Possibly, I suppose his blood/brain barrier will deteriorate. He’s more likely to get a pneumonia from the ventilator I would have thought though.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Archie is not a corpse. He is not legally nor physically dead. His brain is dead. Doing anything to his body is not legally nor physically desecration of a corpse. If it feels like it is due to his permanent loss of conscious, that is a valid personal feeling, but not relevant in determining the course of treatment unless it is your own loved one
Anti-abortion doctors are not forced to refer patients for abortions. But they must refer them back to other GPs. This prevents them from being forced to act against their morals, while not effecting access for patients.
This ought to be similar for any other case in which doctors may have ethical concerns that restrict access to care.
Undignified? Pointless? Upsetting? Maybe, these are subjective personal opinions and value judgements. Cruel? No, he is not capable of suffering.
It is not the place of doctors or nurses to centre their feelings and personal beliefs over that of the patient or family. It is so dangerous that this should be considered in court: that the personal ethical beliefs of staff should be a factor in whether to treat someone. Set aside Archie for a moment and bear in mind that our legal system works on using previous cases for authority. What if in a future case, they use the personal ethical beliefs of staff or their distress at having to do their job as a legal reason not to treat someone who debatably could benefit?
Anti-abortion doctors are not forced to refer patients for abortions. But they must refer them back to other GPs. This prevents them from being forced to act against their morals, while not effecting access for patients.
This ought to be similar for any other case in which doctors may have ethical concerns that restrict access to care.
Undignified? Pointless? Upsetting? Maybe, these are subjective personal opinions and value judgements. Cruel? No, he is not capable of suffering.
It is not the place of doctors or nurses to centre their feelings and personal beliefs over that of the patient or family. It is so dangerous that this should be considered in court: that the personal ethical beliefs of staff should be a factor in whether to treat someone. Set aside Archie for a moment and bear in mind that our legal system works on using previous cases for authority. What if in a future case, they use the personal ethical beliefs of staff or their distress at having to do their job as a legal reason not to treat someone who debatably could benefit?
Last edited:
Brain stem death is legal death. He is dead if his brain is dead. Anything else if your opinion rather than the accepted medical and legal consensus in the UK
He is a corpse. He is a dead body being artificially kept alive.
No, what I wrote is legal fact. NOT my opinion.
He is not dead until the courts say so, which they haven’t as the last is being appealed. The judge strongly advised against ruling anyone dead in that unprecedented manner again.
He was unable to be declared brainstem dead because the tests could not be completed.
Therefore, he is not legally dead.
His body is still alive. It is not a corpse. All kinds of processes would have to be being followed if his body was considered a corpse.
It's hardly a usual case though? Whilst medics are very likely to have overseen the care of people who have attempted suicide, and do not recover. This is a very bizarre case where a mother is in complete denial that her son is dead. Those medics are having to 'care' for a dead boy, despite knowing this is not compassionate. Then they are being smeared and faced with conspiracy theories.
Last edited:
It makes me sad that he’s referred to as a corpse. He’s still a 12 year old boy.
You contradict yourself by saying his brain is dead and then he is not brainstem dead. His brain is liquefying and his spinal cord is rotting. He’s dead. His heart beats and he hasn’t had the formal tests but come on, he is dead. I’m approaching this from the medical POV but I know the legal standpoint is different (I well understand medical law).
The courts won’t rule he is dead. I just don’t see them setting a precedent for that. They will rule on best interests.
His brain is rotting to the point of falling into his spinal column. 
Let’s say they removed the tubes, removed the machines, took away the staff looking after Archie. Say he proved everyone wrong and his body was able to function. But with his brain as damaged as it is he remains unable to react to the world around him, to enjoy things, to speak, to move. What quality of life would he have? That boy, who as far as I can see was a boisterous and active boy in life, would he want this life for himself, a life where his body kept going but his brain did not. Especially when he was distressed enough to decide to commit suicide when his life was that of a typical twelve year old, thriving in gymnastics, boxing, school etc.
I don’t believe so. Nor do I believe he would want his mum splashing him all over Facebook with teddies, in a nappy, paraded around to be looked at by strangers, every bodily function reported on, seeming so different to the boy he once was. Of course I cannot know for certain, being a stranger, but I know I would not want this outcome for myself.
That is what I find undignified about it all.
