[Closed] Archie Battersbee

And where does the responsibility for deciding what treatment he gets really reside

Absolutely not with the parents who are clearly happy to drag this out as long as possible consuming vast amounts of resource, ignoring everything they are told by people who know what they are talking about. Clearly no thought for the future of the lad either, if by some miracle he wakes up his quality of life will be dire.

Agreed that the parents aren’t possibly in a position to tell what’s right here. However it really doesn’t help that she continually fans the flames with comments like “he’s making considerable progress”

I agree on the quality of life thing (but that's a whole wider argument possibly entering religion and even eugenics territory), and being a scientist myself I don't generally tend to disagree with the

ignoring everything they are told by people who know what they are talking about.

but https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60839972. Are they 100.0% certain? Can they ever be?

It's just turned into a circus, yes it's the saddest thing possible, but medical experts, the supreme court, and the other courts she's used have all agreed that there is no chance of recovery, and concur with the medical consultants and doctors on the diagnosis.

The negativity the mother has aimed at the hospital and courts is just not good, yes she's grieving, but the progress that only she has witnesses, the public slating of the hospital, the daily press conferences, it just leaves a sour feeling about this whole thing, the focus isn't on Archie, it's on his mum, who is not a medical or legal expert to my knowledge.

always amazes me that those who are emotionally involved seem to have much more knowledge than those who have many years of medical training and expertise  in these cases.

but https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60839972. Are they 100.0% certain? Can they ever be?

The difference is that this child has not been diagnosed as brain dead, the parents have stated they won't give up until that diagnosis.

There is no good outcome for any of these cases unfortunately, a life in a hospital bed, being kept alive by modern medicine and machinery, or death at such a young age, it's horrific either way, for me, the Archie Battersbee case is made worse by the constant press coverage, it is just playing with the families emotions to gain public following in a lot of instances.

We have a legal system like this to at least give injustices a chance to be overturned at a higher court. If that means that tragic lost causes like this get pursued to the nth degree, so be it, it's the price you pay for having the opportunity to appeal.

I think we have to give the mum a pass and accept that she is just fighting for her son. Perhaps she has been poorly advised, perhaps she just doesn't want to hear the advice she's been given.

The difference is that this child has not been diagnosed as brain dead, the parents have stated they won’t give up until that diagnosis.

My understanding was that he has been described as 'brain stem dead', which is the same thing effectively. Effectively he is already dead, it is just that machines are maintaining pretty much all his bodily functions.

this young lad seems to have fallen ill as a result of some pointless social media ‘blackout challenge’ and since then has been in a coma

Im not sure its known for certain, more that its an assumption of one of the parents?

We are rightly not party to the full medical details of the case. Those that are have come to a common conclusion. It’s a tragic case but the multiple professionals and courts have decided. I’m more concerned about the events that led to the tragedy, if indeed it was such and not simply a medical event. That has been much less reported.

Im not sure its known for certain, more that its an assumption of one of the parents?

It will be looked into as part of the inquest which can't proceed until he is declared dead. The common belief is that he committed suicide as there's no evidence to suggest he was taking part in an online challenge (and no such online challenge exists, just moral panic about similar challenges going as far back as the 70s but never proven to exist).

I can see why the parents are having difficulty accepting that their son took his own life especially with the religious nut jobs that are paying to front her legal challenges and convincing her of her own story.

I fear the parents in these cases are often significantly manipulated by the religious groups who involve themselves to "support" them.

The second Secret Barrister book has a good chapter on this type of case and the way in which they are reported in the media.

The subject is covered in the Secret Barristers "Fake Law" book, with regards to a previous case where a social media storm whipped up a mob who tried to enter a hospital and try to "rescue" the child.

As a parent, how on earth do you make the choice to turn off life support? How do you accept that there is effectively no hope? And I wonder if the circumstances of his injury are a cause of even further grief in this case?

There is a right to life, but not a right to existence. We stop our animals suffering, but understandably struggle to do the same for our children. Which is why the law is there to make an impartial decision on the facts, not emotion.

My heart goes out to all concerned.

