Archie Battersbee thread 5

[henryhihat]

New thread...

I do think our reactions to this are cultural rather than rational.

I doubt its her sole right and decision to decide she is willing totake the risk of poor wee Archie dying on the way to a hospice, isnt that why he has a Guardian.

If he is so fragile that turning him is a risk to life surely he would be unlikely to even make it to the ambulance and you can imagine the scenes then.

My mistake, it's 2.00pm.

The question being asked:

The benefit to the mother of moving him is obvious.

What is the benefit to the child?

Who would really want their loved one's last moments to be in a hallway or a lift? Who would want their loved one's final moments to be deteriorating to the point of collapse as opposed to a planned, controlled extubation done to be as calm and low stress as possible? Who would really want staff to be subjected to the stress and responsibility of managing a child collapsing and passing away in their care, particularly with a family who are showing very publicly their complete lack of trust in carers and are already assigning blame to those caring for him?

The child thankfully may be highly likely to be no longer aware of any stress or suffering but this is still a child who deserves the best of care and consideration, and whose best interests should not be subordinated to an adult's wishes.

Yes that makes sense, thank you.

The ridiculous thing about saying she's happy to take the risk of him dying so long as he leaves the hospital is that there's a substantial risk of the death happening long before he reaches the exit. I wonder what she thinks that will achieve?

It's not just her risk to take. it involves many other people who she would force to witness a possible chaotic and stressful event for no benefit other than the need to score a point against the hospital.
He wouldn't spend days at a hospice getting wheeled out into the garden. Because of the nature of his instability and the support he needs he would be withdrawn within an hour of arriving (as stated in the judgement). So is that worth him dying in the back of an ambulance with no family there or in a hospital lift or on the road,
What exactly would it achieve for Archie. Because this is about Archie ultimately.

@titchy and @SunflowerGardens thank you both. What a sad situation 😔

Don't worry. I got what you meant. She's having a meltdown really and is t in too much control of her behaviour.

Or if she is totally in control that shows some level of ..... well I'm not sure really!

I was just wondering about it becoming her throwing herself on his body and physically preventing staff removing his infusions etc what peoples opinions were on when you'd intervene and about law enforcement involvement.

I'd say most of cannot really I,agile how we'd react on this situation but we've actually had some very brave parents on here describing their children's end of life and making his decisions.

So whilst discussing g this I'd like to extend huge sympathy and thanks to them for their honesty and sharing their stories to help the rest of us with this discussion.

The fact that clinicians continue to care carefully and lovingly for Archie while in Hollie’s line of fire, being accused and abused and threatened and judged, says so much about them and about the NHS. It can’t be easy for them but their focus has been Archie from the very beginning and it must take SO much strength to keep providing care with this carefully constructed maelstrom swirling all around. They have my deepest admiration.

if any of the doctors or nurses or legal representatives for the hospital ever see this, I hope they realise 99% of the public are behind them and in awe of them. Nothing Hollie says or does can take away from what they’ve done for this beautiful boy.

If, as a result of moving, there was a sudden drop in vasopressin, would that result in uncontrolled urination?

When there are discussions about funerals, people always say 'it's about the living, not the dead' and prioritise the desires of the family.

The court can only put restrictions on reporting if it is "necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice" (Contempt of Court Act 1981). That does not appear to be the case here.

They have wider powers to prevent publication of names, and they appear to be using those powers to protect the clinicians involved. It would be pointless ordering the press not to use Archie's name or the names of his parents.

Sorry, posted too soon - which makes that question look a bit random. I'm just wondering what the consequences are of sudden death in transit. I can certainly see that if one possible element of the event is uncontrolled urination/defecation, that is certainly veering towards desecration.

I don't get it. The move has been refused and the judge hasn't given permission to appeal against it, so how is she appealing? I'm trying to read all the comments between working, so sorry if I've missed it.

