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. 🥺

Do you think calls to storm hospitals, physically attack staff, accuse them of murder is also freedom of speech.

bloody tabloids, just feeding on these stories

No I don't. I do think being able to talk about what is happening, name your relative and the hospital or care home or whatever and air your concerns are. I have read on this thread suggestions that people should not be able to name their relative and that there should be reporting restrictions. This would heavily compromise freedom of speech. In fact the most vitriol and nasty comments have been on Facebook, mumsnet and the kiwifarms. I note also that many people on the threads on mumsnet signposted people to these other sources and reposted inflammatory things the family and others posted.

no comment on recent bbc article.
put that one to bed

This thread was to discuss the wider issues rather than to focus on this one particular case or so it said. If that is the purpose you need to look at both sides. Restrictions can have very negative consequences.

Do you think maybe that's because people join threads like this and comment on SM? Maybe? And if you didn't keep posting about it, they'd go back to morning about Meghan and Harry instead?

What "wider implications"?

I wonder how many other families during the course of this grotesque circus, quietly and with dignity, made the decision to follow medical advice and actually do the best for their family member? We won't know - because they didn't run to the press. I see Dance and her family are still chasing publicity and are continuing to blame the hospital

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11088901/Archie-Battersbees-family-say-death-barbaric-group-calls-urgent-review-reform.html

I expect in due course there will be another Dance "being the best mum ever/ doing what any parent would/ fighting for her baby/ insert your cliché of choice. It's part of the democratic system and civil rights in this country that they are permitted to do so.

I don't know what you are looking for here-

Is it on the one hand that these rights should be taken away from Dance and those like her?

Or is that there should be a change that Dance and those like her should be able to seek vindication that they were right and that they are justified in their appalling vilification of the hospital and the courts ?

But it's not all freedom of speech related is it? That's why active cases in court are often surrounded by gagging orders from the press until the case is over. That's should be the same in these cases. Sometimes hospitals and care homes are wrong and absolutely should be challenged in the law, but equally some patients relatives sometimes make up false allegations and slander innocent people out of desperation and anger. No one has said this shouldn't be allowed to go to court. People have said it shouldn't be broadcast all over social media for strangers around the world to weigh in with idiotic opinions that bare no relevance to the situation.

You are still free to discuss your relative. You are even free to seek them to be moved to a new hospital/home and are allowed to go through court for this and equally seek prosecution if a crime like abuse has been committed. That doesn't mean you can say whatever you feel like when you feel like it.

That's a cast iron argument why parents or other interested parties should not be prevented from speaking out.

It obviously is completely different from the situation with Dance. Dance and her family can shout as long as they want about how "barbaric" the treatment was and how badly done by they were- it still won't make any of it true. I don't have any problem with how long or how loudly they do this. I do have a problem with anyone thinking their criticism of NHS Staff and the judiciary has any merit.

very good point

but how did the poster on mn get to know about the case?
through SM/media - not personally

I worry that this thread will be deleted.i hope not as its such an important issue.

Could this not be managed by having more robust incitement to hatred laws, where it is expanded to include hatred aim directly at those, in groups other than those based on race, sex and religion?

I'm not legally minded at all. so don't know how this would work in practice but could have then maybe be used to tackle those encouraging hate towards the hospital or medical staff, whether that be 'armies' or individuals?

The poor behaviour of people on social media sites like mumsnet and others should not be a reason for silencing people. In one of the cases I linked to early relating to Bethany, the trust sought to gag the father and asked the court to prevent him speaking out. Their argument was privacy. The judge thankfully saw through this but if further controls were brought in this could be the result. I don't of course condone some of the nasty accusations made in the case of Archie but the freedom to speak out is one we should mess with at our peril.

Rummy one
I think that is a much better approach. That would focus attention on those making inflammatory posts rather than those wanting to highlight their legitimate concerns.

Maybe we should also look at people on sites like mumsnet who post inflammatory statements or repost very unpleasant posts on other sites.

doctors and nurses seem to be fair game as they cannot retaliate

100% parents should be allowed to disagree but there should be independent legally binding mediation rather than a court case. Bringing in a trained medical mediator from another country perhaps so parents don't accuse the nhs of not wanting to fund. Interest groups like the Christian legal people should not be allowed to interfere only those with medical knowledge should be allowed to advise families eg allow a consultation with a doctor in Germany/Spain/france

itsgettingweird thank you. I wish I knew how I could feed it in to the system somehow. I'm a retired psychotherapist so I think I have what's a reasonable idea based on my understanding of what could help (only a starting point I know) - but no clout! Ah well.

I wish we had citizens assemblies more often on these issues that people feel so passionately about. I'm sure there are many, many people who could contribute constructively but have no direct input into anything. All we can do is discuss things here and elsewhere.

Do you mean the report of Archie's family asking for an enquiry?

The news is only just out, it'll reach more people over the next few days and weeks. I think it's a good thing. There needs to be an enquiry anyway, if they feel that they've requested it and it's in some way responsive to them that could be a big step forwards in the evolution of their understanding.

Why does there need to be an enquiry?

And why should they get one just because they asked for one?

No I definitely don't think they should get one because they've asked for one.
But I think it would be, after a few high-profile cases, a useful thing to have to establish what might me missing from existing processes or where things could be improved upon, and if they THINK they've contributed towards bringing an enquiry about it could help them to feel less disempowered. Eventually.

Agree @heldinadream .

We mustn't let an important conversation that needs to be discussed be derailed by anger at one family have reacted.

This is about the next child- perhaps a child like the one @cansu has highlighted, perhaps about another like this- we need to talk about whatever happens next, not what's already happened.

I'm not ignoring anything. I am trying to provoke a wider debate.

Maybe we should look at the subject we are actually discussing rather than deliberately de railing it.