Talk:Charlie Gard case

Merge page

Merge Page with Charlie Gard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.60.233.178 (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no such entry in Wikipedia. Go to Charlie Gard and you'll land at Charlie Gard treatment controversy. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarity and Timeliness

The article currently mentions "experimental treatment", right after referring to an Italian hospital. I read that they were trying to get experimental treatment at a US hospital. What is accurate? And is there any information on what that treatment might be?

Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome would be the article to look at, I'm considering adding [1](posted here[2])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Current event

Since this is a current story, shouldn't there be one of those headers that has a clock symbol on it, like for when a person just died? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.25.55 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That notice is only added when lots of editors are working on a WP entry at the same time. This isn't being edited that often. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Another limit on benefits of nucleoside-therapy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As written, the article currently points out that nucleosides do not easily cross the blood-brain barrier, so benefit of nucleoside-therapy for a brain-damaged patient like little Charlie would be limited. But there's a more fundamental problem: nucleoside therapy, in which the physician provides the nucleosides which the patient's body cannot make, might slow down the damage which the deficiency is causing (if the blood-brain-barrier problem could be solved somehow), but could not possibly REPAIR the damage which the deficiency has ALREADY done. So, giving little Charlie nucleoside-therapy would be like locking the barn door after the horse has already run away, or like giving a scurvy patient vitamin-C after he has already lost all his teeth. If someone can find a reliable online source for this info, it would be an informative addition to the article. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean “'could not possibly REPAIR the damage which the deficiency has ALREADY done”? All that is know is that those organs so affected, are slow to develop. That is not the same thing as ' damage' which some doctors are beginning to appreciate. Critics have point out that this child's skull measurements have not increased. No one has asked if this child really need that amount of grey matter at his age. Read : Can you live a normal life with half a brain? and How much of the brain can a person do without. However. I would agree that if the neural networks for vision etc., are prevented from developing by denying stimulus (in normal healthy subjects), (they did this with lab animals) then the animal never gains normal functioning. Which is why this is so very urgent. The hospital 'management' is letting the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam get its knickers in a twist. Something, that in the 21 St Century we thought we had left behind us. So this case is way more important and notable than it may first appear. Aspro (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Jytdog: Why did you hat this as "NOTFORUM", when it includes the comment "If someone can find a reliable online source for this info, it would be an informative addition to the article."? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

because almost everything it is people giving their opinion about the matter. as is obvious. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Problems

DoctorBiochemistry is an WP:SPA who has been edit-warring badly-sourced content into this high-profile article. I have raised the alarm at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

[3]blocked--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thursday?

[4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I had already added some information about this to the subsection that covers the legal aspects. I have expanded on that slightly and added a summary of this to the lead. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Rename article

By analogy with Joseph Maraachli case and Ashya King case, wouldn't it be a more neutral article title to move this to Charlie Gard case? Bondegezou (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

agree, however more opinions needed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of any further comment, I have now moved the article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

How to cover nucleoside therapy?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I added the following to the article, citing the judge's initial ruling:

Nucleoside therapy has been used with 18 patients with a less severe mitochondrial condition involving the TK2 mutation, none of whom had encephalopathy. There are not yet any published case studies on any of these patients. Experiments in mice with a TK2 mutation were reported in legal proceedings around Charlie Gard to show an increased lifespan of "between 13 and 36 days against a normal mouse lifespan of two years. In other words [...] a little over 4% of normal lifespan." Nucleoside therapy has not been used in humans or in mice for a RRM2B mutation and the drugs involved are thought not to cross the blood-brain barrier, so would not be able to treat encephalopathy.

