Archie Battersbee

[Uncle fester]

What an appalling tragedy.

Is there a legal definition of death and is it consistent across different countries?

[GogLais]

What an appalling tragedy.

Is there a legal definition of death and is it consistent across different countries?

Medical definition as opposed to legal? There have been quite a few cases like this over the years so I guess there must be a definition used in the UK at least.

[fishfoodie]

What an appalling tragedy.

Is there a legal definition of death and is it consistent across different countries?

It wouldn't matter when the Mother is an attention whore

She doesn't use her original surname anymore, because shes got a record longer than Ronnie Briggs

[Uncle fester]

Would medical and legal definition not be one and same?

[fishfoodie]

Would medical and legal definition not be one and same?

Oddly enough, the Catholic Church developed a position on the ending of life support more than 50 years ago, & it's reasonable, & simple.

With respect to other kinds of life support, such as ventilators, the basic Catholic principle is that "a person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life." It is important to note that this assessment -- of what is extraordinary or disproportionate -- is the patient's prerogative. Of course, if the patient is unable to express his wishes, a surrogate must make the assessment. One approach to this very difficult decision is that such life supports should be withdrawn when "such measures provide no real benefit to the patient because death is inevitable and imminent."

In this case there is no question that the child will die when the extraordinary measures are removed.

They also make, what to me, is the key point for deciding whether or not it's the right thing for the patient; their dignity !

The basic Catholic principle about end-of-life health care is that "we have a duty to preserve our life and to use it for the glory of God, but the duty to preserve life is not absolute," according to the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services." Therefore it is OK to "reject life-prolonging procedures that are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome." However, suicide and euthanasia are always considered unacceptable. In general, the Catholic approach emphasizes the "inherent dignity of the human person" rather than focusing on quality of life -- especially when someone other than the patient is making the latter assessment.

It's not too often I agree with the Church, but I think the nailed this issue.

[GogLais]

Would medical and legal definition not be one and same?

Thinking it through, I’m pretty sure there is no legal definition, I’m guessing the legal system uses the medical definition. The trouble of course is that’s a bit of a grey area, especially as medical technology develops.

[Blackmac]

Tragic case but the mother has become really vicious in her attacks on the hospital and medical professionals.

[Biffer]

Would medical and legal definition not be one and same?

Thinking it through, I’m pretty sure there is no legal definition, I’m guessing the legal system uses the medical definition. The trouble of course is that’s a bit of a grey area, especially as medical technology develops.

There isn’t, because we can’t define life.

This is the whole point, and the darker background, of these cases. Fundamentalist religious groups are behind the funding for these repeated court cases, and they’re taking advantage of grieving parents, and abusing them by giving them false hope rather than doing the genuine Christian thing and helping them in their grief. They’re trying to get a legal definition of life which they will then use to fight to ban abortion through the courts. Ideally they want to define a heartbeat as someone being alive, so they can use that as a de facto ban on abortion, given that a heartbeat can be detected after five or six weeks which is the kind of time many women realise they’re pregnant.

This is absolutely what they’re about and they’re fucking disgusting.

[C69]

Would medical and legal definition not be one and same?

Thinking it through, I’m pretty sure there is no legal definition, I’m guessing the legal system uses the medical definition. The trouble of course is that’s a bit of a grey area, especially as medical technology develops.

There isn’t, because we can’t define life.

This is the whole point, and the darker background, of these cases. Fundamentalist religious groups are behind the funding for these repeated court cases, and they’re taking advantage of grieving parents, and abusing them by giving them false hope rather than doing the genuine Christian thing and helping them in their grief. They’re trying to get a legal definition of life which they will then use to fight to ban abortion through the courts. Ideally they want to define a heartbeat as someone being alive, so they can use that as a de facto ban on abortion, given that a heartbeat can be detected after five or six weeks which is the kind of time many women realise they’re pregnant.

This is absolutely what they’re about and they’re fucking disgusting.

I was going to post something very similar.
Thanks

[Uncle fester]

What is an "extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life"?

I'm asking a deliberately silly question as to what the difference is between an emergency appendectomy and the treatment Archie is receiving?

Obviously there's a good chance somebody receiving the appendectomy will recover to live but Archie never can. Is that the basis of the definition?

