You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Quite a good piece in today’s Sunday Times by Rod Liddle who isn’t someone I’d usually pay any attention to.
And rightly so... 🙂
There does need to be a discussion about these unfortunate situations (for want of a better word) involving children.
His injuries were catastrophic, unrecoverable, non-survivable - what other options were open?
It's a long time since Rod Liddle wrote or said anything interesting or relevant.
There does need to be a discussion about these unfortunate situations (for want of a better word) involving children.
What part of it? The type of enquiry the parents want isn't necessary as far as I can see.
There certainly needs to be a discussion.
The most sophisticated and precious thing a parent will ever 'own' is a child and yet no training, no license..... Just because we gave birth to them why should we think we always know what's best for them and at what point does the medical or legal profession take over that responsibility. If anything we're too invested which should give us less of a say - they aren't possessions.
<p class="dcr-xry7m2">In a statement released through the Christian Legal Centre, which has been supporting the family’s case, the family said: “We want something good to come out of this tragedy and the horrendous experience we have been put through by the system.</p>
<p class="dcr-xry7m2">“No parent or family must go through this again. We have been forced to fight a relentless legal battle by the hospital trust while faced with an unimaginable tragedy. We were backed into a corner by the system, stripped of all our rights, and have had to fight for Archie’s real ‘best interests’ and right to live with everything stacked against us.</p>
<p class="dcr-xry7m2">“This has now happened too often to parents who do not want their critically ill children to have life support removed. The pressure of the process has been unbelievable. There must be an investigation and inquiry through the proper channels on what has happened to Archie, and we will be calling for change.”</p>
As I said last night, I'm sympathetic to the loss of their son / brother, etc., but
- we have been forced to.....
- backed into a corner by.....
- right to live.....
- critically ill......
which I'd say is ENTIRELY driven by their refusal to accept the medical experts advice, backed up by the courts, that Archie died several months ago.
Today's post by Joshua Rozenberg is worth a couple of minutes as it highlights where the parent's lawyers went wrong.
Rod Liddle
This Rod Liddle?
Liddle met Rachel Royce, a television presenter, at the BBC in 1993, and the couple soon became romantically involved. In January 2004 the couple married at a ceremony in Malaysia. They had been living in Heytesbury, Wiltshire, and had two sons together, Tyler and Wilder. Six months later, Liddle moved in with Alicia Monckton, a 22-year-old receptionist at The Spectator. It transpired that he had cut short his honeymoon with Royce so that he could be with Monckton. Following their divorce, Liddle and Royce exchanged attacks in the media. Liddle called her a "total slut and slattern", and Royce wrote an article in the Daily Mail titled "My cheating husband Rod, 10 bags of manure and me the bunny boiler. As for The Slapper... she's welcome to him".
On 5 May 2005, he was arrested for common assault against Monckton, who was 20 weeks pregnant at the time. He admitted the offence and accepted a police caution, but asserted later that he did so only because it was the quickest way for him to be released, and that he had not assaulted her. The couple's daughter, Emmeline, named after the suffragette, Emmeline Pankhurst, was born in October 2005. The couple married in September 2008.
What a great bloke and someone who should definitely be listened to.
Yes, that Rod Liddle. The same one who encouraged motorists to mow down cyclists.
But it doesn't mean that what he wrote on Sunday is irrelevant. I really dislike the concept that just because someone is unpleasant it means that everything they say should be dismissed without consideration.
I find the fact that the mother is now taking further legal action against the NHS despite everything it's done for her and her son is far more unpalatable.
Good piece in the Guardian, with some insight into why this case is not he same as those quoted by the awful Liddle (a Katie Hopkins for the red trouser brigade- see his remarks on fuel poverty the same day as the archie piece). This child had no prospect of recovery, and I hope his family can find peace eventually.
I’ll declare an interest here as my wife works for the NHS patient-facing in a major city hospital.
Staff are discouraged from wearing uniform outside the premises. This is mostly for infection control (even though Serco or whoever is supposed to do the cleaning just wave a wet cloth at the place). Everyone knows it is also to reduce the chances of becoming a target for whatever social media fuelled nutter might be roaming the streets.
It is a workplace where ANYONE can wander in and access most of the building. Not like an office with card entry on every door outside of reception.
The majority of patients are great, but a substantial minority are not. Their responses ranging from rude truculence up through verbally abusive to physically dangerous. There are a handful of security/coppers around most of the time, only going up at the expected times - saturday night, football etc. In smaller local hospitals there are zero security staff.
