The Lemon Fool

Dod101 wrote:As anyone interested will know, Archie died earlier today. I cannot imagine what that must be like for the parents but life happens, as many of us will know and so does death. No point in criticising the mother but I cannot help thinking that she was very poorly advised at some point, and where the funds came from for all these court appeals I do not know. I hope not from public funds.

He will now be at peace unless as Spet has said he in fact died in any normal meaning of the word some time ago.

Dod

While the funding for the lawyers representing the family came from various charities (as I understand it), the cost of the lawyers representing the hospital and of course the very substantial cost of Archie’s care for several additional months were met by the NHS.

Having read one of the latest judgments in this case (posted up thread) I’m afraid my heart has hardened somewhat with respect to the parents. His condition really was hopeless and he required very invasive and expensive (24:7 1:1 or even 2:1 nursing) care for additional months while all this played out.

Through the parents’ self-indulgence hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wasted. They thought they were fighting for Archie but really they were fighting for themselves. Given the NHS budgetary pressures, lives may not now be saved because of these costs. Sad all round, but I fear we have to look more carefully at these cases.

Padders72 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/06/archie-battersbee-case-timeline-key-events-life-support-what-happened

The Graun have it round his neck rather than head. Not exactly gutter press so there is some credence perhaps. That said, the intention still could have been something less than suicide of course, but I do wonder. I can see why a parent might want the cause to be anything but.

Ok, thanks. Curious how different main stream news sources have differing reports on that (head vs neck). The only suggestions of suicide I've found are in online forums and go along with a whole bunch of unsourced unsavoury accusations about the mother and Archie....

Spet0789 wrote:

Dod101 wrote:As anyone interested will know, Archie died earlier today. I cannot imagine what that must be like for the parents but life happens, as many of us will know and so does death. No point in criticising the mother but I cannot help thinking that she was very poorly advised at some point, and where the funds came from for all these court appeals I do not know. I hope not from public funds.

He will now be at peace unless as Spet has said he in fact died in any normal meaning of the word some time ago.

Dod

While the funding for the lawyers representing the family came from various charities (as I understand it), the cost of the lawyers representing the hospital and of course the very substantial cost of Archie’s care for several additional months were met by the NHS.

Having read one of the latest judgments in this case (posted up thread) I’m afraid my heart has hardened somewhat with respect to the parents. His condition really was hopeless and he required very invasive and expensive (24:7 1:1 or even 2:1 nursing) care for additional months while all this played out.

Through the parents’ self-indulgence hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wasted. They thought they were fighting for Archie but really they were fighting for themselves. Given the NHS budgetary pressures, lives may not now be saved because of these costs. Sad all round, but I fear we have to look more carefully at these cases.

I used the expression 'verging on self indulgent' in my opening post and I have seen and read nothing to change that view. Of course, as scrumpyjack commented from the standpoint of someone who has experience of the circumstances, it must be incredibly difficult to think rationally when one's child is in that situation.

As regards the costs of the legal challenges (and the defence) this sort of case should never have gone to Court in the first place. There must be a better way.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:

Dod101 wrote:As anyone interested will know, Archie died earlier today. I cannot imagine what that must be like for the parents but life happens, as many of us will know and so does death. No point in criticising the mother but I cannot help thinking that she was very poorly advised at some point, and where the funds came from for all these court appeals I do not know. I hope not from public funds.

He will now be at peace unless as Spet has said he in fact died in any normal meaning of the word some time ago.

Dod

While the funding for the lawyers representing the family came from various charities (as I understand it), the cost of the lawyers representing the hospital and of course the very substantial cost of Archie’s care for several additional months were met by the NHS.

Having read one of the latest judgments in this case (posted up thread) I’m afraid my heart has hardened somewhat with respect to the parents. His condition really was hopeless and he required very invasive and expensive (24:7 1:1 or even 2:1 nursing) care for additional months while all this played out.

Through the parents’ self-indulgence hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wasted. They thought they were fighting for Archie but really they were fighting for themselves. Given the NHS budgetary pressures, lives may not now be saved because of these costs. Sad all round, but I fear we have to look more carefully at these cases.

I used the expression 'verging on self indulgent' in my opening post and I have seen and read nothing to change that view. Of course, as scrumpyjack commented from the standpoint of someone who has experience of the circumstances, it must be incredibly difficult to think rationally when one's child is in that situation.

As regards the costs of the legal challenges (and the defence) this sort of case should never have gone to Court in the first place. There must be a better way.

Dod

I have watched a parent die in an ICU. It’s horrible. But it didn’t switch off my ability to think.

I agree we have to find a better way.

