Archie battersbee court hearing: It has been requested that the High Court review its judgment to allow physicians to turn off the life support of a kid who suffers from brain injury.
On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal decided to rehear the case in order to make a decision regarding Archie Battersbee’s care.
It comes after the High Court gave doctors permission to stop treating the 12-year-old boy, who has not regained consciousness since an incident at home nearly three months ago. This comes after the High Court gave doctors permission to stop treating the boy, who has not regained consciousness since the incident.
His mother, Hollie Dance, has expressed her belief that the incident may have been the result of an accident that was caused by an online challenge.
After his family fought against the hospital’s plans to switch off his life support, the High Court was given the responsibility of deciding what would be in Archie’s best interest.
At the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel, which is located in east London, the medical staff treating Archie have argued that he should no longer receive treatment to sustain his life.
However, the youngster’s parents, Hollie Dance and Paul Battersbee are adamant that the treatment must go on because they claim their son’s heart is still beating and that he has been seen holding onto his mother’s hand.
After hearing evidence presented at a trial in the Family Division of the High Court in London, Mrs. Justice Arbuthnot came to the conclusion that medical professionals were within their rights to withdraw treatment from Archie.
The treating physician Archie shared with her that the doctors believe he is “brain-stem dead” and that he should have his ventilator turned off.
The High Court was urged by attorneys working for the Barts Health NHS Trust, which is the trust that governs the Royal London Hospital, to decide what course of action would be in the boy’s best interests.
On April 7, Archie was found at his house unconscious with a ligature around his head. He had suffered brain damage earlier that day. His mother found him, and she suspects that he may have been participating in an online challenge at the time she found him. He has not come back to a cognizant state yet.
On Wednesday morning, the attorneys who represent Archie’s parents, Hollie Dance and Paul Battersbee, who live in Southend, Essex, started presenting their side of the story.
The attorney who is in charge of Archie’s parents’ legal team, Edward Devereux QC, made the following statement to the judges: “The case should be remitted for consideration by a High Court judge who should considerer whether it is in Archie’s best interests for life-sustaining treatment to continue.”
The decision was handed down on Wednesday afternoon by Lady Justice King, Sir Geoffrey Vos, President of the Court of Appeal, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division of the High Court, and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, and Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls.
The attorneys who represent Dance and Battersbee stated that Arbuthnot had committed mistakes in his ruling. She had not carried out a full study of the evidence relating to whether or not life-support treatment should continue, according to Edward Devereux QC, who led the legal team representing Archie’s parents.
Archie Battersbee’s parents win court of appeal fight
It appeared as though the investigation had not been conducted to the “gold standard,” and he told the justices who were hearing the appeal, “The gold standard should be met in issues of life and death.”
The appeal was granted by the judge Sir Geoffrey Vos, the master of the rolls; Sir Andrew McFarlane, president of the family division of the high court and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales; and Lady Justice King. All three judges are considered to be among the most senior family court judges in England and Wales.
They didn’t have any negative things to say about Arbuthnot and stated that they would explain their choice at a later time and date.
An expert who cannot be named previously stated that testing had indicated “large areas of tissue necrosis” but did not show any “discernible” brain activity. She continued by saying, “We believe that it is quite likely that he is already deceased at the brain-stem level.”
However, attorneys who represent the family have argued that Archie’s heart is still beating and raised questions about whether “the correct procedure” had been followed and whether the family’s opinions had been given full consideration. They also questioned whether Archie’s heart had been stopped properly.
Edward Devereux QC, a barrister who is leading the legal team representing Archie’s parents, argues that the evidence has not established “beyond reasonable doubt” that Archie has passed away.
After Archie suffered significant injuries while at his house in Southend, Essex, three months ago, he has been at the center of the legal conflict that has arisen as a result of the occurrence.
On April 7th, Ms. Dance reported that she discovered her son unconscious with a ligature over his head. She believes that her son may have been participating in an online challenge at the time of the incident.
The family filed an appeal against the verdict, the primary focus of which was on the manner in which it was determined that Archie had passed away.
The attorney for the family stated that rather than using evidence that showed death “beyond a reasonable doubt,” this decision had been made based on the balance of probabilities.
According to Edward Devereux QC, “Medical practitioners, while certifying death, do not do so based on the balance of probabilities.”
The attorneys who work for the trust that governs the Royal London Hospital, which is called the Barts Health NHS Trust, had requested that Mrs. Justice Arbuthnot determine what actions would be in Archie’s best interests.
Mrs. Justice Arbuthnot came to the conclusion that Archie was no longer alive and recommended that therapy be discontinued. However, after Archie’s family filed an appeal, she stated that there was a “compelling cause” for the appellate judges to take the matter into consideration.
Mr. Devereux had maintained that the evidence did not demonstrate “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Archie had passed away. He stated that the judgment had been taken based on a weighted average of the probability, but he contended that a decision of such “gravity” should have been made on the basis of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Mrs. Justice Arbuthnot came to the conclusion that appeal judges ought to take into consideration the problem of the standard of proof. When deciding whether or not to proclaim Archie dead, he suggested that the judges should use the “standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt,” rather than the “balance of probability.”
Appeal judges Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls; Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the Family Division of the High Court and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales; and Lady Justice King allowed the parents’ appeal and announced that the case would be reheard the following month.
They stated that the case would be reexamined by Mr. Justice Hayden on July 11 during a hearing that would take place in the Family Division of the High Court.