I’ve said numerous times that my wife could get a job with Nuffield or whoever, but she always says that is not why she chose the career she did and that everyone should have access to healthcare and it not be connected to wealth.
Anyone whose actions whip up anti NHS hate or even weaken the NHS by forcing them to waste time and money on vexacious litigation makes my piss boil. The family here had very good care from what I can tell. But rather than be quiet and dignified (heaven forfend grateful) they have chosen a campaign of poisonous denigration of the NHS. And it is looking likely that much of the money grifted won’t be going towards anything for the common good - whatever that may mean.
Position stated. I’m oot.
There does need to be a discussion about these unfortunate situations (for want of a better word) involving children.
I'm not sure these does. The system works very well in the vast majority of these cases and we never hear about it. It has done in this case as well - the care and compassion of the medics and judges dealing with such a tragic case has been incredible, and the parents have been able to appeal to every court possible.
"Something must be done" in response to isolated incidents doesn't always end well.
Having tracked down the mother's past history, I'm a bit disappointed at some of the comments on here. Even idiots should be allowed time and space to grieve.
There does need to be a discussion about these unfortunate situations (for want of a better word) involving children.
Sadly (I'm not sure I am really) Mr Liddle;s words are behind a paywall.
So what sort of discussion has Mr Liddle persuaded you needs to be had? Was he advocating parent's desire/ability to extend this longer than the medical team would have hoped were curtailed or enhanced?
While I have no time for those who exploited and whispered in the ear of the mum rather than allowing her to come to terms with the sad truth about his condition, the attempts to demonise her because of her history and background are pretty low. Fortunately, very few of us have been in a similar position, and can confidently say that our response would be entirely measured and dignified.
The NHS is available to everyone, not just those who pass the attitude test, and I'm sure the team assessing and looking after Archie will know they have provided exemplary care from the moment he arrived.
Even idiots should be allowed time and space to grieve.
I agree. But also, even grieving people need to be accountable for their actions. Not what they have done/been in the past although in some corners of the internet fingers are being pointed at things that may have relevance...... but for how they have behaved and continue to behave.
Some of which as has been said previously is probably more the fault of CLC, etc.
Liddle is a pathetic shit stirrer and nothing he says or writes should be afforded any more attention than a fly’s fart.
There does need to be a discussion about these unfortunate situations (for want of a better word) involving children.
The court documents and every decision in every case like this is publicised and the law is pretty settled, I can't see what the discussion would achieve?
The NHS is available to everyone, not just those who pass the attitude test
I’m sure that would comfort a member of staff who has just been threatened / spat at / called a bitch etc.
Liddle is a pathetic shit stirrer and nothing he says or writes should be afforded any more attention than a fly’s fart.
Typical bully/coward. Stays just the right side of the line whilst inciting others. And benefitting from it massively.
And again, an absolute curse on the lawyers and CLC who I think have a responsibility to advise their client way better than they have instead of pushing their own agendas.
Presumably, their advice is privileged and you've no idea what it actually said? The solicitors and barristers are there to advise on the merits and process for legal proceedings - not to provide medical advice, nor tell them there is absolutely no potential for their wishes to be upheld (that would actually be bad legal advice, if there is a route available). The problem with cases like this is parents are unlikely to be behaving rationally and so if told there is a 99% chance the court will reject the case they hear "there's a 1% chance we can save him". I'm not sure if there were other expert witnesses arguing differently to the NHS team in this case - that's what feeds these arguments, and I'm pretty sure CLC have bought in some quacks from other countries in the past. Those are the people giving the poor advice (unless you subscribe to the possibility that 1 doctor might just have a breakthrough which conventional wisdom dislikes - in which case the right thing to do is test the quality of that argument, which is exactly what the courts do).
However, I've never worked out what's in it for the CLC to fight almost inevitably futile battles in the courts. Is there someone there who actually believes what they are doing is "right" or is it just a way for a few individuals to extract a very comfortable life out of the churchy types with money? I suspect its the latter with a nasty slice of - "and build up a defacto lobbying power that gets the individuals opinions noticed in the halls of power"?
Presumably, their advice is privileged and you’ve no idea what it actually said?