Putting aside the tragic nature of the events still to be faced by his parents, two things strike me:

1. His initial injury has been attributed to a stupid / dangerous viral craze on social media

2. 4m young people now have referrals to NHS mental health services - with many childrens charities and medical practitioners attributing cause to social media e.g. extreme weight loss, bullying via vanishing messages, post a photo every hour or get humiliated etc etc.

It’s clear that social media has had a catastrophic impact on young people and they need greater protection from services where they are the unwitting product.

4m young people now have referrals to NHS mental health services –

That's... pretty shocking to be honest. I knew it was really bad but that's millions in excess of what I expected it to be?

That's for referrals, but many are waiting months and even years in some cases to get seen. It's also recognised that in order for talking therapies to be effective, the patient to therapist relationship needs to work and (as an example) the therapist my son was referred to they just couldn't connect at all. Not a criticism of her specifically, she's probably great at her job but to wait a long time for treatment and then when you can't work with who you've been assigned to, to go back on the list again is very hard. In the end we've had to go private in order to find the right one.

CAMHS is such a mess, right now.

1. His initial injury has been attributed to a stupid / dangerous viral craze on social media

only by his mother

Where are you getting 4m from? There aren't even 4m people in the 10 - 19 age group according to the 2821 ONS data

My understanding was that he has been described as ‘brain stem dead’, which is the same thing effectively. Effectively he is already dead

I assumed brain stem dead is the more accurate/medical terminology and brain dead more colloquial.

One of the earlier judges nailed it in saying that the treatment is prolonging his death not his life.

It’s desperately sad and inferno so sorry for them all, but mum is just continually making it worse. Easy to sit here and say, I know, but the focus needs to be on a dignified death and then on the stupid and ridiculous online challenge that was the cause of this tragedy

I fear the parents in these cases are often significantly manipulated by the religious groups who involve themselves to “support” them.

The parents are being "supported" by the Cristian Legal Centre, which is funded by US right wing nutjobs.

Good point. 4m can't be right......

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/15/young-mental-health-referrals-double-in-england-after-lockdowns

I can understand why the mother would wish to hold on to the slightest shred of hope - but that has now gone.
Why would the ECHR come to a different decision to all of the english courts?
If the parents are being funded by a US religious set-up, that's a concern and will likely be repeated as desperate parents will do anything and not ask questions of those offering 'help and support'.

I fear the parents in these cases are often significantly manipulated by the religious groups who involve themselves to “support” them.

Those groups are dangerous - right wing Christian fundamentalists who find parents they can easily manipulate in a time of grief and then publicise the hell out of it to fundraise for themselves.

They pop up every year or so, one case that gets more publicity than every other death put together.

MCTD puts my thoughts better than I can.

I understand it’s not been possible to do brain stem death testing due to the nature of Archie’s brain injury.
It is a shame the fundamentalists have got their claws into his mum. They are parasites and have made the inevitable far worse.

mashr
Free Member
1. His initial injury has been attributed to a stupid / dangerous viral craze on social media

only by his mother

Yes, the original thought was suicide and it's now become this viral challenge that doesn't appear to exist.

I don't see this having a happy ending, the press have built it up, and from rumours around the net, it looks like the press may have a story on the mother that'll give them more sales, if this is true, it'll be the age old tale, build em up, knock em down, courtesy of the tabloids.

Terrible for all involved.

I'm grateful that we have laws and a process that removes the emotion from a situation and make a judgement on facts.

Absolutely not with the parents who are clearly happy to drag this out as long as possible consuming vast amounts of resource, ignoring everything they are told by people who know what they are talking about. Clearly no thought for the future of the lad either, if by some miracle he wakes up his quality of life will be dire.

Whilst I agree that this has gone way beyond the parent's capacity to decide, the aforementioned Secret Barrister book and the chapter on Charlie Gard gives me great sympathy for Alfie's mum who I suspect is being played in the most horrific way.

Wot he said

Crazylegs that is

always amazes me that those who are emotionally involved seem to have much more knowledge than those who have many years of medical training and expertise in these cases.

Question everything… always.
Just because some are deemed to be “experts” in their profession, aren’t always correct.
Personal examples .

