Page 14 | After the last goodbye.

BongoJim · 2022-08-06T20:04:58+00:00

I know the last thread was removed because there was too much speculation and I get that. I believe a lot of people shared a lot of personal stories and experiences which were important and gave powerful insights. Would we be able to continue the debate without the speculation (start your own topic for that) and instead just continue to debate where cases like this need to change going forward, how court processes can change as a result of such difficult cases and what lessons can be taken from this awful case without it being a thread about a thread? It would be a shame to lose being able to discuss every other aspect of an important debate just because one aspect of it is problematic for MN. Is it even possible to continue debating the wider implications thrown up by a case like this? If it's not then my all means MN please delete. 🥺

itsgettingweird · 09/08/2022 11:09

Jeremy vine right now discussing the freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

Quia · 09/08/2022 11:14

I agree with those who have said better counselling and mediation early in could prevent this.

We don't know what counselling and mediation were offered earlier in the process, so it's impossible to say whether "better" versions would have achieved anything different. Sometimes people simply are not open to either.

itsgettingweird · 09/08/2022 11:22

True quia. And I agree with what's been said repeatedly that the reason these big cases make the news is that they are rare.

And sometimes people aren't open to suggestion.

I've met many people in my personal and work life who truly feel if you aren't with them then your against them.

HappyHamsters · 09/08/2022 11:33

I have worked many Court of protections cases where families have been in conflict about an adult family members treatment/care/accommodation and none have ever been reported in the media, as far as I am aware. These cases only get reported because someone has put the story out and the media have jumped on it.

Quartz2208 · 09/08/2022 11:59

It was fairly quickly determined though on the 26th April.

I wonder if the fact he was moved for an operation very early on gave hope that was never actually there and started all of this. The first few days probably set the scene for the remainder of the time

HappyHamsters · 09/08/2022 12:01

Quartz2208 · 09/08/2022 11:59

It was fairly quickly determined though on the 26th April.

I wonder if the fact he was moved for an operation very early on gave hope that was never actually there and started all of this. The first few days probably set the scene for the remainder of the time

What operation was he offered, did he have any tests to determine if an operation would have been appropriate.

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 09/08/2022 12:36

Quartz2208 · 09/08/2022 11:59

It was fairly quickly determined though on the 26th April.

I wonder if the fact he was moved for an operation very early on gave hope that was never actually there and started all of this. The first few days probably set the scene for the remainder of the time

What "operation"? There's no suggestion in any of the court decisions that any operation was suggested. The hospital wanted to carry out stem testing which the parents refused.

It's not helpful to talk about offering an operation when there's not the slightest indication anywhere that that happened.

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 09/08/2022 12:37

And to be clear the stem tests suggested were to establish if brain death had occurred but the parents refused permission for him to be moved.

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 09/08/2022 12:40

Geccochebello · 09/08/2022 09:27

Times article. I completely agree:

*
Because where I parted company with the doctors was in their preventing Archie’s parents from seeking alternative treatment once the decision had been made to remove the boy from life- support and thus effectively end his life. There was no conceivable logic to that rather peremptory course of action: it seemed pointlessly vindictive. If the doctors were correct that there was no hope for Archie and that he was “brain-stem dead”, it would surely occasion the child no discomfort if his parents were to move him somewhere — where exactly, who knows? — in the hope that some sort of miracle might have been occasioned.

For the immense and somewhat flawed machine of the NHS, with its implacable algorithms and absence of sentiment, Archie Battersbee was simply one of hundreds of thousands of people who die every year. Archie’s parents saw things a little differently: he was their son and if there was even the faintest glimmer of hope, they would cling to it.

