Whilst this whole situation is tragic and one can only feel for the parents and I understand them particularly the mother, desperately clinging to hope but cannot help bit feel the lawyers and barristers are the only winners in prolonging this with appeal after appeal. What perplexes me is the Christian organisations supporting prolonging the life artificially, and the folowing statement extract... "..... to continue treatment with medical evidence suggesting he would die in the coming weeks but, in the words of his parents, at a time "chosen by God." Now currently it is not 'God' keeping his heart and lungs and vital organs functioning but man made devices. If Christians have faith that his life is in God's hands then surely by switching off the machinery it will determine once and for all whether he lives or dies. there has been enough scrutiny to ensure the test for brain activity hav been carried out (albeit the motrher is in denial regarding this) but ultimately, satd though it is, in cases like this you have to rely on the professionals to make tha call. In some respects it is also quite selfish in that the resources both staffing and the I.C.U. could be better used for someone who is still technically alive. Sad though it is the parents are not really the best placed to make objective decisions. If left to the mother he would be kept on the machines indefinitely. There comes a point where enough is enough and that time has passed. All IMO.
I feel for the parents but I respect the educated and considered opinions of the medical professionals involved. They won't have taken their decision lightly and will have agonised over it for many days. It's time to turn the machines off and for the family to grieve and then get on with their lives. Sad but it's time to move on.
I know from personal experience that this is a very difficult time. However, the professionals will not have made the decision lightly. Especially in light of the parents requests and claims. I don’t understand why you would think a court is better placed than a a group of specialist doctors, or what would be gained by the court having an influence.
Tekky, it's an odd stance that you want to "rely on the professionals" when discussing the medical professionals involved, but seemingly not when considering the legal professionals (on both sides of the debate, and those who must adjudicate) who are charged with determining the child's rights in this case. To my mind, those rights deserve to be scrutinised to the fullest extent before such questions of life and death are determined, however obvious the outcome may seem to the man in the street.
Personally been through it, it’s agonising and one of the most painful, heart rending things imaginable, but ultimately you have to listen to the medical professionals they look at it in a caring way, they don’t take such decisions lightly at all but they have the slight detachment to weigh up all outcomes that parents don’t .
I can not blame the parents one bit for contiung to fight. The alternative will be absolutely devastating for them to face. Yes the medical professionals are almost certainly right. Given the attention I'm sure the case has been reviewed ad infinitum. What a heartbreaking and tragic situation it is.
I didn't read it as a dig at lawyers. He's right, they are sadly the only ones who come out of this with any gain. Nobody wins in situations like this.
Really? You must spend a lot of time with me in your head to be able to make these conclusions about me and seem to make a thing of making personal comments about me rather than the subject matter! In this instance though, and some ways you are right. Ever since the law changed a few decades ago to allow solicitors etc. to advertise (remember the 'where there is blame there's a claim campaign) and the term 'ambulance chasers' that became synonymous with certain sectors of the legal profession, the reputation of the legal profession, primarily those working in civil law, has taken a hit. This not only damages the reputation of the legal profession but hits everyone. The spurious whiplash injury unsolicited emails from law firms after an accident encouraged people to make often spurious claims (on a no win no fee basis but taking a sizeable proportion of any pay out if they do) Too many times, particularly when representing the rich and famous, they persuade their clients to pursue what are clearly lost causes through every court in the land and, on occasions like this one, beyond the UK legal system. In many cases they run up huge legal fees, and drag things out which a times is clearly not in the best interest of their client. Like I said in the OP the only winners in this case (and the recent much publicised 'Wagatha' farce were the lawyers who must be rubbing their hands together with £3m legal fees from Vardy! Ironically the 'criminal law' sector is chronically underfunded as are the countless solicitors dealing with contractual bread and butter stuff like conveyancing. Many of those solicitors and barristers working in that sector are grossly underpaid. So yes, I fully support the UK 'legal system' for all its flaws and inconsistencies. It is far superior to the American system which is increasingly becoming politicised and is, and has always been, money driven (out of court settlements) with plea bargaining and secret deals often to the detriment of natural justice for the victim.
I don't agree with this at all, and wonder what evidence you have for it other than an apparent bias. I can tell you from experience that it is far more common for clients to ignore advice to settle than it is for lawyers to advise them against their own interests to line their pockets. Doing so opens the lawyer up to a professional negligence claim. Given the status and experience of the advisors involved I can absolutely guarantee that Rebekah Vardy will have been fully and frankly advised as to the merits of her case, but when it's a matter of personal pride some clients (particularly those with deep pockets) don't care.
I'm fairly certain I read somewhere that they had been encouraged (possibly by the judge) to settle out of court on numerous occasions but this was refused.
According to the reports, refused on Rebekkah Vardy's side. Colleen Rooney did offer to settle, as I understand it.