Fair comment. All I can see is what was actually reported as fact, but what i see of that does not recommend me to think they have done a good job, or indeed have the individuals interests really at heart.
eg: their eleventh hour appointment of Dr R, to support their last minute appeal to have him moved to a hospice. From the judgement
53. The first issue to determine is whether the application for an expert assessment should
be granted. The application was made very late, by way of email about 20 minutes
before the hearing was due to commence. Dr R is a Consultant in Paediatric Respiratory
Medicine and worked in a PICU for 16 years until 2008. That was the last time he had
clinical experience of that work.
54. At the suggestion of the Trust, and with the agreement of the other parties, Dr R joined
the hearing yesterday to hear Dr F’s evidence, having read her relevant statement and
been referred to paragraph 18 of Hayden J’s judgment. He described in an email sent
after Dr F’s evidence that he found her evidence clear and accurate. He recognised he
had not reviewed the medical notes or met Archie. He did not take issue with the
timescales outlined by Dr F and the logistical issues around such an arrangement. In
referring to the risks outlined by Dr F for Archie he recognised ‘Archie has also been
quite unstable in the hospital – to a degree that I cannot verify – making the risks of
transport greater. I do not disagree with any of the issues raised, and concur there is a
significant risk that there may be an ‘event’ during any transfer requiring intervention’,
he accepts that risk is impossible to qualify and then seeks to do so recognising the
limits in doing so without specific knowledge of Archie’s clinical status. He considers
interventions, short of a serious event, would be difficult but manageable and then seeks
to give a further estimate of the risk of a serious event as being much lower, saying he
can’t be precise and relies upon his experience some years ago and the annual report
from the retrieval team four years ago. No breakdown is given of the clinical
circumstances of the individuals transported. In his email Dr R stated if ‘he read a very
limited number of notes’ he would ‘hope to put something together tomorrow [5
August] evening’ adding ‘Given the very specific nature of my comments, there may be
little further I can add’.
or the reports of their approach to the Evans / Alder Hey case some years ago
There does need to be a discussion about these unfortunate situations (for want of a better word) involving children.
Not regarding this case. It was clearly dealt with under case law and the rulings make that very clear. It did not establish new legal precedent.
Now the real issue is that clinical practice relies on the "reasonableness" of the guardian/next of kin. The challenge is when that breaks down. I linked earlier, but in summing up, the QC for the family stated that they were happy to have entered mediation some time earlier than court. This was obvious news to the NHS Trust who expressed their shock in court at the suggestion and stated that there had been no such request since the very first mediation. The processes are in place already, the law is established and robust. It's the reasonableness that is at issue here.
Liddle failed to understand the nuances of this case compared to others. They established precedence. This one did not. Also in the other cases the patient was not dead.
I’m sure that would comfort a member of staff who has just been threatened / spat at / called a bitch etc.
Obviously, threats and violence go some distance beyond 'having a bad attitude', and trusts rightly can exclude relatives who do this. Badmouthing clinicians to the press and going on a misguided legal crusade doesn't reach that criteria though, and these circumstances don't merit a concerted character assassination from some sections of social media.
I'm grateful we have a health service which manages to remain empathic and ethical in the face of these awful situations, and a legal system which is prepared to allow these lost cause efforts, because sooner or later someone who needs that last line of defence may benefit.
I'm surprised they didn't try to take him to Disneyland, Weekend At Bernie's style.
Obviously, threats and violence go some distance beyond ‘having a bad attitude’, and trusts rightly can exclude relatives who do this. Badmouthing clinicians to the press and going on a misguided legal crusade doesn’t reach that criteria though
That is where our opinions diverge.
going on a misguided legal crusade
That doesn't to me indicate what has really happened here. This wasn't a family clinging to misunderstanding of the seriousness of the situation doing whatever they can, this to me was them being egged on and funded by a fringe group who have a different axe to grind on this than the best interests of the boy or the family, and which in the end has caused distress to all parties and a substantial public bill in answering it.
I don't think we're entirely in disagreement - 'misguided' was probably my very generous way of describing the family's initial position. The Christian Legal Centre goons fairly quickly got their teeth into them and exploited their tragedy for all it was worth. I don't see it as entirely bad faith on the family's part from the outset, they were mainly desperate, easily led, and vulnerable to scumbags like these. Grief and anger can have profound effects on your ability to listen to reason and accept fact.