1. After suffering 2 miscarriages, we had a successful pregnancy . Got to 30 weeks and the wife was having cramps and pains. Went to see GP who tried to listen for baby’s heartbeat. Couldn’t detect one, so proceeded to tell her that she had had a placental abruption. The Dr rang me to ask me to pick her up and explained what had happened. I was on my way home at the time in the car . That was a tough journey I can tell you. Got there , picked her up and took her to the maternity ward. You can just imagine the state she was in. The head midwife came in , and took us to have a scan.
You can imagine the relief when she declared everything was OK.
I wanted the GP punished for what she had done, but she denied it and the others in the practice stuck by her. Wife didn’t want the fight so left it at that.

2. 5 odd years later , pregnant again after 2 more miscarriages. Wife found out her oestrogen levels were dropping (by accident as her notes had been left out during a routine trip to hospital .She had previously read on the internet that this could have a bearing on miscarriages ( she had done a lot of research on the matter). Mentioned to the Dr who immediately poo pooed it. She had to battle to get her oestrogen levels checked over next 3 days, and they were dropping each time. Spoke to a consultant she knew through kids school friend, and he agreed to let her try progesterone.
After a while the levels went up . It is now a recognised treatment for women who have had premature births and miscarriage problems .
Had we taken advice of first Dr then our youngest probably wouldn’t be here .

3. During that pregnancy , she had to take anti biotics for an infection she picked up. The ANTI NATAL clinic had referred back to her GP to get them to prescribe them . She picked up prescription, then googled what he had given her. These were specifically not recommended to be taken if pregnant as they could be fatal for the baby. She rang up to question why he had prescribed them and his response was “oh, you are pregnant are you ?”

I won’t go into some of the things I saw whilst at Southampton Neo Natal and Plymouth Neonatal whilst we were there with our prem baby as it brings up bad memories.

Suffice to say , I wouldn’t 100% trust a medical “expert” ever.

awful experiences revs, but anti natal is probably overdoing it a bit 😉

I think you mean antenatal

Suffice to say , I wouldn’t 100% trust a medical “expert” ever.

I doubt there's a medical expert that works in absolutes, they make evidence based assessments, and where there is a lack of data, they make assumptions, each time reducing the overall confidence in the assessment.

That is why we have second opinions, third opinions and so on, it's why they take scans, it's why they have radiologists, specialists, etc, they build up the body of evidence for that assessment.

This case has been through several opinions from experts around the country and possibly the world, it's been through the courts, all of them, and nobody has disagreed with the assessment, the only hope would be a huge leap in medical technology to allow regeneration, both of the brain and cognitive functions, which i doubt will occur in the next hundred years unfortunately.

Terribly sad case, was an adult ICU nurse for many years - its a dreadful situation for family knowing brainstem death testing being done as is usually just a confirmatory process prior to withdrawal, incredibly rare to have findings indicating anything other than that expected.
I can't help but think once dust settles the family will look back and wish they had spent this time with their boy, talking to him and holding his hand in his final hours/ days. These b*st*rds doing the legal work are causing immeasurable harm to them and his memory for them, should not be allowed.
The rhetoric been used about the staff/ clinicians is damaging and I cannot imagine having to work under that pressure.

awful experiences revs, but anti natal is probably overdoing it a bit 😉

I think you mean antenatal

I was just bloody amazed I got all that in on my iphone before the site crashed for me.
Didn’t have time to do a spell check 😉

Of course the next stage is campaigning for "Archie's Law" to drag it out for future cases and make doctors lives harder.

4m young people now have referrals to NHS mental health services

Even if the headline number is incorrect. According to one of the leadership candidates mental health is not "proper" healthcare and the funding should be withdrawn for "real" medicine.

eddiebaby
Full Member

Of course the next stage is campaigning for “Archie’s Law” to drag it out for future cases and make doctors lives harder.

Because the system needs changing, but I haven’t actually seen what’s wrong with the system written anywhere?

and nobody has disagreed with the assessment,

The family's legal team presented an expert witness called Alan Shewmon. I don't think he challenged the medical assessment as such but his work challenges the current medical orthodoxy that brain death=death. It's an interesting topic and I've been trying to find a good summary of his arguments but haven't done so yet. It certainly seems to be a fringe viewpoint.

