Page 17 | 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. 🥺

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 14/08/2022 21:48

itsgettingweird · 14/08/2022 20:22

She's said it's for parents to have more (or all) say over the medical care of their children.

Personally I can't see it getting through at any level.

We can't start the slippery slope of parents being sole decision makers as that starts putting ability to safeguard children over anything at risk.

Complete non- starter- as it should be.

I see Justice Hayden was also involved in this decision.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion-doctor-judge-ruling-girl-leeds-nhs-trust-religion-a8977066.html%3famp

IDreamOfTheMoors · 14/08/2022 22:35

@itsgettingweird

And if people read the timeline properly the initial court proceedings were brought by the hospital because the parents refused to allow tests that would determine the full medical picture.

I’m not in the U.K. but I did read that. Could you tell me the reason the parents refused the testing? That left me confused.

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 14/08/2022 22:51

IDreamOfTheMoors · 14/08/2022 22:35

@itsgettingweird

And if people read the timeline properly the initial court proceedings were brought by the hospital because the parents refused to allow tests that would determine the full medical picture.

I’m not in the U.K. but I did read that. Could you tell me the reason the parents refused the testing? That left me confused.

I assume because it would have proved Archie was dead.

LetsGoFlyAKiteee · 14/08/2022 22:51

itsgettingweird · 14/08/2022 20:22

She's said it's for parents to have more (or all) say over the medical care of their children.

Personally I can't see it getting through at any level.

We can't start the slippery slope of parents being sole decision makers as that starts putting ability to safeguard children over anything at risk.

Oh. That won't happen..or shouldn't happen. In this case whatever the parents wanted wouldn't have helped or changed the outcome and like people have said it will lead to slippery slope

BreadInCaptivity · 14/08/2022 23:05

itsgettingweird · 14/08/2022 20:22

She's said it's for parents to have more (or all) say over the medical care of their children.

Personally I can't see it getting through at any level.

We can't start the slippery slope of parents being sole decision makers as that starts putting ability to safeguard children over anything at risk.

Well that's an absolute non-starter.

This case is classic example of why such a premise should not be allowed.

BreadInCaptivity · 14/08/2022 23:11

IDreamOfTheMoors · 14/08/2022 22:35

@itsgettingweird

And if people read the timeline properly the initial court proceedings were brought by the hospital because the parents refused to allow tests that would determine the full medical picture.

I’m not in the U.K. but I did read that. Could you tell me the reason the parents refused the testing? That left me confused.

It's unclear.

The family said in court that their objection was based on the risk of harm in moving him.

However, there are allegedly posts on SM (again allegedly from the inner circle as it were) that they were advised not to for legal reasons - the reason being to prevent confirmation of brain stem death.

So, in summary, we don't know.

LetsGoFlyAKiteee · 14/08/2022 23:21

Archie's beliefs and Archie's religion, what Archie would have wanted, just wasn't taken into account — it was just brushed under the carpet,' she said

Not really how it works. You can't build a law based also on that.

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 14/08/2022 23:24

Archie's beliefs and religion were in any case completely irrelevant to the facts here.

Queenoftheashes · 14/08/2022 23:43

BreadInCaptivity · 14/08/2022 23:11

It's unclear.

The family said in court that their objection was based on the risk of harm in moving him.

However, there are allegedly posts on SM (again allegedly from the inner circle as it were) that they were advised not to for legal reasons - the reason being to prevent confirmation of brain stem death.

So, in summary, we don't know.

Show quote history

She said on tv they were basically advised that if the docs did the test they could pronounce him brain dead and stop treatment so they didn’t allow it.

Quia · 14/08/2022 23:51

LetsGoFlyAKiteee · 14/08/2022 23:21

Archie's beliefs and Archie's religion, what Archie would have wanted, just wasn't taken into account — it was just brushed under the carpet,' she said

Not really how it works. You can't build a law based also on that.