That doesn’t to me indicate what has really happened here. This wasn’t a family clinging to misunderstanding of the seriousness of the situation doing whatever they can, this to me was them being egged on and funded by a fringe group who have a different axe to grind on this than the best interests of the boy or the family, and which in the end has caused distress to all parties and a substantial public bill in answering it.
^^^ This.
That doesn’t to me indicate what has really happened here. This wasn’t a family clinging to misunderstanding of the seriousness of the situation doing whatever they can, this to me was them being egged on and funded by a fringe group who have a different axe to grind on this than the best interests of the boy or the family, and which in the end has caused distress to all parties and a substantial public bill in answering it.
It was up to them to say “No” too.
It basically comes down to the having your own facts mindset. They may be your facts but these are ours. And if you have people incapable of knowing the difference between fact and opinion this is what you get.
If you read the judgement you will see that the case was pushing for a higher legal standard for declaration of death from on balance of probability (civil) to beyond reasonable doubt (criminal). This was rejected and no precedence established. IANAL
It basically comes down to the having your own facts mindset. They may be your facts but these are ours. And if you have people incapable of knowing the difference between fact and opinion this is what you get.
It relies on you being able to tell the difference between the two when in extremis, or, in this case, not having an 'authority' pop up to reinforce a fairy tale when your grasp on reality may be at its most fragile - which is where the role of the Christian shit-stirrers comes in. They give the appearance of a serious, legally-solid, authority, with experts and precedent on hand, when in fact they just want to use you to further their political agenda and get it into the papers.
The mum is certainly imperfect, but the shame spotlight needs to be focused on the groups that enabled and prolonged this horrible situation.
Coroner has found no evidence that the lad was taking part in an online challenge.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-63557850
but there does seem to be evidence of
In a further update following a "full forensic download" of the phone, Det Insp Weeks said: "There are a series of messages which reflect Archie's mood.
"This has only been received this morning so we will look to prepare a full report."
The coroner said: "It's low mood we're looking at here, very low mood."
Yes I don't think there was ever any chance that it was what his mother said it was.
She was in the house when it happened and found him hanging from the stairs.
😞
I can't help but think that the online challenge thing was a deflection technique and that she knows more than she's letting on.... Hence the over compensation when the docs wanted to switch the life support off.
Maybe I'll speak to my prof of forensic psychiatry friend about it.
I do wonder that - equally, maybe it's an unconcious attempt to reinterpret what must be the most horrifying of realisations.
I think you're giving her too much credit, I think she is an extremely unpleasent and selfish person who took no responsibility for her own conduct. She put NHS staff through he'll and consumed massive resources that could have been used to help others.
This is my "religious" perspective so take/discard as you wish.
This is a very sad story but I think the parents should let him go if there is no chance of recovery.
This wound will NOT heal for many future lives as the pain is unbearable for ordinary mortal to comprehend. If there is no closure or they don't know the way to say their peace, then this suffering will continue for many lives to come. Until such time as the conditions are met again the wound will never heal. The suffering for all involved is immense.
The soul & spirits of the child are now trapped in "bubble" in the space and time where the incident happened. There is no way out for his soul/spirits to escape until the time is right. (imagine you are in a dream trying to escape a certain path but all you see ahead of you is blurred and you are constantly running/walking in that space). A dimension trap. Note this is not just energy being trapped but the entire soul and spirits being trapped.
The soul/spirit of the child is now trapped in “bubble” in the space and time where the incident happens. There is no way out for his soul/spirit to escape until the time is right. (imagine you are in a dream trying to escape a certain path but all you see ahead of you is blurred and you are constantly running/walking in that space). A dimension trap. Note this is not just energy being trapped but the entire soul and spirits being trapped.
What religion is that part of?
What religion is that part of?
All.
I was cross checking various religious beliefs where they described the same thing but in different languages and religions. They are essentially explaining or describing the same thing.
This is a very sad story but I think the parents should let him go if there is no chance of recovery.
I think we might be past that slightly...... not sure you are very up to date on this particular matter
I think we might be past that slightly…… not sure you are very up to date on this particular matter
No, not up-to-date because the last time I heard the court gave the permission to switch off the ventilator. I just did not want to follow up with more related news as I know the immense suffering the parents have.
All.
I was cross checking various religious beliefs where they described the same thing but in different languages and religions. The are explaining the same thing.
These aren't the views of any religion I've heard of. Sounds like a big load of bollocks.
These aren’t the views of any religion I’ve heard of. Sounds like a big load of bollocks.