Because the system needs changing, but I haven’t actually seen what’s wrong with the system written anywhere?

The mother's belief seems to be that her son is severely disabled rather than effectively dead (or in the process of dying) and that the law as it stands which allows for life support to be withdrawn is therefore unjust or immoral.

As a parent, how on earth do you make the choice to turn off life support? How do you accept that there is effectively no hope? And I wonder if the circumstances of his injury are a cause of even further grief in this case?

There is a right to life, but not a right to existence. We stop our animals suffering, but understandably struggle to do the same for our children. Which is why the law is there to make an impartial decision on the facts, not emotion.

My heart goes out to all concerned.

Indeed.

A parent should be the advocate of their child. You could say that about most scenarios, but especially so for an unconscious one with zero ability to defend themselves. They should question, challenge and seek second opinion. But the parent/child relationship is based on the parent having the knowledge and maturity to speak and think with clarity beyond the reach of youth. I would be heartbroken to think that any parent just rolled over at the first suggestion of the medical team that it was time to give up. It is their role to be the last in the room to lose all hope. The concern comes when this is taken too far. When the parent has no objectivity or trust in the experts wanting the best for their child or when third parties with other agendas weaponise the parent.

This poor kid is to all intents and purposes dead already. She says she wants him to have a natural death - I just don't see how that is even a thing when his current 'life' is wholly unnatural. Everything now is about his legacy and the welfare of his relatives (and the medical professionals embroiled in this who need to be in a fit state to go again and keep on doing the right thing). Sadly these parents will end their days ruined by this experience. Life was always going to be worse after the death of their son - now it will have an extra lay of hate and distrust added on top. These religious groups need gutting.

She says she wants him to have a natural death – I just don’t see how that is even a thing when his current ‘life’ is wholly unnatural. 

One of the more incongruous arguments I've seen about this is that doctors 'play god' by turning off life support but one could equally well shift that allegation back to the point where life support begins.

For most of human history death was a fairly easy thing to determine but medical advances have blurred that.

Spin

One of the earlier judges nailed it in saying that the treatment is prolonging his death not his life.

This.

Spin

One of the earlier judges nailed it in saying that the treatment is prolonging his death not his life.

This, too. I was writing a comment in my head as I read through the thread, but can't express my thoughts on it any better than that. Horrible situation all round and no happy ending. The group that's funding these appeals needs to FRO though.

For anyone who's interested in Shewmon's ideas here are a couple of links I found.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235786470_D_Alan_Shewmon_and_the_PCBE%27s_White_Paper_on_Brain_Death_are_brain-dead_patients_dead

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0883073811421986

Suffice to say , I wouldn’t 100% trust a medical “expert” ever.

@revs1972 sorry to hear the issues you had.

Yes question things said to you but how can you say not to trust a medical expert when  you trusted the midwife you trusted the consultant. Do you trust some or none or is your trust in Dr Google etc

No offence to GP's but they are not experts, they are general practitioners who should refer you to the experts . Mrs b  is a midwife of 30yrs experience and its quite fair to say an "expert"  and is constantly annoyed at the advice given to women and their partners by non "experts"

These b*st*rds doing the legal work are causing immeasurable harm to them and his memory for them, should not be allowed.

I point the finger at the Christian Legal Centre, or whoever they are - they're ones driving this to the ultimate, pointless, drawn-out conclusion.

the Archie Battersbee case is made worse by the constant press coverage, it is just playing with the families emotions to gain public following in a lot of instances.

Today programme on Radio 4 yesterday interviewed a former judge who has dealt with these types of cases in the past. He said that despite being heard in open courts, they rarely get publicity. The only time they have been very public is where the families want that publicity.

It is tragic for everyone but it is good that there are legal routes to challenge decisions and process is allowed to be played out with everyone tested to ensure it is the right decision in what appears to be a near impossible situation.

For anyone who’s interested in Shewmon’s ideas here are a couple of links I found.