[sockwithaticket]

Tragic case but the mother has become really vicious in her attacks on the hospital and medical professionals.

She's grieving badly and being indulged by too many people in her life, particularly the Christian fundamentalists funding the legal challenges hoping to trojan horse something in they can use in relation to abortion.

[charltom]

Would medical and legal definition not be one and same?

Thinking it through, I’m pretty sure there is no legal definition, I’m guessing the legal system uses the medical definition. The trouble of course is that’s a bit of a grey area, especially as medical technology develops.

There isn’t, because we can’t define life.

This is the whole point, and the darker background, of these cases. Fundamentalist religious groups are behind the funding for these repeated court cases, and they’re taking advantage of grieving parents, and abusing them by giving them false hope rather than doing the genuine Christian thing and helping them in their grief. They’re trying to get a legal definition of life which they will then use to fight to ban abortion through the courts. Ideally they want to define a heartbeat as someone being alive, so they can use that as a de facto ban on abortion, given that a heartbeat can be detected after five or six weeks which is the kind of time many women realise they’re pregnant.

This is absolutely what they’re about and they’re fucking disgusting.

Which religious fundamentalists have been funding these challenges & appeals?

[sockwithaticket]

Thinking it through, I’m pretty sure there is no legal definition, I’m guessing the legal system uses the medical definition. The trouble of course is that’s a bit of a grey area, especially as medical technology develops.

There isn’t, because we can’t define life.

This is the whole point, and the darker background, of these cases. Fundamentalist religious groups are behind the funding for these repeated court cases, and they’re taking advantage of grieving parents, and abusing them by giving them false hope rather than doing the genuine Christian thing and helping them in their grief. They’re trying to get a legal definition of life which they will then use to fight to ban abortion through the courts. Ideally they want to define a heartbeat as someone being alive, so they can use that as a de facto ban on abortion, given that a heartbeat can be detected after five or six weeks which is the kind of time many women realise they’re pregnant.

This is absolutely what they’re about and they’re fucking disgusting.

Which religious fundamentalists have been funding these challenges & appeals?

Archie’s parents have been supported by the Christian Legal Centre, who were also involved in Alfie’s case

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... f-children

[Biffer]

There isn’t, because we can’t define life.

This is the whole point, and the darker background, of these cases. Fundamentalist religious groups are behind the funding for these repeated court cases, and they’re taking advantage of grieving parents, and abusing them by giving them false hope rather than doing the genuine Christian thing and helping them in their grief. They’re trying to get a legal definition of life which they will then use to fight to ban abortion through the courts. Ideally they want to define a heartbeat as someone being alive, so they can use that as a de facto ban on abortion, given that a heartbeat can be detected after five or six weeks which is the kind of time many women realise they’re pregnant.

This is absolutely what they’re about and they’re fucking disgusting.

Which religious fundamentalists have been funding these challenges & appeals?

Archie’s parents have been supported by the Christian Legal Centre, who were also involved in Alfie’s case

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... f-children

Yes, and they're heavily linked to the ADF, an American fundamentalist Christian group. Its suspected that's where the money comes from but they won't be transparent about their funding. Good open, honest Christianity, eh.

[Biffer]

What is an "extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life"?

I'm asking a deliberately silly question as to what the difference is between an emergency appendectomy and the treatment Archie is receiving?

Obviously there's a good chance somebody receiving the appendectomy will recover to live but Archie never can. Is that the basis of the definition?

You've made the assumption he's alive.

There's the difference right there, your question is comparing someone who is alive but unwell with someone who is functionally dead according to the doctors and courts.

[I like neeps]

What is an "extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life"?

I'm asking a deliberately silly question as to what the difference is between an emergency appendectomy and the treatment Archie is receiving?

Obviously there's a good chance somebody receiving the appendectomy will recover to live but Archie never can. Is that the basis of the definition?

You've made the assumption he's alive.

There's the difference right there, your question is comparing someone who is alive but unwell with someone who is functionally dead according to the doctors and courts.

The kid has no brain function. If you have an appendectomy you have brain function. I'm pretty sure that's the difference.

[laurent]

What is an "extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life"?

I'm asking a deliberately silly question as to what the difference is between an emergency appendectomy and the treatment Archie is receiving?