Alexbrn removed this as not meeting WP:MEDRS. It doesn't. However, I added it as important context for why the judge ruled as he did, and I think it meets WikiProject Law's requirements on RS! How do we explain enough about the detail of the legal decision made, which involves medical issues, without being misleading in our presentation of medical information? I think we need to say something: I don't mind not using the text I wrote, but I think something is needed saying (a) this therapy's past use has been for a different mutation; (b) there are particular reasons to think this won't be applicable in CG's case involving encephalopathy; and (c) the evidence there is even for TK2 treatment is small and suggests limited results. (Indeed, on that last point, the fact that there's no WP:MEDRS-approvable material is kind of the point!)

There is some contentious editing of this article with some editors keener to stress potential positive benefits of nucleoside treatment, but again facing WP:MEDRS issues. I think the way forward there is to refer, as I did, to the judge's ruling because that contextualises the evidence in the context of this case.

Others' input most welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

though I have NOT edited(actually 1 2 revert) this article on purpose, Id agree w/ [5] Alexbrn edit...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added some different text to the first paragraph of the Legal background subsection taking (more!) care to not fall foul of WP:MEDRS while still expanding on the judge's rationale. See what y'all think. Bondegezou (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• User:DoctorBiochemistry. You have not participated here at the talk page at all. Please begin to do so. Your edits:
  • this
  • this
  • this

violate policy in several ways.

• • You left content completely unsourced
  • You put a "reference" behind content that discusses 2017 events, but the "ref" dates from 2013. This is impossible.
  • The content is promotional with regard to this experimental therapy, emphasizing that it is "natural" and a "nutrient" and other stuff that has nothing to do with the issues in this case, and is altogether WP:UNDUE
  • In the (unsourced) content added about "olicited by Charlie Gard's parents" as well as the later argumentation and SYN-violating content about "there are human MDS patients in the US and other countries who have been allowed the compassionate use of nucleoside supplements." you are neglecting the fact that the medical team was initially ready to try this and was seeking ethical approval to do so.
  • Some of the references was poor, as has already been raised with you at your talk page.

Please address these concerns, and please do so here on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:he's reverted the article twice??--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi just found there is a talk page, I agree to keep discussion hereDoctorBiochemistry (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The current affirmation: "had been used in babies only a few times and had shown little to no efficacy," is unsourced and incorrect. The treatemt has been tried in children and adults with different kinds of MDS, it is referenced in the summary of the court.DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

you need consensus(and to follow MEDRS) your talk page[6] has plenty of good information, please follow--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

On that last point, here's a suggestion... Could we say: "Nucleoside therapy has been used with 18 patients with a less severe mitochondrial condition involving the TK2 mutation, none of whom had encephalopathy. There are not yet any published case studies on any of these patients." Those sentences make no treatment efficacy claims, so might be OK under WP:MEDRS?

With respect to efficacy, could we phrase something that stresses this is the judge's opinion: "In his judgement, the judge noted that the evidence made available to him suggested that there would be no or only minimal benefit from nucleoside therapy." That doesn't seem quite right, but phrasing along those lines? Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The condition in newborns, especially when it is caused by mutations in both alleles, is severe. Comparing treating a person in that situation, to treating someone with adult onset (where the condition is not fatal, at least not rapidly so), is not valid, and getting into the weeds on the whole background of this experimental therapy and the variants of MDDS that people who have received it have had, is UNDUE. The relevant thing to discuss in this article is experimental treatments in similar newborns. What the judge said accurately summarizes the literature and there is no need to attribute. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, the child Arturito Estopinan had early-onset TK2 deficiency, and started the nucleoside therapy aged 1 year old when he was totally unable to move and breathe by himself.