Let’s say they removed the tubes, removed the machines, took away the staff looking after Archie. Say he proved everyone wrong and his body was able to function. But with his brain as damaged as it is he remains unable to react to the world around him, to enjoy things, to speak, to move. What quality of life would he have? That boy, who as far as I can see was a boisterous and active boy in life, would he want this life for himself, a life where his body kept going but his brain did not. Especially when he was distressed enough to decide to commit suicide when his life was that of a typical twelve year old, thriving in gymnastics, boxing, school etc.I don’t believe so. Nor do I believe he would want his mum splashing him all over Facebook with teddies, in a nappy, paraded around to be looked at by strangers, every bodily function reported on, seeming so different to the boy he once was. Of course I cannot know for certain, being a stranger, but I know I would not want this outcome for myself.
That is what I find undignified about it all.
His family are vile . Ella and the mother are awfull . It’s definitely about making money from him how sad poor boy
I’m sorry, but you do talk such a lot of utter bollocks.
Sorry, you are saying he is not dead until the courts say so.
When did brain stem death being a legal form of death stop being a thing? I’ve missed this bit!
Imagine if brain stem death is no longer a legal form of death and people need to legally be declared dead within court - that will cause a whole load of issues. The added stress, emotion, needless trauma to the families it would cause! Plus financial cost, lack of trust, issues like this case, etc…
When did brain stem death being a legal form of death stop being a thing? I’ve missed this bit!
Imagine if brain stem death is no longer a legal form of death and people need to legally be declared dead within court - that will cause a whole load of issues. The added stress, emotion, needless trauma to the families it would cause! Plus financial cost, lack of trust, issues like this case, etc…
I was just about to write the same. As a medical lawyer and ethicist I've been reading these with nothing short of incredulity. The idea that the views of people who are literally trained to practise medicine with the utmost respect for medical ethics (dignity being one pillar of that) should be considered irrelevant is baffling. Those staff know that boy is dead, forcing them to perform futile interventions on him is not only 'upsetting', it goes against every ethical code they agree to uphold when they work in medicine. The views of some nutter mother who has, in my opinion, made it perfectly clear she understands neither the medical nor legal issues here, are the ones that I would consider irrelevant.
No, not the medical views but the personal ethical beliefs.
There are a lot of people twisting my words because apparently anything that disrupts their unbridled hatred for a delusional bereaved mother makes me just as bad as her.
The brain stem tests could not be performed. You’ve posted about this before so I’m not sure why you’re pretending not to know.Sorry, you are saying he is not dead until the courts say so.
When did brain stem death being a legal form of death stop being a thing? I’ve missed this bit!
Imagine if brain stem death is no longer a legal form of death and people need to legally be declared dead within court - that will cause a whole load of issues. The added stress, emotion, needless trauma to the families it would cause! Plus financial cost, lack of trust, issues like this case, etc…
Respecting the dignity of a patient is NOT a personal ethical belief. It is woven into the syllabus of all nursing and medical degrees. If you disagree with that, take it up with the NMC and GMC, but in the meantime, what you think of it is neither here nor there.
Okay so if he’s not dead remove the ventilator, remove the machines and the medication and let him show us he isn’t dead. Doctors and nurses are people who have patients interests as their best intentions, keeping a boys heart beating for the sake of his mother is not his best intention.
Isnt death usually decided by the medical staff caring for a patient? Its a doctor that usually signs a death certificate, then the courts will ratify that decision.
It is a technical point yes......technically Archies body is still alive. But it sounds from all the ITU staff on here, as if once the brain dies, then normal bodily functions also die..so he cant function at all by himself. He is breathing artificially but he also is unable to absorb any kinds of food or drink into his cells independently, so everything within him is deterioriating. I spose technically he is some kind of living corpse? And they couldnt do the usual test for brain stem death, due to the damage at his neck, so what are they meant to do
Medical staff arent superhuman, they are trying their best to help. Its ok to ask for a second opinion, especially with a case like this, but....if the second opinon confirms the diagnosis of the first...
I am sorry for the loss of your dad, it must have been devastating.
Correct and the law is set up this way to protect those patients from parents who are too upset or emotional to be able to recognise their child's best interests. This is just one in a list of cases that shows why that protection is, sadly, often needed.
Dignity is a matter of opinion, it is not legally defined.
Exactly. And exactly the reason why families are never actually the ones making big big decisions (ie to sign a DNAR or to withdraw life sustaining treatment). Clinicians will obviously include them in their decision making and take on their beliefs / feelings, but never burden them with making the final call as they are vulnerable and not able to rationalise what is medically in the best interest for the patient because they are, understandably, too emotionally invested.
- Status