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. 🥺

I agree that parents of children mostly have assumed consent, but I really don’t think they should be taking photos of an unconscious child in a very undignified state. That is not in the best interests of the child.
In an alternative scenario, what if the child made a full recovery and later discovered those pictures on sm and in the press?

I don't even know how it could be achieved but I think we need as a society to make death less taboo. No one mentions it unless it's at their door and then it's panic and anguish.

I also believe euthenasia should be legal and we shouldn't be pumping drugs into people who are at the end to prolong their suffering just because their family doesn't want to say goodbye. And example of this i have lots as i used to be an end of life carer but a good example was on one of them 24 hour in a and e shows:

Elderly woman, late stage dementia. Bed bound, none verbal, no awareness except fear. She ended up getting pneumonia. Instead of keeping her comfortable and letting her naturally go an ambulance took her to hospital, intervenous drips and loads of medications. She died two months later. What was the point in prolonging her suffering for another two months?

Medical staff this should have said

I think the “debate” developed into a circus. In my opinion I found it quite disrespectful.

So a parent wouldn't be allowed to take a photo of their child and share it with the other parent, or the wider family? Like i said. Idiotic idea.

‘Armies’
Evangelical groups with their own agenda
Social media gossip and speculation
Gutter press, endless sky news interviews
Fundraising by randoms
Archie merchandise

All of the above have turned this into a circus.
The whole situation is horrific.

So because i disagree with you, it means i don't understand your thread. Don't flatter yourself. I just think that speculating (sorry, having an "important debate" 🙄) about which of a parents legal rights should be removed because of the actions of the parents in this case, right after their child has passed away, is ghoulish.

"Oh I'm looking more at the actual arguments put forward where there's evidence that there is sadly no hope"

Who is to assess the evidence if not a judge? The Court of Mumsnet? You posed the question of removing the parents right to an appeal - there's a reason why we have the right to appeal. Because judges can make mistakes.

heldinadream

Thats an excellent post. I’ve been troubled by just how difficult it is to help families who for whatever reason are distrustful of establishments like hospitals and schools and you have articulated many of my thoughts brilliantly.

I suppose the issue is what happens if the family don’t trust any mediation offered by the bodies they perceive as working against them. I don’t know the answer, but it seems extra sad when people don’t connect with the support that could actually help them and other actors step into the void.

That's why we aren't discussing that now. The conversation has evolved. We are now looking at wider ramifications and what can be done to prevent future high profile cases developing in ways that may not necessarily be what is best for the patient or their family. There are clearly many areas where everyone can be better protected.

I thought the photos of the child that the mother shared all over social media were absolutely appalling. She stripped that poor boy of his dignity while he lay dying.

I'm not sure how you could legislate against it though - you could have a no photos policy in the hospital, but that would deprive grieving families from taking photos of their loved ones. I think to be fair the press were quite restrained in the photos that they used. You could control social media better to ban these photos from being shared.

Bloody randoms like MPs should absolutely not be allowed to visit for a photo op though. That was disgusting.

I said in the original post that i'm trying to steer this debate away from discussing Archie or his family specifically. I've even asked people to start their own topic for that. This thread is to debate the wider ramifications of cases like this which can impact on the wider population. We all have personal opinions but we can say we think parents should be allowed to take photos but there are clearly ethical issues with widely sharing them on social media without needing to mention our opinions about the family.

It’s the “my child, my property “ that I find so worrying in all this.

Having smartphones makes it so easy to film and photograph, for whatever reason, and often people don’t stop to think about whether it’s appropriate or not. Hence ghoulish videos of car accidents etc shared on sm.

@Cuck00soup‘s idea of encouraging a patient to take a photo of her new medication is a great use of a smartphone, in a similar vein, I volunteer in a shop and have a photo of the tillroll in position on my phone so I know which way to insert it!

Agree with all you have said.

I think theres nothing wrong with the court side. Having done appeals and a judicial review myself unless you have needed it or been subjected to illegal actions you cant have any possible idea how important these things are.

Two sides both think they right. A court decides on the middle ground and the sides. If you think the judge was wrong in law you have a second tier. As discussed on previous thread with regards to SEN as an example, my very posh LA bordering London hired someone who would have broken every law to stop my son being educated and they did also in court. Thank God for that appeal judge. A supposed law graduate but more likely hired due to his psychotic attitude to childrens rights. If he had a chance im sure he would have just run my son over. People in power dont always have best interests at heart when your budget is millions in deficit.