I would like to know what's wrong with the following paragraph: "As of 2017, there are only experimental treatments[review source] for mitochondrial diseases, among them, the so-called "nucleoside bypass therapy"[review source] solicited by Charlie Gard's parents. The treatment consists in the oral supplementation with natural deoxynuclosides, which are converted by the body to nucleotides in order to sustain DNA synthesis. Nucleotides and nucleosides are semiessential nutrients[review source] used as dietary supplements, but are not yet approved for MDS treatment. There are human MDS patients in the US and other countries who have been allowed the compassionate use of nucleoside supplements" This information is correct and it's not biased. There are no statements about the benefits or not (although in the summary there are this sort of statements). Adding a citation to the Washington post article talking about Arturito Estopinan, the only known patient under this therapy it's not off the topic, he is mentioned in the summary and in the press, but we can keep it out. However, the following sentence: "there were only experimental treatments for MDDS that had been used in babies only a few times and had shown little to no efficacy" is totally incorrect and unsourced, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorBiochemistry (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article size

@Jytdog: A number of your edits have been cutting detail from this article based on a WP:NOTNEWS/WP:UNDUE argument: [7], [8], [9]. I know you didn't previously even think we should have this article, but you withdrew your AfD, so if we agree that this article should exist, does not WP:NOTPAPER apply? We have this article: well-reported material should be included. Bondegezou (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I withdrew the AfD which means I agree the article should exist. That does not mean that we update it every time there is a WP:FART. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are an encyclopedia; that means we think about what is likely to be of enduring importance - the question to ask is not "what happened today?" but rather, "what will matter 5 years from now?" We cannot know of course, but we can limit what we add to high level, milestone events. The date the US doctor arrived in London is trivia. Bills being proposed to make him a US citizen is trivia, etc. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

As you say, it is hard to judge what will matter 5 years from now. So, we have to fall back on consensus. It seems to me that the consensus has repeatedly been for a bit more detail than would be your preference. I thought, therefore, that you might want to think about whether you've judged the level of detail desired correctly. Personally, I think details of dates, like when the US doctor came to the UK, do matter when making sense of events. Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it is obvious that he went there, as he examined the child. the week in which he did that, as well. Maybe in a few months we can revisit and see what details matter. The main thing I wanted to avoid was this getting tons of blow-by-blow trivia added as the situation evolved. I am guessing there will be three more whooshes of interest (when he dies, when the funeral happens, and when/if the parents launch the nonprofit with the gofundme money) and after all that we should be able to start editing this more normally. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Alasdair Seton-Marsden

This article currently makes no mention of Alasdair Seton-Marsden, who has been acting as spokesman for the parents, when speaking to the media, and from whom they are now reportedly distancing themselves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a good thing, since it would just add transient drama that has nothing to do with the core, encyclopedic issues here. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Far from it. It's clear that he played both a prominent role, and had links to other key actors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Particularly relevant coverage includes:

• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/22/charlie-gard-world-turned-medical-experts
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/23/charlie-gards-parents-extremely-upset-public-backlash/

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It will be difficult to generate NPOV content about this and keep it that way; it seems that he was at center of some of the most inflammatory politics around this in the UK and there are questions of the parents' relationship with him. That said it seems we should try..... Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I am somewhat scared of drafting this content as it wades into contemporary politics which I do not like to edit about. I will offer a ref - there was a great show on On the media today about this case, contrasting right wing political commentary about the case in the US with ring wing commentary in the UK -- ref. Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

RRM2B AFFECTS mitochondria, but the gene itself is located in the cell nucleus

I am adding a short bit to the "medical background" section explaining that the RRM2B gene is located in the cell nucleus, even though its expression product functions (or in Charlie's case, FAILS to function) in mitochondria. Many genes which code for mitochondrial proteins are located in the cell nucleus, but an uninformed reader might not know this, and might erroneously infer from the name "MITOCHONDRIAL DNA depletion syndrome" that the mutation which is causing Charlie's disease is itself part of his mitochondrial DNA. I hope this will be helpful! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This information just added about the gene being located in the cell nucleus is quite detailed and technical. I don't think that in the current form that it will help most readers understand the case. Also this text and the references supporting it aren't consistent with the Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The information is detailed--maybe it's not necessary to mention chromosome 8--but I made it short and concise, and I tried to make the technical info clear to an untrained reader, and I think I succeeded, so long as the reader understands that genes code for proteins, which most readers (likely) do. And the source is not inconsistent with the SECTION of the Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome article WHICH REFERS TO RRM2D (Mitochondrial_DNA_depletion_syndrome#Encephalomyopathic_form).