I believe that was their right. Given that Archie was not in pain, indeed was incapable of feeling pain, what could be the objection — aside from the brutal assessment that it was a fool’s errand? Better a fool’s errand than the certainty of death. Even more pertinently, why should he not have been allowed to pass away “with dignity” (as his parents put it) in a hospice? The NHS lawyers said in a letter that any application to move Archie to a hospice would “be opposed on both a procedural basis and best interests basis”. How can it have been in his best interest to die — and if he had to, how could it have been against that interest to do so at the place of his parents’ choosing?

They added: “The trust continues to put Archie’s welfare and best interests at the forefront of its decision making about his care.” Moving him would entail a “significant risk”, according to the lawyers. But a risk of what? I think the answer lies in that phrase “procedural basis”. It was all about procedure.

Miracles, or their medical equivalent (that is, better treatment), do occur, occasionally. The parents of five-year-old Ashya King sparked a vindictive NHS and police hunt when they took him from hospital so that he might receive better treatment in Prague. Ashya had been suffering from medulloblastoma: he has been free from cancer for six years. Doctors wanted to turn off the life support for five-year-old Tafida Raqeeb, but her parents took her for treatment in Italy and she has improved to the degree that she may soon be able to return to the UK to live with her family.

Hollie Dance says that her son once gripped her hand as she sat beside his bed in hospital. Perhaps she was mistaken, perhaps she imagined it. That’s the most likely explanation, isn’t it? We are all fallible.

I couldn't disagree more with that article.

1blossomtree · 09/08/2022 12:47

@Geccochebello

The parents were unable to name any medical professional or insitute/hospital that could offer him treatment, or what the treatment actually was. They vaguely referenced "stem cells", which was all his team had to go on and so they provided a concise summary of how stem cell based therapies work, and why they wouldn't be beneficial to Archie.

How can his health care team evaluate whether something is likely to work, or whether they are being conned, without any relevant information?

As several of the consultants treating him said, sadly there is no treatment for brain stem death. The family were being exploited by quacks and well meaning people with no understanding of medicine or science.

Still interested in why you think "in the patients best interests", is controversial though?

BoreOfWhabylon · 09/08/2022 12:48

@HappyHamsters
In some cases, e.g. head injury and tumours (depending on location and nature of both) where swelling inside the skull is causing the pressure inside the skull to rise and cause further damage, it may be possible to remove a portion of the skull to relieve the pressure inside.
Archie was transferred to the London Hospital for the experts there to assess whether treatment of this nature might be appropriate. It was, however, deemed not appropriate because the nature of the injury (hanging) had stopped the circulation to structures deep within the brain, causing death of the brain tissue, which would not be helped by removing bits of the skull. This was shown on the scans. All this was covered in at least one of the Judgements.

The possibility of such a procedure may well have been mentioned to the parents prior to the transfer, but I doubt very much that they were told that this would definitely be happening.

It's not unusual though for families to cling desperately to the hope of a 'fix'' like this once it has been mentioned.

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 09/08/2022 12:49

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trying-to-save-archie-may-have-been-a-fools-errand-but-to-block-it-was-the-act-of-a-knave-m6x3jnbzq

The Times article referred to is by Rod Liddell. I can only assume (a) he hasn't read any of the court decisions and/or (b) he has decided to be his usual contrarian self to wind up Times readers. It was clear from other articles and the BTL comments that Times readers supported the hospital's decision.

BoreOfWhabylon · 09/08/2022 12:51

Oh, Liddell. Say no more.

BoreOfWhabylon · 09/08/2022 13:04

This is the sort of 'treatment' available overseas (for a price) to desperate parents who can't accept that their beloved child has gone

youngest cryogenically frozen child www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34311502
www.alcor.org/library/complete-list-of-alcor-cryopreservations/case-summary-a-2789/

Quia · 09/08/2022 13:10

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 09/08/2022 12:36

What "operation"? There's no suggestion in any of the court decisions that any operation was suggested. The hospital wanted to carry out stem testing which the parents refused.

It's not helpful to talk about offering an operation when there's not the slightest indication anywhere that that happened.