Thanks. An interesting read, particularly the working party discussion. The main issue seems to be the declaring and definition of 'death' for an entire human organism, rather than whether the absence of brain activity is the absolute end-point. Certain automatic bodily functions eg wound healing can be maintained long after brain stem activity has ceased. Does that mean the organism is still technically alive?

It's a valid discussion to have, and I can see how a family in this position might reach for it, but it only looks at the strict definition of death, rather than whether there is any prospect for the return of higher functions such as consciousness, let alone any meaningful quality of life.

I would be heartbroken to think that any parent just rolled over at the first suggestion of the medical team that it was time to give up.

Why? It's not the first port of call for doctors, they will usually prolong life as a default not cut it short. Also absolutely depends on the circumstances, not just of the patient but of the parents, siblings etc. If a fit and active child is reduced to effectively a vegetative state is that fair on them? Certainly will massively impact the parents remaining life and it's certainly not fair if siblings are involved.

The wife and I talked this over as a result of this case and I know it's very different having a theoretical discussion as opposed to being in the situation but we are both adamant we would have gone with the doctors advice at a much earlier stage. This is all about the mother grandstanding and being given the opportunity to by a highly dubious religious organisation. She now wants him transferred to "die" in a hospice. During Covid many people couldn't even see their dying relatives yet alone decide the time, manner and place of death.

As above these cases hit the press because the parents want them to, it's not about the child.

I won’t go into some of the things I saw whilst at Southampton Neo Natal and Plymouth Neonatal whilst we were there with our prem baby as it brings up bad memories.

Suffice to say , I wouldn’t 100% trust a medical “expert” ever.

while I share some of this sentiment (>100 days on plymouth & bristol NICU with my son), it strikes me that this case is a bit more clear cut. my son was fortunate to come out the other side relatively unscathed, others weren't. there were times we thought it would be different and there were times we challenged the consultants opinion.

I don't think this is about Archie anymore. its about grieving parents being exploited for media coverage and political points.

It's a horrible situation and not one I'm remotely qualified to comment on, but I would assume that the NHS, quite understandably, doesn't really have the luxury (both in terms of finance and resources) of caring, possibly for decades, for what is effectively a dead body.

However, I have noticed that that they always qualify their case by saying that it's in Archie's (rather than their) best interest. I could be massively off the mark here, but I would assume that Archie, sadly, has no 'best interest' as, as others have said, he is already dead and well beyond the point of suffering.

I don't know if this is a deliberate use of language to make the case seem ethical rather that practical or can someone who is brain stem dead still be deemed to have a 'best interest'?

Suffice to say , I wouldn’t 100% trust a medical “expert” ever.

My memory's shocking, but there was a UK case some years back where the NHS refused to release a child from its care so the parents could take him abroad for (what the NHS saw pointless) cancer treatment - I think it was some sort of proton therapy. The parents effective kidnapped him and fled abroad for the treatment; as I recall it seemed to be effective (although I've no idea of the long term story).

I noticed, and reflected on this, some years later when there was a national news story of the NHS rolling out proton therapy and how great it was. I appreciate though that this is a very different story.

The main issue seems to be the declaring and definition of ‘death’ for an entire human organism, rather than whether the absence of brain activity is the absolute end-point. Certain automatic bodily functions eg wound healing can be maintained long after brain stem activity has ceased. Does that mean the organism is still technically alive?

I would suggest that if the body cannot breathe independently it is effectively dead. Wound healing doesn't require brain function as far as I know, breathing and heartbeat do.

Why? .

The two scenarios in my head when I typed it.....

Doctors - "We think this is the end of the road and the best thing to do it end things now"
Parent - "Ok then"

Or

Doctors. "We think this is the end of the road and the best thing to do it end things now"
Parent - "Are you sure about that? Are you absolutely sure there is nothing else we can do? There are no more experts that can be consulted? I can't believe we have exhausted all possibilities. I need to hear that for another expert too"
Doctors - lots more assuring that this really is it.
Parent - ok then.

