​Aug 1, While the decision of the Court dealing with the UN-application is imminent, the NHS Trust and Govt lawyers have argued it would be immoral to delay palliative care - in other words they declare the intention to stop life support for the boy before the UN application has been decided upon.
My premise is not that of a lawyer, I am a social care professional who has been treated with contempt and has been dealt lies by NHS professionals and their lawyers. I say this not as much because it may colour my reflection but as I generally think guiding interests should be declared.
In this case I note the Government lawyers' interest being: Another application is another fee.
The NHS Trust's interest: Frankly - To keep the right to play g-o-d in other cases going forward as well. (And who would that be in a Monarchy anyway, someone disguised in a red fur coat, siting on a throne?)
In any case this is a society in which I cannot in good conscience argue pro support to end a person's life.
I shall add the Court decision on the substance of the UN-application here as soon as I get my hands on it.
PS Just received headline email from Washington Post from today. Their article on the case seems, if I read it correctly, to be ahead on some assumptions facts and behind on some facts or vice versa, most likely mostly due to happenings over the week end and the time difference UK vs US.
19:50 https://uk.news.yahoo.com/archie-battersbee-hollie-dance-hospital-life-supprt-093132351.html

18:10 BST - if I understand the BBC correctly, the Court of Appeal has an hour ago rejected the UN-argument to allow further appeal and/or to extend Archie's care until a decision to be made. The next step seems to be for Archie's family/lawyers to apply to the Supreme Ct for the permission they seek. In the midst of all the legalise it is easy to forget the substance of the case: Archie's mom says his best interest should e for her to decide and that she has observed attempts for him to breathe independently. The NHS Trust says he is brain-stem dead and will not recover. And it is therefor not 'in his best interest' to continue treatment.
As a social worker I became somewhat familiar with decisions around best interest. However, to use this argument as a justification to end a person's life seems bizarre. One can argue that is extremely unlikely that he will recover. But I don't think they can logically argue that it is in his best interest not to even have that remote chance. I was personally involved in a decision not to release a care home resident from the home as he applied. It was decided it was in his best interest to have his liberty restricted as due to chronic alcoholism and resulting dementia he was clearly unable and unwilling to give up alcohol. The decision for the least invasive restriction of his rights was for him to remain in a (quite liberal) Home, including some free time and excursions. Even if the person, under the supervision at the Home, remains abstinent of alcohol, his dementia his not going to get better. So the decision for A's relative quality of life and against B's right to live hangs - to be generous towards the NHS-argument (which I have not read in full btw) - on the quality of life in one case over the other. As I said before, without legal training I find it difficult to see how the best interest argument can be stretched in the direction of ending someone's life.-
Aug 2, 13:30 BST if I understand the legal process correctly, the family have a new window to approach the Supreme Ct to t stop Archie's life support being withdrawn - either because previously the Court of Appeal did not grant them permission to appeal further or because of the UN involvement. They argue Archie has not ben given sufficient time to recover. The NHS argue he is 'brain-stem dead' and won't recover. I wonder how can it ever be not in someone's 'best interest' to continue life support - unless this in itself causes severe suffering (which does not appear to be the case). So it does not need a lot of 'hermeneutic of suspicion' to see the NHS spending a lot of money on this case may be because of a precedent: Other patients may in future use a positive decision in Archie's favour to demand similar quality of care.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-62389726
Again, I am not legally trained and I rely on the information from the BBC and my own professional experience in a related field. 

 much new- As a social care expert, I have nothing much new  to say about funding for the NHS.. What I have experienced since moving the the UK almost 30 years ago, personally and professionally, is the  the effect of dysfunctional management.  Even in Germany I used to find that more Doctors might be able to have views or even training in Integrated Medicine. But in the UK, having lived in Scotland, Wales and England, I find the picture is made much worse by a wide-spread blinkered thinking and management, ignoring basic standards of interdisciplinary cooperation, and critical thinking - to the disadvantage of the quality of care.
Reporting  on my own case of knee problem:
Ca 2014, after a serious fall, I developed knee pain (the walk-in treatment centre in Nottingham had only treated my heavily bleeding thumb). Eventually a young doc after an x-ray (in Bonn) confirmed what one of the same in the UK had told me already: knee replacement was the only way. Instead, I did my own research, used acupuncture and acupressure, bandages and some natural remedies, I am now 85% pain-free and have 75% mobility in that knee.  Pretty good outcome for one of those replacements I gather, without the cost.  😏 You may want to say that was an untypical case. However professionally, as a social worker, in England, I have found that similar happens very frequently. I do all I can to empower would-be patients to do their own responsible research.
​

Having met several patients throughout my career who lived in modest, decent, well-cared for environments and spent their days - listening to what i didn't know or the silence or - music... I find it difficult to agree with the statement. It takes so little to make life easier for carers and clients themselves:
​
https://www.england.nhs.uk/blog/music-and-dementia-a-powerful-connector

One helpful resource finding a way through the jungle of lack of staff and resources:
https://www.facebook.com/CareToBeDifferent
especially  worth for sharing information re getting access to Continuing Healthcare (NHS-funding, no financial assessment but lots of traps to avoid in the process)

Not every practitioner is good for everyone, and personality as well as background matter. Personally, I very much appreciate information from the UCLA research centre MARC and have one favourite author there, Diana Winston. She has researched the technique in its original Buddhist context AND  has become able to translate the general human characteristics underneath that religion into clinical and community practice:
​https://www.uclahealth.org/marc/mindful-meditations

Working as a social worker, I began to advocate self help. In one locality, able to reduce waiting times by providing clients on the waiting list access to the following resource:
​https://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/Resources/Looking-After-Yourself

​https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o336

 https://centralbylines.co.uk/protecting-the-whistleblowers-part-2/

​In a nutshell, in 2018 this whistleblower brought a case against the Govt for failing to provide services that would have protected the law (such as Employment Tribunal staff and Legal Aid), at the beginning of the pandemic, the Court of Appeal lost the paper work, asked to resubmit in 2021, the Court of Appeal issued the case with the new date - and then struck out as out of date. As I say in my article above, and as Katharine Gun said 'I would do it again'. More issues to come...

https://centralbylines.co.uk/protecting-the-whistleblowers-part-1/
​

​

thank you to the Central Bylines editor for his hard work on this as other matters.

from a recent letter to the Health Select Committee:
​Dear Jeremy Hunt,

please allow me to bring to your attention again the case against the UK Govt I had to bring following your speech before Parliament after the Gosport Enquiry in 2018.
Unfortunately the Dept for HSC had refused at least since 2014 to follow the guidance by Sir Robert Francis QC to settle asap, and had throughout failed to protect me from breaches of the law by failing to provide effective services (including Legal Aid and holding Barristers to their professional standards).

It is not too late to do that now. The case is currently with the Court of Appeal (where there is precedence that they can correct an unrepresented litigant's legal argument) and I have applied for it to be referred to the Supreme Ct because of the national importance.
The adversarial system has been abused by the Barrister opposite by speaking untruthfully and misconstruing evidence in order to discredit me. The Judge in 2016 (and Appeal Judges after him) has ignored evidence before him from both sides.
I have also asked to fast-track the aspect of my compensation while referring the other aspects of injustice for international arbitration.
...