Show quote history

Yes, there was. There was talk of a cranial operation to lift pressure from the brain, but they decided against it because it wouldn't have helped with that type of injury. In fact I think that is why he was moved to the RLS.

Quartz2208 · 09/08/2022 13:20

@TheLassWiADelicateAir he went into Southend Hospital and then was transferred within 12 hours - I think at that point there was some talk of being able to do something it was only when he arrive it was agreed it wasnt an option.

My point though is that is potentially what caused it - Hollie Dance went there thinking there was hope and then there wasnt.

@BoreOfWhabylon says it much better though!

HappyHamsters · 09/08/2022 13:24

Quia · 09/08/2022 13:10

Yes, there was. There was talk of a cranial operation to lift pressure from the brain, but they decided against it because it wouldn't have helped with that type of injury. In fact I think that is why he was moved to the RLS.

Show quote history

I havent read all the judgements or am part of his medical team but if there was a discussion around a possible craniotomy then clearly it was decided it was not appropriate or would have been of any benefit. I have read about his scans which seem to show quite clearly what was happening to this poor little boy.

itsgettingweird · 09/08/2022 15:28

Quartz2208 · 09/08/2022 11:59

It was fairly quickly determined though on the 26th April.

I wonder if the fact he was moved for an operation very early on gave hope that was never actually there and started all of this. The first few days probably set the scene for the remainder of the time

Yeah I mentioned this on about thread 5 I wondered if that was where some of it came from.

He went for an operation to save him and it wasn't possible so then they felt the opposite.

Just so sad

itsgettingweird · 09/08/2022 15:30

Quartz2208 · 09/08/2022 13:20

@TheLassWiADelicateAir he went into Southend Hospital and then was transferred within 12 hours - I think at that point there was some talk of being able to do something it was only when he arrive it was agreed it wasnt an option.

My point though is that is potentially what caused it - Hollie Dance went there thinking there was hope and then there wasnt.

@BoreOfWhabylon says it much better though!

I was about to say bore summed up my thinking better than I did!

1blossomtree · 09/08/2022 15:34

Geccochebello · 09/08/2022 09:27

Times article. I completely agree:

*
Because where I parted company with the doctors was in their preventing Archie’s parents from seeking alternative treatment once the decision had been made to remove the boy from life- support and thus effectively end his life. There was no conceivable logic to that rather peremptory course of action: it seemed pointlessly vindictive. If the doctors were correct that there was no hope for Archie and that he was “brain-stem dead”, it would surely occasion the child no discomfort if his parents were to move him somewhere — where exactly, who knows? — in the hope that some sort of miracle might have been occasioned.

For the immense and somewhat flawed machine of the NHS, with its implacable algorithms and absence of sentiment, Archie Battersbee was simply one of hundreds of thousands of people who die every year. Archie’s parents saw things a little differently: he was their son and if there was even the faintest glimmer of hope, they would cling to it.

I believe that was their right. Given that Archie was not in pain, indeed was incapable of feeling pain, what could be the objection — aside from the brutal assessment that it was a fool’s errand? Better a fool’s errand than the certainty of death. Even more pertinently, why should he not have been allowed to pass away “with dignity” (as his parents put it) in a hospice? The NHS lawyers said in a letter that any application to move Archie to a hospice would “be opposed on both a procedural basis and best interests basis”. How can it have been in his best interest to die — and if he had to, how could it have been against that interest to do so at the place of his parents’ choosing?

They added: “The trust continues to put Archie’s welfare and best interests at the forefront of its decision making about his care.” Moving him would entail a “significant risk”, according to the lawyers. But a risk of what? I think the answer lies in that phrase “procedural basis”. It was all about procedure.

Miracles, or their medical equivalent (that is, better treatment), do occur, occasionally. The parents of five-year-old Ashya King sparked a vindictive NHS and police hunt when they took him from hospital so that he might receive better treatment in Prague. Ashya had been suffering from medulloblastoma: he has been free from cancer for six years. Doctors wanted to turn off the life support for five-year-old Tafida Raqeeb, but her parents took her for treatment in Italy and she has improved to the degree that she may soon be able to return to the UK to live with her family.