I think no matter if you're on the side of the family or the medical professionals we can all agree it's heartbreaking and at midday today many of us will be thinking of them. If you go to the 14 minute mark Jeremy Kyle spoke to his mother last night https://watch.talk.tv/watch/replay/47277024
And what about the ambulance chasers? When my wife and daughter were involved in an accident with a vehicle that ran a red light they both suffered whiplash injuries (albeit relatively minor but nevertheless debilitating for several days. (apparently women are more prone to the effects of Whiplash) . For weeks and months we were bombarded with emails and automated phone calls (some 'silent' more than once a day from various solicitors breaking OfCom rules) offering 'no win no fee'. That is not" bias" but based on personal experience and fact. Professional negligence as you say would be hard to prove. The headlong rush to claim against the banks selling unneccesary mortgaeg protection is anothre black mark. In the current case, there appears to be no new evidence presented or any counter medical advise from the ones stating it is the victim's best interest to terminate life support. The medical professionals after much consideration appear unanimous. therefore, I am sorry, but an ethical legal counsel would strongly argue to the cllient that the case is almopst certain to fail and they should now stop. As far as I am aware, unless there are protocols in UK legislation that prevent it, there is nothing to stop the legal counsel withdrawing from the case if the customer refuses to heed their advice, but of course, they would no longer receive further renumeration. Claiming the entire legal profession is totally ethical and professional won't wash IMO . Most operate to the highest standards but there are plenty who seem profit driven. I also have issues with the competence of some solicitors dealing with conveyancing . We once used a well known Barnsley solicitors who charged fairly high fees but we thought, at the time, you get what you pay for. Having been told contracts were exchanged and all was complete we turned up at the house we had bought, having handed the keys to out original property (both in Barnsley) with the removal van only to be told by the owner at the door he had not even signed the contract let alone exchanged so he could not let us in. He had not yet received notification of payment. I stormed into the solicitors office and demanded t see the solicitor and the receptionist informed me he was busy with another client. I shouted quite loudly at which point he appeared and ushered me into another room. It took him less than 30 minutes to complete processes (this being even pre-internet) that should have already been completed but normally take (according to what they had told us) several days . Just as well as we and the removal van would have been left high and dry as the new owners were moving in to our old house the same day. The next two moves (one when my daughter bought her first house) we used a different local firm ands the experience could not have been more different. In fact the solicitor who dealt with it (StJohn) found an outstanding land rights issue with my daughter's purchase that had been missed by the previous law firm at the time of the previous sale and managed to sort it out. It would have potentially caused right of access problems for my daughter. He was thorough and professional and worth every penny. I do not tar the entire profession with the same brush but nor do I try to present them as squeaky clean. Like any profession there are good and bad. If you think that makes me biased then so be it but I do not believe I am.
Sorry but if my new car engine blows up it is the engineers and mechanics that provide the answers and identify the cause. Any legal based arguments involves solicitors but they are 100% reliant on the expertise of the engineers and mechanics to provide the evidence for and against so can only base their argument on experts in teh field since they know nothing about the subject matter. As regards rights of the person. All the medical evidence provided by teh professionals is that there is no longer a 'person' in the shell of a body being kept functioning mechanically using external devices. IF there was one dissenting professionl voice expressing a counter opinion then I would agree that the legal profession could make a case for rights. But as thing stand they seem to have absolutely no evidence to justify prolonging this and depriving a viable patient of resources and staff that may enable them to make a recovery. The law should scrutinise the actions and decisions of the medical professionals where some doubt might exist as to the motivation or decision to switch off life support but given the microsopic attention the medical team have been subjected to, and as I have said there is 100% support for the argument put forward to turn off life support amongst the medical professional involved there can be little doubt that they have the best interests of the child when coming to the conclusion they have. At some point the law should acknowledge the medical professionals expertise and not continue to drag it out especially when judge after judge has thrown out the case for prolonging things..
You are incorrect. To summarise, solicitors are not entitled to terminate their instruction if they are instructed to pursue a course which goes against their advice, so long as the argument they are advancing is at least arguable. I understand here the appeal is to allow the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities to consider the matter, after the Committee itself has requested to do so. I don't disagree that there are some unscrupulous solicitors. But to try and paint the solicitors here as running poor arguments solely for their financial gain at the expense of a family going through an awful time is bang inappropriate, particularly given that you don't understand the relevant professional conduct obligations.
No! You have said it yourself...."solicitors are not entitled to terminate their instruction if they are instructed to pursue a course which goes against their advice, so long as the argument they are advancing is at least arguable" The appeal, apart from being unenforcable as the UN Committee on the right of persons have no jurisdiction over UK law, hence the reason the Justice has disergarded the plea to defer the switch off due imminently." The only involvement they have to consider the matter is to request a delay and not influence the eventual decision. Therefore it must be argued that involving them is NOT advancing anything. Again, just delaying the inevitable. Just out of interest do you support the family or the medical profession in this?