After the last goodbye.

[BongoJim]

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. 🥺

Absolutely agree.

The Law should change, if anything it should be tightened up. There are many "rights" parents believe they have that are detrimental to a child health and wellbeing. When does it cross over into child abuse and medical neglect.

Good question hamsters.

I don't think there's ever an easy answer but I do think where religion is involved and puts a life at risk it must be overruled.

We can't start allowing death for religious reasons as that opens another can of worms.

I do think a review of legal aid is urgently needed so that it is available to parents as of right in these cases - that is already what happens in child protection cases, so it's a perfectly logical extension. If that keeps parents out of the clutches of CLC, that could only be beneficial to all concerned, and there are not so any cases of this type that it would be a major burden on the public purse.

I think the deification of doctors is dangerous, we must be free to challenge them. I'm sure Harold Shipman and his supporters were horrified when he was arrested but he was a mass murderer although he was also supposed to be a good and caring doctor. Ian Patterson was rated as a top surgeon for breast cancer and when another doctor tried to whistle blow he wasn't supported but the women who were put through hell by him almost certainly wish he had been challenged. The same thing happened at the Bristol Royal Infirmary where the death rate for babies undergoing heart surgery was high.

I think it is more important that this case doesn't stifle challenges than anything else. That would be the ultimate bad outcome of all this.

Agree.

The courts need to be available for non bias facts based decisions to be made where parties cannot agree.

But the CLC aren't in anyway non partisan which is what you need in a lawyer supporting the families in these cases.

I wonder if Hollie Dance will write a book. I would read it.

I agree that doctors need to be challenged and there are processes in place for that and everyone is entitled to seek second opinions. Whistleblowers need more protection, concerns need to be fully and impartially investigated. There were many specialists involved in this case all in agreement. That isnt playing God, some people may think doctors providing artificial life support and extensive but futile treatments are also playing God.
The idea of Legal Aid is a good suggestion, patients and parents should have the opportunity to have proper legal representation but there may be limits if not everyone agrees with the case being bought so dont see why they should ultimately have to pay toward it.

The danger isn't about this case directly and if there were however many specialists involved, it is about the general principle, the message on here is very often that it is awful to challenge the doctors because they are working hard and of course they mean well and are doing their best. That is generally appropriate but the reality is some doctors do bad things and some whistleblowers have their careers ruined and some patients aren't listened to.

It is very dangerous if people feel that they will be turned on if they dare to say a doctor has got it wrong. As a child I was sexually assaulted by a doctor, I didn't even understand what was going on, he had been the family doctor for years, he was my grandparents doctor, he was my mother's doctor when she was pregnant with me and I'm really not sure how much support I'd have got if I'd understood what was going on and complained about it. He was a much loved and respected doctor. I was a kid who hadn't got a clue.

I'm so sorry that happened to you @ancientgran

Of course doctors are capable of doing terrible things, and they need to be held accountable just like anyone else. I've followed these threads and I really haven't got the impression anyone is saying doctors couldn't or shouldn't be challenged.

In the case of HD, she challenged his medical team multiple times. She challenged multiple specialists who were brought in, including many independent of the RF. She went through the court system, appealed to the UN and other bodies, as well as widely engaging with the British media. She certainly didn't seem like someone scared of whistleblowing or that she was being intimidated into not sharing her opinions. I just don't see her situation as comparable.

It's true there's been a backlash towards her, but it isn't because she challenged medical professionals, it's because she refused to engage with the evidence in front of her, as well as becoming quite abusive to anyone not agreeing with her.

The issue isn’t though that doctors shouldn’t be challenged though because they should, or that parents should have a voice because they should

what she is asking for is the rights of the parent to be paramount which is all kinds of wrong, the child should be at the heart of every decision.

And here he was.

I agree.

No one is saying they shouldn't be challenged.

In fact we are saying legal aid should be available for parents to do just that.

The concern is when the challenge is funded and guided by ideological groups with a personal agenda rather than a lawyer who takes on the families case in a non partisan way.

HD challenged the Drs from a position of not understanding, aided and abetted by groups pursuing their own agenda. I imagine it would have been better for Hollie herself if she had been able to understand that the Drs had Archie’s best interests in mind / that there was no hope of recovery / they weren’t trying to harvest his organs for a quick buck.

the suggestions re legal aid are worth looking at IMO.

Once again I am not talking about this one case but the worrying attitude that I have seen on here about "How can she say that about doctors and nurses who are working so hard." or "Why would anyone think a doctor wouldn't be trying to save someone." The evidence is that some, a small minority, do bad things for no particular reason, some give sub-optimal care maybe because they are burnt out or chose the wrong career. That is the reality.