Spet0789 wrote:

Dod101 wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:

Dod101 wrote:As anyone interested will know, Archie died earlier today. I cannot imagine what that must be like for the parents but life happens, as many of us will know and so does death. No point in criticising the mother but I cannot help thinking that she was very poorly advised at some point, and where the funds came from for all these court appeals I do not know. I hope not from public funds.

He will now be at peace unless as Spet has said he in fact died in any normal meaning of the word some time ago.

Dod

While the funding for the lawyers representing the family came from various charities (as I understand it), the cost of the lawyers representing the hospital and of course the very substantial cost of Archie’s care for several additional months were met by the NHS.

Having read one of the latest judgments in this case (posted up thread) I’m afraid my heart has hardened somewhat with respect to the parents. His condition really was hopeless and he required very invasive and expensive (24:7 1:1 or even 2:1 nursing) care for additional months while all this played out.

Through the parents’ self-indulgence hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wasted. They thought they were fighting for Archie but really they were fighting for themselves. Given the NHS budgetary pressures, lives may not now be saved because of these costs. Sad all round, but I fear we have to look more carefully at these cases.

I used the expression 'verging on self indulgent' in my opening post and I have seen and read nothing to change that view. Of course, as scrumpyjack commented from the standpoint of someone who has experience of the circumstances, it must be incredibly difficult to think rationally when one's child is in that situation.

As regards the costs of the legal challenges (and the defence) this sort of case should never have gone to Court in the first place. There must be a better way.

Dod

I have watched a parent die in an ICU. It’s horrible. But it didn’t switch off my ability to think.

I agree we have to find a better way.

Well my poor wife died at home from myeloma with a good deal of outside help and as you say I could still think as well, but a mother's anguish for a relatively young son is I guess something quite different and unless you are a mother I doubt that we can really understand it.

Dod

Now they are calling for an inquiry.

XFool wrote:I heard Robert Winston interviewed about this on the radio this morning. He made the point that, since Archie is now brainstem dead, he has in fact already died. So the parents wish for "a chance" or even "a choice of time of death" has, in reality, already been taken from them.

It seems to be less about Archie and more about his parents difficulty in coming to terms with the reality.

As can easily happen with parents in this kind of distress, they've been hijacked by someone with an Agenda. This serves to prevent them coming to terms with their loss and move on.

In this case, a bunch of out-and-out ghouls calling themselves something like "christian voice".

UncleEbenezer wrote:

XFool wrote:I heard Robert Winston interviewed about this on the radio this morning. He made the point that, since Archie is now brainstem dead, he has in fact already died. So the parents wish for "a chance" or even "a choice of time of death" has, in reality, already been taken from them.

It seems to be less about Archie and more about his parents difficulty in coming to terms with the reality.

As can easily happen with parents in this kind of distress, they've been hijacked by someone with an Agenda. This serves to prevent them coming to terms with their loss and move on.

In this case, a bunch of out-and-out ghouls calling themselves something like "christian voice".

Worth mentioning that other groupings of religious oddballs would consider such highly invasive treatment a sin in the first place.

I have much sympathy for the family of Archie Battersbee; the last four months must have been horrendous for them...but now they're demanding an inquiry into the legal battle surrounding the decision to turn off his life support, saying they felt "stripped of their rights". I'm not sure what they mean by this. Archie has been beyond medical support since he was found unconscious at home; no amount of legal acquiescence to his family's perception of their rights would have changed his condition.

At the risk of being vilified, I have to say I very much hope their demands are a kneejerk reaction to the stress and heartache they as a family have endured, and that once Archie's funeral has taken place they'll reconsider their stance. My understanding (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) is Archie lost his life because he became involved in some sort of online hanging game. If that's the case, surely his family's focus and fury is misdirected? The question begging to be asked is how did a 12-year-old manage to access a such a deadly game and where were the parental controls that would have prevented this tragedy?

WrenChasen wrote:I have much sympathy for the family of Archie Battersbee; the last four months must have been horrendous for them...but now they're demanding an inquiry into the legal battle surrounding the decision to turn off his life support, saying they felt "stripped of their rights". I'm not sure what they mean by this. Archie has been beyond medical support since he was found unconscious at home; no amount of legal acquiescence to his family's perception of their rights would have changed his condition.

At the risk of being vilified, I have to say I very much hope their demands are a kneejerk reaction to the stress and heartache they as a family have endured, and that once Archie's funeral has taken place they'll reconsider their stance. My understanding (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) is Archie lost his life because he became involved in some sort of online hanging game. If that's the case, surely his family's focus and fury is misdirected? The question begging to be asked is how did a 12-year-old manage to access a such a deadly game and where were the parental controls that would have prevented this tragedy?