The judgments show that they were taken into account as much as they could be, but there was nothing indicating what his beliefs would be in relation to a situation like this one. There were references to him not wanting to leave his mum, but the reality is that happened back in April.

IDreamOfTheMoors · 15/08/2022 01:12

Quia · 07/08/2022 20:59

I suspect the reality is that you wouldn't, like the vast majority of parents in this situation. To get to this point in a case like this, you would have to disbelieve not only what the doctors treating your child say, but doctors brought in from several other hospitals for a second opinion. You would have to build up a belief that those doctors and nurses, for no obvious reason, have decided that they want to kill your child, despite working on him 24 hours a day using cutting-edge medicine to support all his bodily systems and spending a fortune keeping him in PICU. You would have to consider the fact that you haven't been able to find one remotely credible medical expert to support you, despite the best efforts of very motivated and knowledgeable lawyers, and still decide that you are right and others wrong. You would have to look at easily googleable facts, e.g. that someone with brain function would not be able to tolerate a breathing tube without heavy-duty sedation, yet still think there is no problem with the fact that your child never reacts to it at all.

Accusing people who say they would accept medical advice of not being parents is particularly hurtful in the context of the fact that many people who have contributed to these threads are parents who have been through this scenario and decided to put their child's welfare above their own wishes.

Show quote history

@Quia beautifully said. I’d like to think if I were in the mum’s position, I’d be urging for tests as soon as possible. And upon hearing the results of those tests & conferring with doctors, make the choice best suited for my child. It’s an impossible position to be in, but you still have to be present and, sadly, sensible. There’s no time to fall apart. I’d also like to think that as excruciating as it would be, it wouldn’t take me four months. I just couldn’t do that to either of my children, given the same circumstances and choices. Lessons learned, I suppose, and it’s easy to speculate - hard to do when you’re right in the middle of it.

IDreamOfTheMoors · 15/08/2022 01:29

MissyB1 · 08/08/2022 08:03

Where is the Q&A session is it possible to view?
She needs to be careful, the media may appear to be on her side at the moment, but they could easily turn.

Show quote history

The media is NOT on her side.

The media is on the MEDIA’S side.

Always have been, always will be.

It’s sad she can’t seem to see that she’s just the latest click. They’ll move on when the clicks go down. They always do. And she’ll be left standing there, angry and alone, with only the CLC to soothe her. But the CLC will move on eventually, too.

caringcarer · 15/08/2022 02:15

When I was 18 my best friends neighbour who I knew very well was in a car accident and was in a coma for about 4 weeks. The hospital told his Mum he would not come out the coma and he was only being kept alive by breathing machine. Then after a further week they said they would do test to see if his brain was functioning or not. Tests showed some activity but not a lot. Hospital advised her it was time to switch off respirator. She refused and arranged for a second opinion from another hospital to access his case. In the end they said they would go to court to let him die in dignity. 4 days later he came out of coma.and did not need respirator. He made recovery over about 5 months but his personality had completely changed. He ended up with anger management issues which he never had before. This was 42 years ago though. I am sure a lot of advances have been made during that time.

IDreamOfTheMoors · 15/08/2022 02:35

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!

@Quartz2208

Don’t forget also that she had those CLC people constantly in her ear, with whatever nefarious agenda they have.
I googled them several weeks ago and they are pretty appalling. In another famous case, one of their members actually sued three MDs for murder. The absolute gall of suing someone who did everything they could to keep a child alive for murder - it offends & infuriates me.

IDreamOfTheMoors · 15/08/2022 03:48

@TheLassWiADelicateAir

Thank you for the answer on his parent’s reluctance to have the tests done.
And oh wow -

IDreamOfTheMoors · 15/08/2022 03:55

@BreadInCaptivity

Thank you for your answer about his parent’s refusal to have the tests. Shocking, even if we don’t know for sure. Having read about the CLC, this would not surprise me in the least.

Quia · 15/08/2022 10:50

IDreamOfTheMoors · 15/08/2022 01:29

The media is NOT on her side.

The media is on the MEDIA’S side.

