Archie Battersbee What happened

Archie Battersbee's life support can be withdrawn today after the UN's request was rejected by UK's Court of Appeal. Prof Dominic Wilkinson, Professor of ...

“Yesterday, the Court of Appeal concluded that it would be wrong to further delay the decision. “The UK legal system allows decisions to be appealed to higher courts. “Sadly, the underlying situation for Archie remains unchanged. “Archie’s parents had previously mounted a series of legal appeals against a decision by Justice Hayden in mid-July that it would be best for Archie to stop the life support machines that are keeping him alive. It focuses exclusively on what would be best for the child (the child’s best interests). However, the Court of Appeal in another hearing back in June found that Archie could not be declared brain dead (because the usual testing for brain death was not possible). But even if he is not brain dead, there remains a question about whether it is right to keep him alive.

Here's what happened to Archie Battersbee - the 12-year-old whose parents are continuing to fight to keep him on life support.

If you have low oxygen to the brain for over three minutes you can get brain damage and if you have low oxygen to the brain for over five minutes it can result in death." Speaking outside the hospital where Archie is being treated, she said: "We made a promise to Archie, we will fight to the end. Archie's parents, Hollie Dance, 46, and Paul Battersbee, 57, from Southend-on-Sea in Essex, have been fighting a legal battle against Barts NHS trust (opens in new tab) since May in order to keep their son on life support. If tomorrow's the last day then so be it, but we will be applying to the Supreme Court." The blackout challenge results in a lack of oxygen to the brain, which can be deadly. Found unconcious by his mum at home, Archie's sad story has resonated with parents across the country, generating widespread sympathy and a reminder of the devastating effects social media can have.

Experts monitor patients for days, or even months, to reach a decision – there is no easy litmus test, says Mehrunisha Suleman, director of medical ethics ...

In such cases clinical teams either consider the patient to be dead, or they consider continued intervention to be burdensome or harmful to the point that it would be unethical to continue. As such, a decision to withdraw intervention from a child is likely to rely very heavily on a clinical team’s judgment of such intervention being harmful and providing no chance of enabling a life through unsupported means. The likelihood of recovery and the degree of harm an unconscious patient is experiencing can be difficult to pin down. In cases where there are disputes between families and clinical teams, and the decision is then referred to the courts – as in Archie’s case – the ethical question that is often most pertinent is whether medical intervention should continue. Clinical teams also assess what a patient’s wishes would be and whether they would have a preference for medical intervention being continued or withdrawn. However, what is not in dispute is that these decisions are immensely complex, and often include experts considering information that isn’t in the public domain.

It comes after the parents of the brain-damaged 12-year-old lost a Supreme Court bid to block the withdrawal of his life-sustaining treatment.

We aim to provide the best possible support to everyone at this difficult time." She told reporters that she was with her son 24/7, and he was "progressing in so many ways. Is that the way forward in this country that we are allowed to execute children. there is no prospect of any meaningful recovery (by Archie)". It's wrong." The announcement came hours after the parents of the brain-damaged 12-year-old lost a Supreme Court bid to block the withdrawal of his life-sustaining treatment.

Supreme court 'with a heavy heart' refuses to allow appeal in 12-year-old's case.

Permission to appeal against that decision was refused by the court of appeal. Speaking to reporters outside the Royal London hospital, Archie’s mother said she would not give up the fight but appeared to accept that there was little hope of success. A high court judge ruled in May that it was in Archie’s best interests for life support treatment to be withdrawn. The panel reaches this conclusion with a heavy heart and wishes to extend its deep sympathy to Archie’s parents at this very sad time.” The court of appeal in its careful judgment delivered by its president, Sir Andrew McFarlane, yesterday, has exercised its discretion in refusing a stay. “It is nonetheless the task of the court to apply the law which requires judges to give paramount consideration to Archie’s welfare.

Archie Battersbee's parents have lost a UK supreme court bid to delay the withdrawal of his life-sustaining treatment pending a review of his case by a UN ...

We do not understand what the rush is and why all of our wishes are being denied," she said. "I know Archie's still with us. The court of appeal refused permission to challenge that ruling last week, but the case was brought back before the court yesterday after the UNCRPD requested that the government "refrain from withdrawing" Archie's treatment while it considers the complaint from his parents. But, refusing permission to appeal, a panel of three justices concluded the court of appeal "made the correct decision". Archie Battersbee's parents have lost a UK supreme court bid to delay the withdrawal of his life-sustaining treatment pending a review of his case by a UN committee. His parents, Hollie Dance and Paul Battersbee, were granted a court of appeal hearing yesterday after the British government asked judges to urgently consider a request from a UN committee to keep treating Archie while it reviews his case.

But doctors and courts have consistently taken a different view. Staff at the Royal London hospital say that because Archie has no prospect of consciousness, ...

In those circumstances, said Wilkinson, and however difficult it may be, “healthcare teams have to try very hard to maintain a compassionate, supportive relationship with parents”, whose suffering, in the end, vastly outweighs any other interests – except those of Archie himself. (That word, says Wilkinson, does not have an agreed definition but appears to be “a way for their legal team to frame what the parents are asking for in a way the court might find acceptable.”) Such circumstances can place a considerable burden on the medical professionals involved, and while the court of appeal noted in July that Archie’s mother reported a “brilliant” relationship with nurses, the original June judgment said that those “who have 24-hour care of Archie who have found the recent weeks an ethical strain that they have struggled with”. But the evidence presented to the court by the doctors who have examined Archie is that he has no prospect of regaining consciousness or being able to breathe independently. “A lovely looking young boy, Archie seemed very peaceful despite the fact that he was connected to a number of tubes and medical equipment,” she wrote. Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Anglican church,sought to mollify conservative bishops around the worldby “affirming the validity” of a 1998 declaration that gay sex is a sin. Questions over what constitutes death can be complicated; Mehrunisha Suleman writes that they reveal “medicine more as an art than a science”. In this case, the usual test for “brain death” was impossible to conduct. “But with patience, compassion and careful communication, the majority realise in a fairly short space of time that the doctors aren’t making it up, that this is the only course available. And it is very difficult to come to terms with when it might mean his death.” Critics of the government used the figures to argue that its Rwanda policy is failing as a deterrent. Behind the disagreements and technicalities that led to this point are a set of profound questions about what constitutes life, how to decide when it is over, and who can best represent the interests of a child. He was a talented gymnast, and an enthusiastic follower of mixed martial arts, and he wanted to be baptised.