I think you are right, and their misdirected anger and unreasonable demands are perhaps a way for them to avoid facing up to their own role in poor Archie's demise.

WrenChasen wrote:I have much sympathy for the family of Archie Battersbee; the last four months must have been horrendous for them...but now they're demanding an inquiry into the legal battle surrounding the decision to turn off his life support,

Perhaps there should be an inquiry into groups that manipulate people like these parents without a thought for their victims?

Spet0789 wrote:Worth mentioning that other groupings of religious oddballs would consider such highly invasive treatment a sin in the first place.

Frankly I agree with them on the principle, if not necessarily on the "sin" language. Life support should be for people with a prospect of recovery!

If you mean (the likes of) Jehovah's Witnesses, isn't it entirely different when you refuse treatment that really could benefit you?

WrenChasen wrote: My understanding (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) is Archie lost his life because he became involved in some sort of online hanging game. If that's the case, surely his family's focus and fury is misdirected? The question begging to be asked is how did a 12-year-old manage to access a such a deadly game and where were the parental controls that would have prevented this tragedy?

Completely right. Inquiries into how end of life decisions are made will not prevent other children being drawn into such online activity in future.

There is no easy answer, but I feel that such prevention must start at home, with unfeckless parenting (I make no inference of Archie's parents here). PSHE sessions that schools dish out only scratch the surface and little sinks in - the teachers I know find them a tedious chore and their pupils even more so.

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Spet0789 wrote:Worth mentioning that other groupings of religious oddballs would consider such highly invasive treatment a sin in the first place.

Frankly I agree with them on the principle, if not necessarily on the "sin" language. Life support should be for people with a prospect of recovery!

If you mean (the likes of) Jehovah's Witnesses, isn't it entirely different when you refuse treatment that really could benefit you?

I was simply making the point that religious oddballs come in all flavours and the sensible steer well clear.

WrenChasen wrote:I have much sympathy for the family of Archie Battersbee; the last four months must have been horrendous for them...but now they're demanding an inquiry into the legal battle surrounding the decision to turn off his life support, saying they felt "stripped of their rights". I'm not sure what they mean by this. Archie has been beyond medical support since he was found unconscious at home; no amount of legal acquiescence to his family's perception of their rights would have changed his condition.

At the risk of being vilified, I have to say I very much hope their demands are a kneejerk reaction to the stress and heartache they as a family have endured, and that once Archie's funeral has taken place they'll reconsider their stance. My understanding (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) is Archie lost his life because he became involved in some sort of online hanging game. If that's the case, surely his family's focus and fury is misdirected? The question begging to be asked is how did a 12-year-old manage to access a such a deadly game and where were the parental controls that would have prevented this tragedy?

Completely right. Any enquiry should (i) not be paid for by the taxpayer, (ii) address the cause of Archie’s condition and (iii) explore whether in future those who bring these actions should be liable for the NHS’s costs as well as their own if they lose.

I have to say that I am concerned at the expense that the overburdened NHS had to go to due to these protracted and unnecessary court cases and would like to see the claimant to be liable for the defendants costs in the event that they are substantively unsuccessful. From what I have heard the NHS staff have gone through an especially traumatic experience too and should be shielded from this. It's hard enough dealing with people, especially the very young, dying as a hospital worker without all the tension and insinuation that apparently surrounded this.

I think people forget that NHS staff have to deal with the trauma of death on a regular basis and it leaves its mark. Some of the patients they become very fond of working closely to try and help them to survive and heal. It doesn't always work out of course and when it doesn't the pain is very real. Fortunately patients and family who treat the staff kindly make this easier, those that don't, well don't.

AWOL wrote:I have to say that I am concerned at the expense that the overburdened NHS had to go to due to these protracted and unnecessary court cases and would like to see the claimant to be liable for the defendants costs in the event that they are substantively unsuccessful. From what I have heard the NHS staff have gone through an especially traumatic experience too and should be shielded from this. It's hard enough dealing with people, especially the very young, dying as a hospital worker without all the tension and insinuation that apparently surrounded this.

I think people forget that NHS staff have to deal with the trauma of death on a regular basis and it leaves its mark. Some of the patients they become very fond of working closely to try and help them to survive and heal. It doesn't always work out of course and when it doesn't the pain is very real. Fortunately patients and family who treat the staff kindly make this easier, those that don't, well don't.

I could not agree more and I have to say that the charities apparently backing the family/distraught mother did no good for anyone. I do not think we can directly blame the mother who obviously wants to do the best for her child but her supporters or advisers were ill advised at best surely, and were almost criminal in their support at worst.

Dod