I will wait for you to check this and see if you agree; if I don't hear from you about it here in a few days I'll revert to my earlier form but remove the "chromosome 8" part.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you tried to make the technical info clear to untrained readers, but I don't agree that this has been achieved. I don't agree with the previous material being reinstated. To clarify:

1) the material that you added is generic, the sources are 2 academic papers- one published in 2000 and one from 2009.

2) while there is a section of the Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome article which refers to RRM2D, it does not contain the description that you added to the Charlie Gard article. There are 17 references on that page and the two which you have added to the Charlie Gard article are not among them. Why no overlap?

2) jytdog also had concerns and removed the material, so you might be better to present a suggested revised version on the talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RE: (1) The two bits of info--that RRM2B is a nuclear gene, and that many mitochondrial proteins are coded by nuclear genes--are very well-known, not disputed by anyone. Who cares which of the zillions of available sources for those facts one uses? I understand that primary sources are not ALWAYS considered good for medical articles, but (as I understand it) the reason for this is that primary sources often refer to model studies about POTENTIAL treatments which are not approved for actual clinical use. The two bits of info are not about potential treatments or actual treatments; they are BACKGROUND and not controvercial.

RE: (2) I didn't read the Wikipedia article on MDDS very carefully. Again, is there any particular reason why the sources should be expected to overlap?

RE: (3) Having said this, I'm coming around to the idea that just saying that the RRM2D gene is located in the nucleus is good enough. So I think I'll back off and leave it as it currently stands. You're probably right that the general point about the many nuclear genes which code for mitochondrial proteins is too much detail and tangential to this article, which is about little Charlie. Back in the day, I did some work for one of the leading world experts on nuclear genes which code for mitochondrial proteins, a prof whose entire multi-decade career from post-doc to prof-emeritus has consisted in identifying these genes and making a long list of them ("found another one today, yippee!") so I have a tendency to start drooling when the subject comes up.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad you are OK with it now. I updated the RRM2B article today to make it clear what the protein does, and also added a bunch of content to Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Should have done both a while ago. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I get it that the gene location is a big deal to you, but the medicine part is already hard to understand, and the location of the gene is not relevant to understanding that mutated gene >> bad protein >> no nucleosides for DNA synthesis in mitochondria >>brain damage and can't breathe because of muscle failure ..... which is already hard enough! Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

About your note that many people are confused about where the gene is... again I get it that you find this confusion particularly heinous and in need of correction, but the location of the gene is not necessary, as others have stated here as well. There is no consensus to include that detail. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A couple of points about the RRM2B gene

Two points about the RRM2B gene:

1. The protein it codes for is not called "the RRM2B protein" which was the term in the article; the protein it codes for is called "p53R2" and is a sub-unit of a complex called "RNR". That's too much detail for the article, but the article should not contain the sophomoric-sounding phrase "the RRM2B protein". I'm replacing that phrase with "the protein which RRM2B codes for". See here: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/RRM2B

2. The protein functions in the mitochondria, but the RRM2B gene is part of the DNA in the CELL NUCLEUS. See here: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/RRM2B#location It's important to point this out, if only in parentheses, so that the reader does not fall into the error of thinking that the harmful mutation is a mutation in the DNA of the mitochondria.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I have moved this up here. Remember the conversation above? I didn't see this before, and I apologize about that, but about #2 you already agreed not to include this. What is the rationale for including this now? How is this important to understanding the medical problem? The change in your item #1 is still understandable to someone with an average education and more accurate, so fine. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

RE: "about #2 you already agreed not to include this."