Yes, that's because they are only scratching the surface of what they teach.
The conversational "wisdom" is that if you believe or pray to certain God/deity(s) etc you will escape punishment or go to "heaven". But what exactly are they saying? Do you simply think believing or praying will help? Nope! Even with a committed believer there is no guaranteed that is the case if the person does not understand exactly what believing means.
p/s: back to the original topic.
Yes, that’s because they are only scratching the surface of what they teach.
You just make it up as you go along don't you?
I think you’re giving her too much credit, I think she is an extremely unpleasent and selfish person who took no responsibility for her own conduct. She put NHS staff through he’ll and consumed massive resources that could have been used to help others.
I think largely the same (just trying to be charitable!), but I also think much of this horrible, unnecessary mess was at the behest of the Christian Legal gits who absolutely do not have the family's interests at heart. They escalated the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases too - when they slide through studs up, the parents are just pawns at that point
I think you’re giving her too much credit, I think she is an extremely unpleasent and selfish person who took no responsibility for her own conduct. She put NHS staff through he’ll and consumed massive resources that could have been used to help others.
I don't think unpleasant is the right description of the pain she is going through. Her pain makes it difficult to let go and knowing that part of the incident may be attributed by her. When there is no escape in the way she feels/regrets/loss etc the only way is to cling on to whatever there is to remedy the situation or to refocus on external elements to take away the pain. What she is realising is the fact that the event has already happened and there is no way to turn back the clock. Her action, although can be perceived as selfish, that is the only coping mechanism she knows. That pain is so immense that she is channeling that pain outwards but deep down she is trying to stay strong to avoid a breakdown.
Have sympathy.
I think largely the same (just trying to be charitable!), but I also think much of this horrible, unnecessary mess was at the behest of the Christian Legal gits who absolutely do not have the family’s interests at heart. They escalated the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases too – when they slide through studs up, the parents are just pawns at that point
All of this - regardless of her past, highly charged emotional situation for a parent, easily manipulated by a quasi religious organisation
All of this – regardless of her past, highly charged emotional situation for a parent, easily manipulated by a quasi religious organisation
I have not followed the news for a while but the way to help her is to help her to let go.
It is precisely in this sort of moment true religious teaching will teach us to let go and not cling on to the pain. (not easy at all)
I think she is an extremely unpleasent and selfish person
It's easy to judge, it's much harder to understand.
Have sympathy.
Exactly.
I have not followed the news for a while but the way to help her is to help her to let go.
Maybe you should take a look then?
She's not involved with the latest information release.
The soul/spirit of the child is now trapped in “bubble” in the space and time where the incident happens. There is no way out for his soul/spirit to escape until the time is right. (imagine you are in a dream trying to escape a certain path but all you see ahead of you is blurred and you are constantly running/walking in that space). A dimension trap. Note this is not just energy being trapped but the entire soul and spirits being trapped.
What religion is that part of?
Isn't that from the film Poltergeist?
I posted the update without comment on the mother, just to point out that the coroner had found no evidence of the TikTok type challenge that was allegedly the root of this tragedy. I said in my original post
this young lad seems to have fallen ill as a result of some pointless social media ‘blackout challenge’
which subsequently seems to be false, and I take back any blame angled at them. Why the family / mother were so determined to blame social media, I guess will come out in the full inquest in time.
On the matter of sympathy / empathy. Of course I am sympathetic to anyone who has lost a child or loved one, especially in tragic circumstances like this. But that isn't the same as granting carte blanche over how you then behave to others, even if egged on to it by the CLC and others.
You just make it up as you go along don’t you?
Give him a chance. It's no less plausible than any of the other faiths. Fast forward 10 years, and guru Chewkw could be holed up in some mansion full of devoted cultists.
Devoted single track world big hitting cultists at that
Kool aid anyone?
I think you’re giving her too much credit, I think she is an extremely unpleasant and selfish person who took no responsibility for her own conduct. She put NHS staff through he’ll and consumed massive resources that could have been used to help others.
A frightened parent would do about anything they can wouldn't you think ?. Their focus is upon their child, and the love between mother and child is so strong it likely she blotted out everything else and became totally blinkered to the situation her chjjild was in.
I expect were it possible, she would sacrifice her own life if it meant the boy survived.
