Viewing 29 posts - 161 through 189 (of 189 total)
  • Archie Battersbee
  • pondo
    Full Member

    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?

    frankconway
    Full Member

    It’s a long time since Rod Liddle wrote or said anything interesting or relevant.

    Spin
    Free Member

    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.

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    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.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/aug/07/archie-battersbee-family-says-no-parent-must-go-through-this-again

    <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.

    Sandwich
    Full Member

    Today’s post by Joshua Rozenberg is worth a couple of minutes as it highlights where the parent’s lawyers went wrong.

    super_12
    Free Member

    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.

    Flaperon
    Full Member

    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.

    TomB
    Full Member

    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.

    Rachel Clarke article

    super_12
    Free Member

    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.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    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.

    convert
    Full Member

    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?

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    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.

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    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.

    DrJ
    Full Member

    Liddle is a pathetic shit stirrer and nothing he says or writes should be afforded any more attention than a fly’s fart.

    nickc
    Full Member

    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?

    super_12
    Free Member

    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.

    poly
    Free Member

    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”?

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    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

    https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FD22P00346-Battersbee-5-August-2022-Judgment-Final-Approved.pdf

    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

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/28/call-from-god-american-pro-lifers-role-in-alfie-evans-battle

    TiRed
    Full Member

    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.

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    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.

    Chest_Rockwell
    Free Member

    I’m surprised they didn’t try to take him to Disneyland,  Weekend At Bernie’s style.

    super_12
    Free Member

    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.

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    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.

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    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.

    pondo
    Full Member

    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.

    super_12
    Free Member

    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.

    avdave2
    Full Member

    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.

    TiRed
    Full Member

    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

    martinhutch
    Full Member

    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.

Viewing 29 posts - 161 through 189 (of 189 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Thanks for popping by - why not stay a while?IT'S FREE

Sign up as a Singletrack Member and you can leave comments on stories, use the classified ads, and post in our forums, do quizzes and more.

Join us, join in, it’s free, and fun.