No. I agreed not to include the info that the RRM2B gene is located ON CHROMOSOME NUMBER EIGHT. We SHOULD include the fact that it is located IN THE CELL NUCLEUS. If we don't include THAT, then people assume that the bad mutation is part of the mito DNA, and jump to seriously erroneous conclusions about the disease. Such as, I encountered someone who knew that mito DNA is inherited from the mother, and also assumed that the bad mutation is part of the mito DNA, and therefore inferred that the disease must be inherited from the mother only. This person therefore could not understand how the disease could be autosomal recessive, which is kind of important. A single sentence in parentheses protects against this possible confusion, and does not (IMHO) make the article significantly more complicated, as readers who do not understand what it means will just ignore it.

But I'll wait and see what other editors say before adding it back; I am not looking for an edit-war.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah this is hypertechical but I think i figured out a way to add it in without (I hope) confusing the issue further. (diff) Please do not overcomplicate this. If somebody is informed enough to understand "recessive inheritance" they can click a link to learn more about the gene. But whatever. Jytdog (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your most recent version looks fine to me! Good teamwork. Fun! Thanks. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

unfortunately

• [10]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest does not just affect us

"On 13 July he stated that not only had he not visited the hospital to examine Charlie but in addition, he had not read Charlie’s contemporaneous medical records or viewed Charlie’s brain imaging or read all of the second opinions about Charlie’s condition (obtained from experts all of whom had taken the opportunity to examine him and consider his records) or even read the Judge’s decision made on 11 April. Further, GOSH was concerned to hear the Professor state, for the first time, whilst in the witness box, that he retains a financial interest in some of the NBT compounds he proposed prescribing for Charlie."[11]

WOW Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling that out. It is worth nothing that scientists in spain and italy were saying the same thing. but he appears to have pushed the hardest. I am a big fan of university scientists turning their lab work into products that benefit people, but they 'have to be really rigorous about disclosing COI every step of the way. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment

This is a vey important case. I would respectfully suggest that whilst it is clearly important from a medical viewpoint it is at least as important from jurisprudence and medical ethics points of view. It has raised a great del of controversy here in the UK and in the USA. Much of that is based on quite considerable ignorance on both sides of the pond. Although sources quoted in the article include the court material, nearly all quoted refer to newspaper articles and these show little understanding of the legal/social medico/ethical differences at the root of the controversy. The encyclopaedic role of Wiki is needed here.

I am very happy to suggest text to remedy that but am highly nervous of the important and necessary disciplines in editing a W page (Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC))

You left the following message at User talk:92.28.31.47 in this diff, for some reason

could the page show

1) the Hospital applied to the High court after the parents declined to give consent to the plan proposed by the doctors.

2) the hospital used the Court's inherent jurisdiction (parens patria), a principle that exists in UK and USA law.

3) The American Dr was invited by the Hospital to examine the child in January but had not seen the child, had not read the medical records by the time of the April Hearing when he gave evidence advocating that he treat the child.

4) that the American Dr had not seen the child, read the medical records or the earlier judgements when he later claimed to be able to provide new evidence supporting his proposed treatment. He was then asked by the judge to examine the child. After that examination he gave evidence not recommending he treat the child.

5) In the UK the child welfare/ best interests are paramount.

6) In the UK the parents rights are regarded as responsibilities to act for the best interests of the child.

All these points are supported by the references given Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

--Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

So you seem to be wanting to build an argument, and we don't do that in Wikipedia. But to respond point by point

1. this in the article already
2. unclear what the point is here - courts are where people go to work out disputes.
3. i noticed this as well (it is in one of the GOSH statements), and have thought about adding this but i have not seen this discussed by secondary sources, and in general we hesitate to pull stuff out of primary sources ourselves.
4. this appears to be a misunderstanding on your part? the "new evidence" about which GOSH filed for a new hearing, came in a letter from the Italian hospital, not from Hirano. The rest of this is in the article already
5. where are they not? again, writing this makes it appear you are building an argument
6. as above

Please do keep in mind WP:Beware of the tigers. I imagine that thoughtful analyses of the medicolegalethical issues here will be written up in a few months and we can certainly summarize those, but we don't actually build such content ourselves. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank for your response and help. I hope I can demonstrate that I am not trying to build an argument. Of course we don't do that in Wikipedia and neither should we. If ever there was a case not to be used in an argument this is it. I am no tiger.