Always have been, always will be.

It’s sad she can’t seem to see that she’s just the latest click. They’ll move on when the clicks go down. They always do. And she’ll be left standing there, angry and alone, with only the CLC to soothe her. But the CLC will move on eventually, too.

Show quote history

CLC have almost certainly moved on already. They might help with the inquest, but I suspect it's unlikely, because it's much more difficult for them to fudge the facts there. During the previous batch of hearings, no-one went into the issue of how Archie was injured because it wasn't relevant, but it's going to be the main issue in any inquest. CLC won't like any suggestion that it might have been deliberate, because that would conflict with the picture they want to present of the wishes of a religious child being overborne.

If CLC can find another eye-catching cause celebre that promotes their agenda, the family won't see them for dust.

HappyHamsters · 15/08/2022 11:06

IF there is any change in the Law then it should be for the benefit of the child, not the parent, if its going to be called (child) army law, not (parent)army law.
Better protection for the child, anonymity, the right not to have photographs posted on sm or msm, the right to an early diagnosis, the right not to undergo prolonging death treatment, hospital anonymity.

itsgettingweird · 15/08/2022 12:01

I dream I agree with other poster. We aren't 100% sure but the mum was convinced they wanted to prove him dead for his organs. She repeated this a lot.

I think emotions played a huge part. She found him hanging. He was transferred and the idea of an operation was discussed.

The new hospital said it wouldn't work.

Mum wasn't able to take it all in at the time and seems to have a distrust of authority and believes parents have or should have sole rights over decisions for their children.

So she refused.

A few weeks in the hospital brought the case because their medical evidence was that he was solely alive through medication replicating his brain function and through ventilation.

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 15/08/2022 12:19

HappyHamsters · 15/08/2022 11:06

IF there is any change in the Law then it should be for the benefit of the child, not the parent, if its going to be called (child) army law, not (parent)army law.
Better protection for the child, anonymity, the right not to have photographs posted on sm or msm, the right to an early diagnosis, the right not to undergo prolonging death treatment, hospital anonymity.

Agreed. The photos in particular were awful.

HappyHamsters · 15/08/2022 12:33

itsgettingweird · 15/08/2022 12:01

I dream I agree with other poster. We aren't 100% sure but the mum was convinced they wanted to prove him dead for his organs. She repeated this a lot.

I think emotions played a huge part. She found him hanging. He was transferred and the idea of an operation was discussed.

The new hospital said it wouldn't work.

Mum wasn't able to take it all in at the time and seems to have a distrust of authority and believes parents have or should have sole rights over decisions for their children.

So she refused.

A few weeks in the hospital brought the case because their medical evidence was that he was solely alive through medication replicating his brain function and through ventilation.

There was a lot of wrong information given to her I think, not helped by the aa or the clc. Wasnt there accusations of the doctors wanting his blood too which was untrue and also his "serums" which no one actually knows what that even means. They may have discussed if he would have benefitted from surgery or if it was appropriate which the expert doctors said it wasnt. I think I read that they had medical opinion and help from Barts, GOSH and Queens neuro hospital who are all the experts in that field.

Quia · 15/08/2022 12:34

They've had a balloon release, inevitably. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-62546672

HappyHamsters · 15/08/2022 12:51

Quia · 15/08/2022 12:34

They've had a balloon release, inevitably. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-62546672

I expect she found some comfort in people gathering to show their support but perhaps a balloon release is not the best way but that must have been what they wanted.

TheLassWiADelicateAir · 15/08/2022 13:02

Quia · 15/08/2022 12:34

They've had a balloon release, inevitably. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-62546672

Inevitably. And no doubt it's "unkind" to comment on the harm balloon releases do. They should be banned.

Quia · 15/08/2022 13:04

HappyHamsters · 15/08/2022 12:51

I expect she found some comfort in people gathering to show their support but perhaps a balloon release is not the best way but that must have been what they wanted.

Show quote history

Well, obviously. I didn't suggest anything different.