Cuck00soup thank you, I've been thinking about it a lot and like you also very troubled by the difficulty in helping and supporting such obviously distressed but also distrustful people. I do think we as a society need to get to grips better with these issues and not just abandon people who are 'difficult' and therefore leave them prey to right-wing groups. It has strong parallels for me with Trump supporters - unhappy people who can be whipped up into indignation but can't think rationally outside of their own emotions.

The crux of it though, is whether grieving exonerates you of all of your behaviour, and it is an important issue to discuss

I very much agree, and this is what I meant about the dangers of how this case has been handled. Put simply, enable one unacceptable situation - no matter how well intentioned the motivation for that - and others are encouraged

Ditto the social media issue, because we've reached a point where absolutely everyone, no matter how ill informed, can shriek "their truth" in the knowledge there'll be enough of a credulous audience for it to gain traction

A dangerous situation all round, though I'm blowed if I know what the solution can be

I read that whole thread and I did not see one single comment that was in any way critical of or disrespectful to Archie.

The problem is that, while much of what the family said was outright slander (and I'm sure legally actionable), no one would ever take that legal action against a grieving family.

So they were allowed to disseminate really appalling lies and actually calling doctors and nurses murderers.

Both the traditional print and broadcast media, and social media, were grossly irresponsible and bear a large share of the blame.

I would like to see the newspapers, broadcasters, and social media platforms held to account for their role in this.

I also believe that fundraising/crowdfunding with no checks and balances, and no due diligence, is a dangerous and frequently abused development.

Maybe not about Archie ,but there was a hell of lot of speculation about the circumstances leading up to his ,death speculation about his home life ,his mother's parenting abilities , people digging up dirt about his wider family ,just vile ,some posters were forgetting this is a real family .

To be honest I think the whole process was good for both sides where the hospital did what it was supposed to and the mother had loads of options to appeal against etc etc. However, I don't think this should have taken 4 months though. I think a lot of the legal stuff should have taken roughly 2 weeks or so which could have saved a lot of grief. I think the system needs to move faster which offers the family a legal option but at the same time the little boy doesn't get dragged on like this for 4 months hence why the circus was caused as there were 4 months to brew all of this.

I think that the court process worked as designed in this case,and I think it’s vital that parents have successive right of appeal so that there is scrutiny over these decisions including by the ECHR if necessary.

I’d like to see a change so that parents have access legal aid in these circumstances, that would mean that parents could get impartial information and legal advice without having to rely on and be beholden to organisations with an agenda like CLC.

I’d also see the introduction of a parents advocate, similar to the CAFCASS child guardian role, parents are not always in a position to advocate for themselves in these circumstances, and it might help them be more actively involved in discussions if they have an advocate.

I believe that doctors should have the right to carry out brainstem testing after a certain period of non-responsiveness. A lot of the wrangling in this case stemmed from uncertainty about brain stem death as described legally.

Lastly I think that there needs to be greater regulation of services like CLC providing currently unregulated legal advice, currently the SRA (solicitors regulators) can’t touch them as they don’t claim to be lawyers.

I think what is unfortunate about these situations is that hospitals cannot comment in the press to answer allegations. So unless there are court hearings, they don't get to put their side out there. People must have a way to air differences of opinion (and not all medical care is good, as we surely all know). And I think we need a free press, so people get to air disagreements. But perhaps there need to be tighter rules around how things are reported and the language used - the morning shows and etc were truly distasteful in this case. I think MSM in general is so much more sensationalist in tone now, and it is not doing anyone any favours to go down this route.

I would like to see the newspapers, broadcasters, and social media platforms held to account for their role in this

In principle so would I, but any such effort would instantly bring accusations of censorship and cover-ups (and unfortunately there have been enough genuine cover-ups to offer a measure of credibility to this)

While freedom of expression is a very valuable thing, freedoms also come with responsibilities and itt's that second bit which some don't find welcome

no, of course you can share with family but not a good idea to share with the media, be it news companies or social media groups. ie public facebook settings.
think of the consent/dignity