Would you want your own kids/relatives end will be reaching for the plug to the life support should you be seriously injured or brain damaged for example in a bike accident. Knowing you are of the opinion things should be just switched off and they must accept the doctors advice and disclude any chance of recovery.
He wasn't "seriously injured or brain damaged" He was dead with a beating heart. there was no chance of recovery. IIRC he had "coned" which is where the pressure in your head squidges part of your brain out of the hole at the bottom of your skull. He was clearly and unequivocally dead
He wasn’t “seriously injured or brain damaged”
I wasnt referring to the kids condition TJ, just an analogy towards the poster.
And as to the boys condition, i fully agree. Only felt it should be pointed out that a mother will go to extreme lengths and display an irrational outlook. The poster felt that wasnt important or relevant and sought to attack the mother with his comment.
Ah - sorry. Missed that
I expect were it possible, she would sacrifice her own life if it meant the boy survived.
Did you not see any coverage of the mother or her back story!
Would you want your own kids/relatives end will be reaching for the plug to the life support
Absolutely if after listening to the doctors and asking a some searching questions. In fact we've had had that conversation at home. Had the same conversation with both my mum and mother in law, all of the same opinion, if there's little to no chance of recovery with some quality of life please pull the plug.
Jesus christ Stumpyjon, listen to yourself?
Using resources
Parents fault
Better off dead.
Are you in the right place? There is a Daily Fail comments section calling out for you.
Meanwhile back in the real world, I feel sorry for the kid and his family and don't really feel any of us has the right to an opinion as to his right to life. When the world is full of Elon Musks and massive corps offshoring vast budgets I refuse to hear any wasting resource argument and am happy for the support of this kid and the research of these cases to go on in the hope that we may heal them or future cases.
Be nice. Peace out.
Meanwhile back in the real world, I feel sorry for the kid and his family and don’t really feel any of us has the right to an opnion as to his right to life.
In the real world the kid was dead. The "right to life" was as irrelevant as it was when applied to someone who has just been cremated. The only difference was the machines giving a semblance of life.
So you say, nobody actually knows his awareness or if his consciousness wil recover.
5plus8
Having worked in ITUs and having seen similar situations the mental trauma to the staff must have been immense. How about a little consideration for them being made to go thru this?
The child was dead. To be forced to continue treating a corpse is horrendous
So you say, nobody actually knows his awareness or if his consciousness wil recover.
Large parts of his brain had turned to mush & drained out of the whole in the bottom of his skull. Seriously? you think he is going to regain consciousness?
tj, logical fallacies x 2, appeal to authority and appeal to experience.
Its neither of our places to pronounce him dead, leave that to his parents, Drs and the legal types.
5plus8. He had "coned" IIRC its completely impossible he had any consciousness or awareness and completely impossible he had any prospect of ever recovering.
His brain had been turned to mush and forced out of the hole at the bottom of his skull by pressure in his head
I have seen this happen with children. Its very clear. this is not a marginal or edge case. The childs brain was mush. He was dead
5plus8
That what the doctors had said. This is very clear. its not a grey area and not a matter of opinion. Its fact.
nobody actually knows his awareness or if his consciousness wil recover.
Yes they did, in fact his brain was so badly damaged they couldnt do the normal tests, his brain was dribbling down his spine, he was rotting from the inside. There was no doubt.
I refuse to hear any wasting resource argument and am happy for the support of this kid
Easy for you to say, what about all the people who got bumped down the care list, of those that had to wait longer in A & E because a bed got blocked or nurses were needless tied up tending to a dead body (not to mention the impact on those nurses).
Rather than over reacting to comments on a mountain biking forum maybe take a few minutes to think before spouting such sentimental and uninformed guff. You've been totally and uncritically sucked in by the self centred narrative pushed by the mother to cover up her personal failings egged on by an odious and self serving political group in the background. If you want to align yourself with those peope feel free, personally I'd rather listen to the doctors, coroner and judges involved in the case who have first hand knowledge of the facts combined with the expertise and knowledge to interpret those facts.
leave that to his parents, Drs and the legal types.
Parents are not generally qualified technically, to make sound judgements of this type. The court appointed guardian who is supposed to bring independant thinking on behalf of the child supported the decision of the medical experts who had agreed that turning the machines off was the right course. The only legal types arguing against were the CLC, with God knows what axe to grind, and a willing mother willing to grind it with them. Even their own appointed medical expert was not in disagreement with the decision (and the manner in which they were appointed at the eleventh hour gave no confidence in them being able to give a good opinion anyway)
For all the rights to a second opinion, and the right to have the facts heard at higher levels than 'just' the medics actually providing the treatment, this was not a difficult decision. It was only made so by the refusal to accept that sometimes black IS black and white IS white.