Hollie Dance says that her son once gripped her hand as she sat beside his bed in hospital. Perhaps she was mistaken, perhaps she imagined it. That’s the most likely explanation, isn’t it? We are all fallible.

To add to other people's comments on this article - even the title is pretty offensive and demonstrates a real lack of understanding

Trying to save Archie may have been a fool’s errand, but to block it was the act of a knave

...I believe that was their right. Given that Archie was not in pain, indeed was incapable of feeling pain, what could be the objection — aside from the brutal assessment that it was a fool’s errand? Better a fool’s errand than the certainty of death.

You cannot keep someone alive to try proposed treatments that you know will not work (not that there were any) to keep another individual happy. Ghastly.

This is all by the by, given that no-one had actually identified a specific treatment for Archie, or where it would be carried out.

HappyHamsters · 09/08/2022 15:43

There was a quote in a Jusgement that if he feels no pain then equally he feels no pleasure. It seems very clear from the scans that he was deteriorating rapidly and there is no treatment in the world that would have reversed the damage caused by his lignature, brain anoxia and prolonged cardiac arrest

BreadInCaptivity · 09/08/2022 15:48

He went for an operation to save him and it wasn't possible so then they felt the opposite.

Sorry to be pedantic, but it's important.

He was moved to another hospital to be assessed to determine IF an operation MIGHT be a suitable treatment option for his injuries.

It was found this operation would have no positive impact wrt his prognosis, but it was right to explore every possible option and if this had not happened, the parents would have had every right to feel their child had been failed by the NHS.

Compared to other cases, Archie's prognosis was indisputably dire and the case did not offer any legitimate medical challenge to that fact.

This case was fundamentally about a family who (for reasons we don't really understand and it's thus pointless to speculate on) could not/would not accept that Archie had died on the day (by intent or misadventure) he was sadly found by his mother having hung himself.

It furthermore (despite Lidell's ridiculous article) underscored the principle that the patients best interests are paramount, even when they conflict with the wishes or best interests of the family. Which is exactly how it should be.

Deviation from that principle (even to be kind) sets a very dangerous precedent and Liddell fundamentally asked the wrong question. It wasn't "what's the harm" in moving Archie, rather it was what was the benefit to him?

itsgettingweird · 09/08/2022 16:16

He was moved to another hospital to be assessed to determine IF an operation MIGHT be a suitable treatment option for his injuries.

Not being pedantic. We know that's what happened.

I was typing as she saw it. I probably wasn't clear.

HD stated plenty of times he went for the surgery and they wouldn't give it to him.

Those of us not involved with rational thought can see that it wasn't an option and wouldn't have worked. She just couldn't and still can't.

Quartz2208 · 09/08/2022 16:17

@BreadInCaptivity I think it is very important - you have set out the hospitals perspective that would be pretty much how and why it occurred

itsgettingweird is I think saying how Hollie perceived it to be that there was going to be one, he could be saved and then suddenly he wasnt.

Early communication is key and I think it broke down fairly early on - although could very much have always broken down!

BoreOfWhabylon · 09/08/2022 17:01

I do think the media generally does not report things well, they invariably go for the tugging the heartstrings approach, when they should be much more balanced and informative.

The other day I heard a presenter on a major talk radio station castigating the hospital for appearing "cold" and not communicating their side of things. I did call in and told the producer that the hospital wasn't allowed to do that because patient confidentiality and that they needed to read the Judgements, which are publically available and mostly in very clear language. They didn't mention this on air though.

See also reports of being "found unconscious at home" after "an incident" and similar, when the cause has been spelled out very clearly. And TikTok challenges, operations, treatment overseas etc etc.

It's manipulative and dishonest.