Obviously there's a good chance somebody receiving the appendectomy will recover to live but Archie never can. Is that the basis of the definition?

You've made the assumption he's alive.

There's the difference right there, your question is comparing someone who is alive but unwell with someone who is functionally dead according to the doctors and courts.

The kid has no brain function. If you have an appendectomy you have brain function. I'm pretty sure that's the difference.

If they unplug him he will cease to function as without the brain the body will stop functioning.

This is not a reminder I need as we had to unplug my father 2 years ago now ( opposite case as he broke his neck and could not survive without machines).

These people are prolonging their own suffering (and the god bothering scum do the same)

[I like neeps]

You've made the assumption he's alive.

There's the difference right there, your question is comparing someone who is alive but unwell with someone who is functionally dead according to the doctors and courts.

The kid has no brain function. If you have an appendectomy you have brain function. I'm pretty sure that's the difference.

If they unplug him he will cease to function as without the brain the body will stop functioning.

This is not a reminder I need as we had to unplug my father 2 years ago now ( opposite case as he broke his neck and could not survive without machines).

These people are prolonging their own suffering (and the god bothering scum do the same)

That's my thoughts on it. When I was younger my mum had a stroke which shut down half her brain function and if she had lived her whole life would be on a machine. Losing a family member is awful, losing a child must be horrific. But having positive memories of them is surely better than having a machine keep them alive as a vegetable with no hope of recovery forever. That sounds like hell on earth to me.

[Kawazaki]

This boy isn't just brain dead, his lungs and some other organs have already started necrosis. He's decomposing.

[Uncle fester]

What is an "extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life"?

I'm asking a deliberately silly question as to what the difference is between an emergency appendectomy and the treatment Archie is receiving?

Obviously there's a good chance somebody receiving the appendectomy will recover to live but Archie never can. Is that the basis of the definition?

You've made the assumption he's alive.

There's the difference right there, your question is comparing someone who is alive but unwell with someone who is functionally dead according to the doctors and courts.

The kid has no brain function. If you have an appendectomy you have brain function. I'm pretty sure that's the difference.

Brain stem dead I understand. That means no reflex functions such as gag reflex, sensitivity to touch around eyeball and crucially no ability for the body to breathe unassisted.

Terry Schiavo for example was able to breathe unassisted but PVS is quite different to where Alfie is now.

[Uncle fester]

Sorry to hear that Laurent. Terrible position to have to be in.

[laurent]

Sorry to hear that Laurent. Terrible position to have to be in.

He was only pain and there was no hope of any improvement. He took the decision with my mother.

[I like neeps]

Tragic case but the mother has become really vicious in her attacks on the hospital and medical professionals.

Out of curiosity I googled her and holy f*ck she's an interesting character. Changed her name due to criminal records, always looking for the next opportunity for attention. Not that she isn't obviously devastated by this of course but I think she's been very keen on interviews rather than being with her son.

Also she's changed the story on how she found him so many times. I thought previously it's weird everyone just accepted this was a tiktok challenge. I think it was attempted suicide which makes it so much worse. Poor boy.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Tragic case but the mother has become really vicious in her attacks on the hospital and medical professionals.

Out of curiosity I googled her and holy f*ck she's an interesting character. Changed her name due to criminal records, always looking for the next opportunity for attention. Not that she isn't obviously devastated by this of course but I think she's been very keen on interviews rather than being with her son.

Also she's changed the story on how she found him so many times. I thought previously it's weird everyone just accepted this was a tiktok challenge. I think it was attempted suicide which makes it so much worse. Poor boy.

There was a very similar case in the US a few years back - Jahi McMath. There are many similarities relating to the situation and personalities involved.

[dpedin]

... and no one thinks of the poor medical team who are still working hard and passionately to look after Archie and his family despite all this going on in the background. The emotional impact on these doctors and nurses is huge, they will be doing their best to look after the patient and his family. This type of scenario takes a toll on the medical and nursing teams.

I know how the Battersbee family feel, I've twice faced the scenario of close family members, both in their 20's, having had irreparable brain haemorrhages and declared brain dead. The doctors and nurses in neuro ICU were in tears as they provided care and support and helped us make really, really difficult decisions. In both cases the immediate next of kin (husband and in-laws) had to face the horrible decision to turn off the life support but in both cases took the brave and unselfish decision to try and help others and donate their organs. Their heroic acts gave life or improved quality of life to other poor patients and their families. I just wish the Battersbee family had been brave enough to do the same.