Yes, the clinicians are amazing- I hope they are managing to rotate staff and take breaks, get the support they need. (Hard though that must be with the nhs on its knees).

Weird I think I would. Ultimately I consider that he has gone. The resistance she's experiencing is fuelling her. When there's neither cooperation, nor resistance, she'll have nothing left to do. I'd want someone on hand that's good with people, and someone on hand that's able to deal with the practicalities, but I'd leave her to it.

If she’s threatening to give mouth to mouth to archie’s body then security might well have to restrain her when support is withdrawn. I honestly don’t think she would be capable of recognising that she would have brought that on herself by failing to act in the best interests of Archie.

thank god is all I can say that we have a legal system capable of overriding irrational parents. I know it’s dragged on for far too long but if she had her way his body would still be being pumped with oxygen a year from now.

If you censor discussion on forums/SM, it means the only viewpoint being put out there is Hollie's.

She needs to be treated with compassion (and MN are doing a good job of deleteing posts), but equally, the disinformation being put out the family needs to be robustly combatted. The media don't seem to have much interest in doing this.

What they are saying can have huge consequences - people taking themselves of the organ donation list, refusing permission for relatives to donate, being too scared to take their child to hospital, increasing hate crimes against HCPs and disruption at children's hospitals.

The CLC angle also needs to be out in the open - this is all part of their pro-"life", anti abortion agenda, and with each case they're attempting to nudge the goalpaosts. Beating heart = life gives weight to the terrible abortion restrictions we're seeing in US states, where a girl/woman needs to know she was pregant immediately, and have an abortion within 2 weeks, else she's forced to carry to term.

I agree with all this.

I don't like the idea we can't discuss things in the public eye because it's a difficult discussion or because it may mean saying negative things about someone who is having a really difficult time.

I do agree we should t drag up "dirt" from the past.

However I also think it's fine to discuss things in cases where the person being discussed has said or posted them personally - so they have put it or are putting it in The public eye.

Linking to or stating information others have put out there as fact (which will have a bias) is dodgy ground imo.

Unreasonably irritated by their MP (the same one who who in a photo smiling next to Archie - another breach of his privacy) supporting their request for treatment abroad, when the family have no specific details about where this would be or what the treatment would consist of.

From the ruling today - fortunately moving abroad was covered in the same hearing as moving to a hospice so the CLC can't make that their next swerve.

Dr I, a Consultant Paediatric Neurologist, was not required to give evidence. Her
statement provided such information as was available about the generalised option of treatment abroad, no details have been provided on behalf of the parents about what itwould involve or the location.

This issue had been raised by a recent letter on 3 August 2022 from the parent’s MP to the hospital. Dr H’s statement gives the information about
the trials involving the potential use of stem cells, which can be reprogrammed into brain cells in the potential treatment of certain conditions, including brain injury. However Dr H states ‘there is no proof these treatments are safe and effective’ and the‘chance of any improvement would depend on the pre-existing clinical and brain stateand unfortunately there is very extensive brainstem and cortical damage, as is sadlythe case for Archie, it is impossible to envisage that a cell-based therapy could produceany meaningful improvement’ continuing that she is ‘not aware of any treatment which has provided evidence of any form of recovery in a patient who has been without circulation to the brain over such a lengthy period of time’.

When there are discussions about funerals, people always say 'it's about the living, not the dead' and prioritise the desires of the family.

But officially Archie is still alive.

I am surprised if anyone would agree to transferring him, perhaps the hospital need to put their foot down and refuse to get involved any further, it must be heartbreaking and frustrating for everyone. If he is moved I assume rhe family expect the hospital she hates so much will organise and staff it all.

She can apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal.

Absolutely.

We had a difference of opinion regards behaviour after death but actually I felt we had a good debate and discussion over it and were able to see how the other formed that opinion.

Plus I'm someone who's always willing to change their stance with evidence and these threads in the news as a whole topic on MN are always good for that.

Only legally, quia. If that.