Of the two scenarios - the one that would make me sleep at night a little better was the second. I would and should need persuading and convincing using as much medical evidence as a layman is able to productively uee about such a massive decision, even if it is inevitable. And I think I am pretty normal in that feeling. I'm not talking about dragging things through the court like this sad case or being abusive or total denial.

What a horrific thing for all to have to go through, and particularly when as senseless as a dumb tiktok challenge. What idiot even dreams stuff like that up and should platforms shut it down at source?

I'm deeply sceptical of the claim it was caused by attempting the Blackout Challenge, which is holding your head between your legs then standing up quickly or similar, not hanging from a bannister via noose round your neck.

The poor lads brain has begun to die, effectively liquefy and drain down into his spine. There is no hope of recovery.

I urge anyone interested in the case to read the judgment

I always forget how clearly worded judgements are. Definitely worth a look

I would suggest that if the body cannot breathe independently it is effectively dead.

Patients with survivable conditions currently receiving mechanical ventilation in ICUs up and down the country wouldn't favour that definition. Does that criteria cover CPR in non-breathing patients? Even in situations where a rapid return to self-ventilation is unlikely, we will use machines to replicate that, even in the long-term, for example iron lungs for polio/paralysis patients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Middleton#:~:text=June%20Margaret%20Middleton%20(4%20May,living%20in%20an%20iron%20lung.

It's why people are interested in how you define the point of 'death' in a complex human organism, and whether that is solely a factor of brainstem activity.

I don’t think this is about Archie anymore. its about grieving parents being exploited for media coverage and political points.

The media battle isn't about Archie.

AIUI, "in the child's best interest" is the legal and medical term? What is why impartial judges are the final arbiters in these cases.

I've had the DNR/end treatment conversation with my parents and my wife. If (God forbid) there is no hope of the husk that was my child recovering in any way, I'd like to think I could think clearly enough that I cod make the same choices.

As they are both sensible teenagers, probably ab idea to discuss it some time either them

That judgement is a hard read, i cannot help but have huge sympathy for the parents and family. I can't even comprehend how i might feel if my boy was in that situation.
Their lawyer appears to be a piece of shit though and making accusations against the care team is a low blow.
Just a horrible situation all round

Suffice to say , I wouldn’t 100% trust a medical “expert” ever.

i've just re-read my post above back. I'm under no illusion that without those medical experts, my son wouldn't be alive today. That was 10yrs ago with very different levels of funding and staffing and then they were overworked. I hate to think whats its like now.

@Convert scenario 3, Doc says they recommend turning off life support, I ask please explain your workings, if what the doc says makes sense and child is clearly unresponsive (in this case for months) I'd probably* follow their advice. Key decision for me would what prospect is there of some quality of life both for the child and those around them, not grasping at straws with no thought for the long term.

*difficult to 100% having never been in this situation.

It is a tragic case and one that any parent hopes to avoid at all costs.

Unfortunately in this case the mother seems to be susceptible to manipulation by some groups with an agenda to push and their pet 'experts'.

This has turned a tragic situation, partly, into an unedifying media circus and this is to her and her family's detriment.

No two cases will be the same, but there was an interviewee on R4 this morning who was very dignified - by way of contrast. The Battersbee case seems to have been one of predetermined conflict with medical professionals from the off.

I always forget how clearly worded judgements are. Definitely worth a look

+1 reading that made me wonder how this has been allowed to go on for so long, poor lad & family

Patients with survivable conditions currently receiving mechanical ventilation in ICUs up and down the country wouldn’t favour that definition. Does that criteria cover CPR in non-breathing patients? Even in situations where a rapid return to self-ventilation is unlikely, we will use machines to replicate that, even in the long-term, for example iron lungs for polio/paralysis patients.

Are those patients in a similar situation to Archie, i.e. neurally unresponsive?

Well, no, I was just responding to what you wrote with a list of situations where the body is unable to breathe independently, but which are wholly or partly reversible over time with medical intervention. Obviously if the brain stem fails, then it follows that many vital autonomic functions fail with it.

