are standards around hospital deaths and dying in the back of an ambulance if it can be prevented falls below that standard. They're doing it as much for the family even though the family can't see it.

We have rites and rituals surrounding death as do all cultures, what makes this horrifying to most of us is we recognise the child has gone, and as such he deserves dignity in his passing.
Logically once your dead you don't feel anything you don't experience distress, shame, or any other human emotion, but we honor our dead and treat them with respect and dignity, otherwise, why don't we just discard the bodies in a wheelie bin? it makes no difference to the deceased.
That's why there is a visceral reaction to this, it feels like his body is being desecrated and paraded for all to see as some sort of gruesome circus sideshow for no one's benefit but his mother's absolute refusal to recognise Archie as a person and not as her property.

Titchy, misguided attempts at resuscitation aren't desecration.
Embalming isn't desecration.
We do all sorts of things to people, after they are dead. As long as those things are not intended to disrespect, degrade or embarrass the person or their family, they aren't desecration.