[Lobby]

Tragic case but the mother has become really vicious in her attacks on the hospital and medical professionals.

Out of curiosity I googled her and holy f*ck she's an interesting character. Changed her name due to criminal records, always looking for the next opportunity for attention. Not that she isn't obviously devastated by this of course but I think she's been very keen on interviews rather than being with her son.

Also she's changed the story on how she found him so many times. I thought previously it's weird everyone just accepted this was a tiktok challenge. I think it was attempted suicide which makes it so much worse. Poor boy.

There was a very similar case in the US a few years back - Jahi McMath. There are many similarities relating to the situation and personalities involved.

A lot of the same people, including the Christian Legal Centre were also involved in the Charlie Gard case, which resulted in staff at Great Ormond Street receiving thousands of abusive messages including death threats. The Judge in that case described the support provided by the Christian Legal Centre as the work of a “fanatical and deluded young man” whose submissions to the court were “littered with vituperation and bile” that was “inconsistent with the real interests of the parents’ case”.

Human shitstains like Trump and Ted Cruze also claimed the case showed the dangers of having a state run health service like the NHS.

[Torquemada 1420]

Not really being following this but heard someone mention the lad had been playing some sort of asphyxiation "game" on social media and had strangled himself with shoelaces.

When we were kids, the most dangerous thing we played was British bulldog.

[fishfoodie]

Not really being following this but heard someone mention the lad had been playing some sort of asphyxiation "game" on social media and had strangled himself with shoelaces.

When we were kids, the most dangerous thing we played was British bulldog.

There was no game; he hung himself, plain & simple; his mother is just lying about it; probably in preparation for another attention seeking lawsuit

[Blackmac]

Would medical and legal definition not be one and same?

Thinking it through, I’m pretty sure there is no legal definition, I’m guessing the legal system uses the medical definition. The trouble of course is that’s a bit of a grey area, especially as medical technology develops.

There isn’t, because we can’t define life.

This is the whole point, and the darker background, of these cases. Fundamentalist religious groups are behind the funding for these repeated court cases, and they’re taking advantage of grieving parents, and abusing them by giving them false hope rather than doing the genuine Christian thing and helping them in their grief. They’re trying to get a legal definition of life which they will then use to fight to ban abortion through the courts. Ideally they want to define a heartbeat as someone being alive, so they can use that as a de facto ban on abortion, given that a heartbeat can be detected after five or six weeks which is the kind of time many women realise they’re pregnant.

This is absolutely what they’re about and they’re fucking disgusting.

Jesus, didn't realise any of this. I take it they have been behind the other similar cases over recent years

[Biffer]

Thinking it through, I’m pretty sure there is no legal definition, I’m guessing the legal system uses the medical definition. The trouble of course is that’s a bit of a grey area, especially as medical technology develops.

There isn’t, because we can’t define life.

This is the whole point, and the darker background, of these cases. Fundamentalist religious groups are behind the funding for these repeated court cases, and they’re taking advantage of grieving parents, and abusing them by giving them false hope rather than doing the genuine Christian thing and helping them in their grief. They’re trying to get a legal definition of life which they will then use to fight to ban abortion through the courts. Ideally they want to define a heartbeat as someone being alive, so they can use that as a de facto ban on abortion, given that a heartbeat can be detected after five or six weeks which is the kind of time many women realise they’re pregnant.

This is absolutely what they’re about and they’re fucking disgusting.

Jesus, didn't realise any of this. I take it they have been behind the other similar cases over recent years

Yep, involved in the Alfie Evans case.

[inactionman]

Out of curiosity I googled her and holy f*ck she's an interesting character. Changed her name due to criminal records, always looking for the next opportunity for attention. Not that she isn't obviously devastated by this of course but I think she's been very keen on interviews rather than being with her son.

Also she's changed the story on how she found him so many times. I thought previously it's weird everyone just accepted this was a tiktok challenge. I think it was attempted suicide which makes it so much worse. Poor boy.