1 you are right
2. You say "courts are where people go to work out disputes". Well, only sometimes. In the majority of cases, both in the Uk and the US, when the physician forms the view that continuing treatment would be unethical the matter is resolved by agreement between the physicians and the surrogates. When surrogates disagree with the physicians in the US the physicians tend to accede to the wishes of the surrogate.

and when, in the US, the matter goes to a court ".......... courts have almost uniformly ordered continued treatment when asked to resolve disputes between families who favor treatment and physicians who oppose it"
But this is much more so in the UK than in the US. Whilst the principle of parens patria exists in the US it is rarely used in this type of case (or at all?). See


To the extent that the courts are used in the US the tendency is to use statute. "There are statutes of this sort in the majority of states in the US (eg the Unilateral Health Care Decisions Act),[48] however, they appear to be ineffective."
These remarks are an attempt to show that there are legal, cultural and social.......unfinished.

You are making general points about how decisions in futility cases are made. Adding this kind of stuff to this article would be what we call WP:SYN. What we need, are published sources discussing those issues with regard to this case. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not realise this was going online until I read your interjection just now. I was nowhere near ready for my contribution to be published. Of course that is my fault and I apologise for wasting your time - I am insufficiently skilled in the arts of Wikipedia to continue. I will retire and leave it for the page to develop as it may. My intention was to try to introduce factual information to promote a better understanding of the way the case proceeded.

Allow me to say in respect to your response to point 3 that you should look for that as there is a mass of it out there. In respect of your response to point 4 you are wrong and you will find it easy to research that. For 5 & 6 the list would be very long.

Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This artcle discusses the difference mentioned above between UK and US approaches. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

found a different BBC source that lays the legal context out and have added content about that to the background section, in these diffs - have incorporated the BBC ref you suggested in the proposed content about politics in the section below... Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hirano content

The following was added today, as part of this diff.

This is problematic to me for a couple of reasons.

1. it is a lot of WEIGHT on Hirano, who is not that important a player
2. it is all out of chronological order and in my confuses some things.
3. as i noted it above, it is remarkable that GOSH talked about this case with Hirano in December, and invited him to come and examine the child in January...and the stuff in paragraph 10 is especially .. difficult to read. But this has not been discussed in secondary sources.

On a more minor level, style-wise are small issues with repeating refs and how the child is referred to.

According to GOSH, Hirano had previously been invited to assess Charlie Gard in January when the hospital had been considering nucleoside treatment. Hirano had also been one of the co-signatories of a letter on 6 July which asserted that nucleoside treatment was more beneficial than he had previously thought based on unpublished laboratory evidence which had prompted the case to return to the High Court.

References

- Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Am interested in folks thoughts on this... Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for my poor writing. I didn't intend to put undue weight on Hirano but I felt that currently the readers lacks context as it seems like Hirano suddenly got involved in July when in fact he had been consulted as early as January. One of the main reasons the parents had fought this case was the "promise" of the nucleoside therapy for which Hirano was the biggest proponent and he seems to be the main doctor that they consulted also and was the main reason why they withdrew their case.