But we did this ad nauseum at the time. My point stands that at the time blame was being pointed at the wrong people. We don't yet know who is to blame, or indeed if it was a tragic accident / misadventure. The coroner will decide that.
For anyone who hasn't yet read it I recommend Fake Law. Just reading it myself, digitally, courtesy of my local library. I'm pretty sure it's already been mentioned that it covers exactly this scenario well.
Did you not see any coverage of the mother or her back story!
Yes, IIRC she used to be a stripper? Does that make her less of a person?
That what the doctors had said. This is very clear. its not a grey area and not a matter of opinion. Its fact.
This x 100%. There is no informed debate to be had over the medical facts, and this was quite clear from very early.
Yes, IIRC she used to be a stripper? Does that make her less of a person?
The bit I thought most relevant was when she managed to get in the Daily Mail when she complained that her son had tripped over a paving slab or cut his foot on some glass (or something) & was blaming the council. It implied to me that she wasn't averse to using her children to get herself into the spotlight.
For anyone who hasn’t yet read it I recommend Fake Law.
Absolutely this, fantastic book.
It implied to me that she wasn’t averse to using her children to get herself into the spotlight.
I used to say that money was the most popular reason people would compromise their values for. These days I 50/50 it with fame/social media clout. Quite sad.
Parents are not generally qualified technically, to make sound judgements of this type.
And you are?
This thread is repulsive, some people on here are so busy puffing up their egos and not thinking of the feelings of people who love this kid.
I'm sorry but this should be closed.
The problem is 5plus8 is that you have not grasped the detail of this case
Your point has validity in edge cases or when the medical condition is not clear. In this case the childs medical condition is clear. He was dead and had been for months. No ambiguity, no doubt
He had "coned" that means he was dead.
I have fought for the right of people to have futile treatment when their odds of survival are minimal and I knew the treatment futile because that is their right and I knew that is what they wanted. That is different from this because they were not dead and being animated by machinery.
In this case it had long gone beyond the point at which there was any chance or any sort of recovery or any point in continuing treatment. Its not a case of vegetative state or minimally conscious state.
There are a few of us on here who have worked with cases like this and understand the implications and have tried to explain them to you
And you are?
No, but thankfully that's why there are panels of medical experts, judges, and lawyers to look at all sides of the argument and decide.
Did you read the judgements? I would recommend.
Incredible care and attention given by the people that are qualified to decide. Including listening to the parents, no matter how well or badly 'behaved' they were to the teams providing treatment.
some people on here are so busy puffing up their egos and not thinking of the feelings of people who love this kid.
You really haven't grasped this at all have you as TJ says.
Key points
1. Medically the kid was dead, end of, medical fact.
2. Whether the parents loved the kid is also an interresting assumption to make. The mother in particularly has come over as an attention loving, gritting and thoroughly unpleasent human being who used her child as a social media tool. Look up some of the MMA stuff. It's also becoming more apparent this was actually a suicide.
3. There are many other people's feeling to consider here, first the medical staff put through hell here, tending a corpse, getting abuse in the press and online for trying to do their job compassionately. Then there's the other patients whose treatment was delayed because staff and beds weren't available. Then there's their relatives.
You're looking at this very one dimensionally and frankly the abuse you're directing towards people posting on this thread is unwarranted. You want the thread closed because you're losing the argument? If you think the thread truly inappropriate use the report button to alert the mods.
Nothing wrong with being a stripper, it was all the other stuff that she and other family members did to grift a load of money off gullible people. How they shut down anyone who disagreed with them. She is not a nice person and used her kid as a lifestyle accessory to publicise on social media. The fact it’s now looking likely he took his own life gives even more weight to how she was as a mother and person.
Indeed.
I do wonder why the media were holding her up as the pinnacle of concerned motherhood when they undoubtedly had access to the same information the rest of us did.
The cynic in me says that they knew that we like nothing better than a women who turns out to not be perfect, and in this particular case a very nasty person. I wonder if they played with our sympathies knowing that all the information was going to come out and the general public was going to lap up the inevitable exposes that will start being published as soon as it becomes clear her child killed himself.