I haven't seen these posts, or anyone denying that HCPs can give poor standards of care (deliberately or otherwise)? I'm sure everyone on MN has an example, especially with the NHS as it is right now.

Of course we need good, robust channels alongside mediation so anyone is able to challenge a HCP.

I feel like HDs example has demonstrated that there are a lot of avenues to explore at the extreme end (i.e. life and death). I imagine it's a lot harder when it's something lower level like a midwife being inattentive on a maternity ward.

We all agree that there are some bad doctors and nurses , there are plenty more bad parents. What people didnt agree with was her accusing them of murdering her son and wanting to execute him to harvest his organs, blood and serums. People also feel some sympathy for the staff, they dont deserve to have sm groups rallying around threatening to storm the hospitals, putting patients and staff at risk. Naming doctors who are doing their best and offering the highest level of care they can are put at personal safety risk by some "supporters".

@ancientgran

Once again I am not talking about this one case but the worrying attitude that I have seen on here about "How can she say that about doctors and nurses who are working so hard."

Also, this thread is fundamentally about the AB case. You will get people saying things along those lines because it was genuinely miraculous his team kept him alive for 4 months, considering his medical status.

Contrasting this against her claims that the hospital were trying to kill him and were being neligent was what prompted comments around this.

Outside of this, yes HCPs work hard and are burnt out, and no this isn't an excuse for substandard care or something that means they can't be criticised, but I don't see anyone making these claims.

It is interesting that everyone agrees there are bad doctors/nurses/HCP as that really hasn't been the message on this thread or the previous ones. It has all been how dare she question them, well I think parents should question and I'm glad that there seems to have been an epiphany on here about questioning doctors.

It really wasn't @ancientgran

Hollie questioned everything about his care & condition, and these questions were answered (covered extensively in the court documents). No one said she had no right to ask this questions.

Posters were, however, incredulous that despite this she then went on to adamnantly disgree with the multiple (10+ specialists) who explained why Archie could not recover, and made claims that had no basis in reality.

It isnt about how dare she question doctors, no one has ever said that, she questioned them, but wouldnt listen or consider any of their advice or expert opinions, thats how this all ended up in Court. Everyone has always had the right to question a doctor, thats why people can ask for second, third, fourth opinions.

The MAIN problem was that the standard test protocol for diagnosing brainstem death wasn't suitable for cases where the patient was "too dead already". One judge took a look at all the medical evidence, which included multiple scans showing no blood flow to the brain (see the court docs for all the details) and ruled he was dead.

However this was overturned on appeal, as the view was taken that expanding the brainstem death protocol was something for doctors to take on, NOT judges.

The brainstem death protocol need to be expanded to cover cases like this. Now, in this case the mother refused permission for brainstem death testing and the hospital had to go to court to get it - but there are other circumstances which might lead to the same situation.

The attention is on the legal side of things because that's what put this situation in the news. But, I think the solution is on the medical protocol side.

But here all the doctors agreed, the medical evidence was overwhelming, she wasn’t accusing a small minority she was accusing evetpry single medical professional who cared for him

there is no epiphany about questioning doctors or nurses I have been there myself. This is about the fact she refused to accept and then the cod pushed an agenda

No one is suggesting she didn't question them.

In fact the very fact we have all agreed legal aid should be available in these situations shows we are all saying the avenue is correct and the fair justice generally works in these situations.

What we have concerns about is when there's 3 sides as there was here. The hospital, HD and the CLC who got involved due to their personal religious agenda and who fed lines and religious propaganda to an already grieving parent.

They encouraged a narrative that went beyond disagreements over care to accusing the very people keeping the child alive against all odds as actually also trying to murder him to harvest blood, organs and serums.

The original court cases were brought by the hospital because of refusal to allow brain stem testing. It was agreed to allow this.

They couldn't be carried out and so MRIs were used and HD challenged the ruling he'd died in May and won. So the courts don't always side with the hospitals in these cases.

And that's why the case became about patient best interests rather than life or death.

Except because of CLC involvement and their agenda of 'beating heart equals life' the case because 3 fold and the lines of appeal became blurred.

It no longer was being argued what was best for the patient but rather that parents should decide for their child etc and we had a case where the original arguments against what the hospital wanted to do were used against the hospital when they agreed it wasn't in the patients best interests (mainly around moving the patient)

There are always people in this world without the best or good intentions and our democracy generally steps up and steps in well in these situations (although nothing is ever 100% in medicine)

But we need to ensure these cases come about and proceed for the right reasons rather than personal fights and religious agendas.

But her "questioning" was beyond ludicrous. And it went on and on and on becoming more and more ridiculous.