She could grift a lot more money in six months.
kiwifarms
Well, thats a very particular corner of the internet
My dad took 5 days to pass away. I was with him when he breathed in and never breathed out.
My sister was about 8 hours. They needed the ITU bed urgently and we weren’t going to stand in their way. She was dead with MRIs to show. They kindly moved her to a quiet room. Brought us cups of tea throughout the night. Then when she breather her last I went out into the brightest of sunny mornings.
So if even a small amount of what available on the internet about Archie’s mother is true does anyone expect further Police involvement in this? I’ve got my own idea of what happened and it’s nothing to do with TikTok.
A word on this subject. This was conveyed to me by one of the nurses not long after my dad passed.
Never upon realizing the loved one has died say something like, 'well thats it, or he/she's dead now.'
The brain is still working and can still hear, and upon hearing such things the person can become very frightened. Just say something like. You have a sleep now and we'll go get coffee/tea or such.
I'm sorry, what now? Either a person is dead or not dead, quite binary.
In many years of being in these situations in previous roles, patients were spoken to compassionately and in caring manner out of respect for them and their family but to say the dead can get frightened is a stretch.
Even when laying out a person I, and colleagues, continued to talk to them and explained what we were doing such as turning or washing, but never once in case they were frightened.
Oh yeah, and should he have died in the ambulance the family would no doubt have blamed the nurses and tried to sue them for malpractice.
Surprisingly difficult to sue front line emergency care staff as I understand it, in a similar way that no one has successfully sued someone in the UK who has attempted first aid - it's regarded as not being in the public interest.
Jesus wept there is a storm of publicly coming that family's way if any of that info on that site is correct.
Poor kid.
It's not something I've taken an interest in tbf as it should be a private affair for the family and doctors.
<div class="bbcode-quote">
kiwifarms
</div>
Well, thats a very particular corner of the internet
Wow, What a horrible place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Farms
Now, disappointingly but predictably, the 'family' are demabding a public enquiry.
When will they accept it's time to shut up?
Christian Concern (if only that name was appropriate) have much responsibility but they see themselves as would be saviours, thwarted by...well, everyone other than the parents.
If only some of the allegations about the mother are true she's likekly to have her name comprehensively shredded when the print media turn their focus onto her.
A quick Google on the mother threw up nothing obvious and a quick look at Kiwi Farm made me decide I didn't want to know anyway 🙈
... she’s likekly to have her name comprehensively shredded when the print media turn their focus onto her.
I fear it's more likely they'll join in the anti-NHS witch-hunt.
A quick Google on the mother threw up nothing obvious
Searching for the name/s she used, prior to changing it, might help. If correct, she's already made the tabloids/local press but this was almost 2 decades ago.
Odd, that the press are holding back on this. Maybe they're going to let them get the funeral out the way first?
I really hope this family and the so called charity more shut up and try and grieve with some dignity
Odd, that the press are holding back on this. Maybe they’re going to let them get the funeral out the way first?
As stated earlier, build em up, knock em down, that's the tabloid approach, i'd say we've got the funeral, then a week or two of grace and then they'll move into the next cycle and rip into her and the dad.
I fear it’s more likely they’ll join in the anti-NHS witch-hunt.
The parents in this case do seem like ideal spokespeople for Brexit Britain.
the ‘family’ are demabding a public enquiry.
I assume that as there's been an 'unexplained' death there will be a coroners inquest, which will be interesting for the Tiktok or other point.
As for an enquiry - into what? How to avoid wasting piles of taxpayers' cash delaying the inevitable?
As for an enquiry – into what?
Not a clue, the comments from the family are as vague as they’ve been throughout. Apparently “their rights have been stripped away”
The parents in this case do seem like ideal spokespeople for Brexit Britain.
Eh?
Eh?
I think it's the sense of outrage they're expressing that the NHS couldn't fix their son no matter how angry or litigious they got, therefore there must be an enquiry into the NHS.
You guys need to take a look at yourselves !
Her son has literally just technically died and you’re all gossiping about her past accusing her of milking the system etc etc
I take it not one of you has lost a child ?
If all you have is hope you’d try anything to save your child.
She’s grieving…
He technically died about four months ago - there was long ago zero hope of maintaining independant life, let alone any kind of recovery.
The rest is grift.
I think it’s the sense of outrage they’re expressing that the NHS couldn’t fix their son no matter how angry or litigious they got, therefore there must be an enquiry into the NHS.
Quite a good piece in today's Sunday Times by Rod Liddle who isn't someone I'd usually pay any attention to. There does need to be a discussion about these unfortunate situations (for want of a better word) involving children.
Yeah I’m struggling to see the relevance of whether she was a stripper or not tbf
You guys need to take a look at yourselves !
Her son has literally just technically died and you’re all gossiping about her past accusing her of milking the system etc etc
I take it not one of you has lost a child ?
If all you have is hope you’d try anything to save your child.
She’s grieving…
I started from a position of sympathy for all but to be honest, following some of the detail and knowing a bit more of the (relevant) past - ie: what has happened between his accident and yesterday, not what former career she may have had - I'm still sympathetic for the loss of a loved one but I'm also very saddened by what has transpired.
It's too soon, but you don't automatically get a free pass because your son died, you are still responsible for your actions, which might have been raw initially but this has been four months.
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.
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.