There was a very similar case in the US a few years back - Jahi McMath. There are many similarities relating to the situation and personalities involved.

A lot of the same people, including the Christian Legal Centre were also involved in the Charlie Gard case, which resulted in staff at Great Ormond Street receiving thousands of abusive messages including death threats. The Judge in that case described the support provided by the Christian Legal Centre as the work of a “fanatical and deluded young man” whose submissions to the court were “littered with vituperation and bile” that was “inconsistent with the real interests of the parents’ case”.

Human shitstains like Trump and Ted Cruze also claimed the case showed the dangers of having a state run health service like the NHS.

That was directed at one bloke, who I gather isn't actually a real lawyer.

I understood that the Trust's legal team are looking at bringing contempt of court proceedings against him regarding his lack of legal qualification - although that might be to do with forcing him to declare what qualifications he legitimately holds, rather than sanctioning him for being a dipshitted unqualified arse

[Torquemada 1420]

Not really being following this but heard someone mention the lad had been playing some sort of asphyxiation "game" on social media and had strangled himself with shoelaces.

When we were kids, the most dangerous thing we played was British bulldog.

There was no game; he hung himself, plain & simple; his mother is just lying about it; probably in preparation for another attention seeking lawsuit

Technically, he hanged himself then.

[inactionman]

Not really being following this but heard someone mention the lad had been playing some sort of asphyxiation "game" on social media and had strangled himself with shoelaces.

When we were kids, the most dangerous thing we played was British bulldog.

There was no game; he hung himself, plain & simple; his mother is just lying about it; probably in preparation for another attention seeking lawsuit

I'd suggest being a bit careful with statements like that.

Although it is a pretty rotten situation start to finish.

[Torquemada 1420]

Yep, involved in the Alfie Evans case.

That one was mental. No idea why the f**k the hospital didn't just let the parents take the kid to the Pope's hospital in Italy. It would have freed up a bed here and saved a whole load of money wasted on legal arguments.

Or am I missing something?

[Biffer]

Yep, involved in the Alfie Evans case.

That one was mental. No idea why the f**k the hospital didn't just let the parents take the kid to the Pope's hospital in Italy. It would have freed up a bed here and saved a whole load of money wasted on legal arguments.

Or am I missing something?

Duty of care. They have a legal obligation to do the best thing for the child.

[Torquemada 1420]

Yep, involved in the Alfie Evans case.

That one was mental. No idea why the f**k the hospital didn't just let the parents take the kid to the Pope's hospital in Italy. It would have freed up a bed here and saved a whole load of money wasted on legal arguments.

Or am I missing something?

Duty of care. They have a legal obligation to do the best thing for the child.

I get that but who was going to challenge that?

[Biffer]

That one was mental. No idea why the f**k the hospital didn't just let the parents take the kid to the Pope's hospital in Italy. It would have freed up a bed here and saved a whole load of money wasted on legal arguments.

Or am I missing something?

Duty of care. They have a legal obligation to do the best thing for the child.

I get that but who was going to challenge that?

Depends whether you take duty of care as an actual moral responsibility or just a legal thing you've got to do. Medical professionals broadly will do the former, they do the right thing.

[Big D]

Not really being following this but heard someone mention the lad had been playing some sort of asphyxiation "game" on social media and had strangled himself with shoelaces.

When we were kids, the most dangerous thing we played was British bulldog.

There was no game; he hung himself, plain & simple; his mother is just lying about it; probably in preparation for another attention seeking lawsuit

That's what I've thought from the start. There's been no mention by anyone else online or in media about that the challenge would be.

[Torquemada 1420]

Depends whether you take duty of care as an actual moral responsibility or just a legal thing you've got to do. Medical professionals broadly will do the former, they do the right thing.

Pffft. You are far more an idealist than I then. Economics and arse covering long since overtook patients' best interests since it's not the medics who make the decisions.

[Biffer]

Depends whether you take duty of care as an actual moral responsibility or just a legal thing you've got to do. Medical professionals broadly will do the former, they do the right thing.

Pffft. You are far more an idealist than I then. Economics and arse covering long since overtook patients' best interests since it's not the medics who make the decisions.

I’m glad I’m not that cynical. There’s a view taken too often that the worst of us is all of us. It’s polluted our society.