The discussion point in the report I was talking about was questioning whether the persistence of certain autonomic functions beyond brain stem death - healing, growth etc - meant that 'life', however limited, persisted in the organism, and you could not say that person had already died. It's a technical distinction though, and not an actual argument for keeping this lad in this state in perpetuity, even if that could be achieved, which it can't.

Read the judgement completely and it is clear in law. Para 139 is notable:

Another criticism made of the Trust was that mediation should have taken place after it had been refused in April by the family. In his closing submissions Mr Quintavalle suggested, for the first time and much to the surprise of counsel for the Trust and the Guardian, that the family might agree to the withdrawal of all medication being administered to Archie but that without mediation the Trust had not been able to find this out. In the event it was too late for such mediation to take place.

Mr Quintavalle is the family's barrister. He does not come across well in the judgement.

On a personal level, I've looked at similar MRI scans and then sat watching my sister subsequently expire after removal of intubation. It's a dreadful situation but was not a hard decision.

I was under the impression this was a social media challenge, and part of my OP is whether the SM companies have responsibility to take them down if this can be the outcome. That was on the basis of what I'd read and re-reading now seems to be a 'claim' by the parents / mother.

Others on here have cast significant doubt on that assertion - on what basis?

The judgement linked above says that he was found hanging from the bannister and that it is assumed that it was an accident with a bathrobe waist tie.
I don't want to read between the lines but it is hard to see an accident resulting in that outcome

Others on here have cast significant doubt on that assertion – on what basis?

The court ruling linked to above.

OK, hadn't read that. Thanks

Others on here have cast significant doubt on that assertion – on what basis?

I suspect its because all the news reports say 'he was believed by his mother to be engaging in a social media challenge'. The implication being that if she actually had hard evidence that he was, then she would have produced it by now.

That ruling is sobering.

OK, hadn’t read that. Thanks

As others have said, it's well worth reading. Difficult and upsetting but interesting and very well written.

Spin

As others have said, it’s well worth reading. Difficult and upsetting but interesting and very well written.

Yes I have to say, as much as it often appeared the judge was dropping off to sleep whilst I was on jury duty, I was very very impressed at their ability to cut through the noise in the cases and distil it into an easily understandable summary explaining the important details clearly.
Restored my faith in the justice system a little bit and since then I've often looked for the judgment in big 'media storm' cases to find out what really happened. Often rather different from the impression you'd get from the press.

I’m deeply sceptical of the claim it was caused by attempting the Blackout Challenge, which is holding your head between your legs then standing up quickly or similar, not hanging from a bannister via noose round your neck.

If it was caused by the blackout challenge then it wouldn't be the first time that this has happened unfortunately.

From the Guardian link:

In July 2021, her family began noticing bruising on Lalani’s neck, which she explained away as an accident. Unbeknown to them, she had begun participating in the blackout challenge, which had first showed up on her feed weeks before.

They definitely took it further than just trying to stand up quickly!

soundninjauk

If it was caused by the blackout challenge then it wouldn’t be the first time that this has happened unfortunately.

From the Guardian link:

In July 2021, her family began noticing bruising on Lalani’s neck, which she explained away as an accident. Unbeknown to them, she had begun participating in the blackout challenge, which had first showed up on her feed weeks before.

They definitely took it further than just trying to stand up quickly!

Well, that's depressing.

I can only say that when I heard about the blackout challenge in the press I searched for it, and only found the type of stuff I mentioned. Holding breath, head between the legs etc. Nothing at all like hanging. It could have already been removed at that point though I suppose. It wasn't blocked like it is now.

So it will be interesting to see the outcome of the cases you linked, and if the allegations are true I hope they get a bloody good kicking for it not just "pay some money and carry on"

Those links are horrible, like the last poster i thought it was something far less extreme than that

I know. I have a 3 year old daughter and I hope upon hope that all this 'social media' crap has gone past by the time she's old enough to get involved.

Not optimistic though.

I suspect that the real truth is that this was nothing to do with social media whatsoever.

I would urge anyone commenting to have read of that judgement. The skill and care that the medical teams, the legal teams and the judge have put in to try and come to what appears to be the "kindest" outcome for the poor child and his family is huge, in such a short space of time.

My heart goes out to his poor family.