The other thing unclear in the article is the reason for why the case returned to the High Court with the vague "in light of claims of new evidence", some context would be beneficial. Especially as above there is some confusion about which letter was which. I can find content but am not best at integrating so help in this regard would be welcomed. Some sources that could be useful in the future to use. Sources discussing Hirano:[[12]], [[13]]. BBC summary of the case: [[14]] Cowlibob (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree this material could be integrated better (chronologically), but I think this is useful content once reworked. It doesn't seem undue weight on Hirano given his role in the case. I concur that secondary source coverage on Jytdog's third point would be an improvement. It's a difficult one: we can use primary sources, so I'd leave it in, but I don't feel strongly either way on that. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added the stuff about the letter that we discussed above, in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Date of Charlie's death

It was mentioned on the news tonight (July 28 2017) that Chalie Gard had died, following his short life. Surely his date of death should now go in the article.Vorbee (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:ITN/RD

• I have nominated this article for inclusion on the main page in ITN following Gard's death. However, the article, despite incorporating ample biographical detail, fails to meet the rigorous criteria for Recent Deaths for one simple reason - the title means that Gard himself is not technically the subject of a Wikipedia article. A move to Charlie Gard and minor copyedits would resolve this problem. However, such a move would be a reversal of previous moves per earlier entries on the talk page here. Thus, I want to know how other editors feel about such a move before taking any such action, bold or otherwise. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is not about him; the move would not be appropriate. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

For your information though, using the Charlie Gard case redirect, he seems to have so far been accepted for inclusion in Deaths in 2017, judging by the consensus indicated on the talk page. If you are so inclined, and feel strongly enough about this, please visit and give an opinion: the consensus is a thin one, as at this time stamp. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

death age

Some folks seem to want to use the template:Death date and age template, but this is done by year and says his age was "0", which is just pointless (not to mention bad rounding). Unless somebody can figure out how to make this read out in months, there is no point in using it, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

handled here. yay. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

A "person" infobox was added today, in this diff. I have copied it here for now. This article is not about the boy but rather about the case. Am interested in folks' thoughts on this. This struck me when Doc James added the picture of the hospital to the infobox in this diff -- which was jarring. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin the discussion above was opened before you restored this and therefore before your 2nd restoration. Please engage here. Neither edit note addressed the issue that this article is not about the boy and that the image of the hospital is bizarre (it is not "Charlie Gard") - look at it! (I added the image now) Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Also the cause of death is probably wrong - it is probably asphyxiation but i have not seen a source stating that yet. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've restored the infobox, minus the image (which is now in another section), and minus the cause and place of death. As the box has been in the article for some time, please gain consensus here to remove it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin -- Read above. The infobox was added today, for the first time. There is no consensus to have it. This is the 2nd misrepresentation you have made on this issue. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If you object to the box, please open an RfC. As things stand, more people seem to want it than not. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I will not pursue this further, but I will remember it. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Charlie Gard
Part of Great Ormond Street Hospital
Born	(2016-08-04)4 August 2016 London, England
Died	(2017-07-28)28 July 2017 (aged 11 months 24 days) Great Ormond Street Hospital
Cause of death	Brain damage
Nationality	British
Parents	Chris Gard Connie Yates

I am in favour of removing the infobox. The article is not about a person and similar articles do not have person infoboxes. Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Two that I can think of offhand are Terri Schiavo case and (different issue but the same principle re: the box) Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. If there are real objections to a box, the best thing is to open an RfC. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The talking heads

There is a section above about Alasdair Seton-Marsden's involvement. As I noted there I am hesitant to open this can of worms.

Should we?

Here is some draft content to perhaps get things rolling...

The case was the subject of prominent news coverage as it unfolded and the parents used social media to campaign for support. Heated commentary on the case in the media and social media was criticized by Mr. Justice Francis in one of his opinions. The use of social media in this case represents a more general challenge for the medical profession and the field of medical ethics, as parents can use social media to amplify their views and involve the general public, but the medical team is limited in what it can say due to privacy obligations, and public opinion has no place in its decisions or procedures.

According to Melanie Phillips, a UK conservative commentator often aligned with views in the conservative media in the U.S., much of the commentary on the case in the U.S. conservative media as events were unfolding took no regard for the underlying medical issues or the UK legal context of parental responsibility, and was instead based on notions of "parental rights", and used the case in rhetoric intended to persuade the US public to accept conservative positions on the ongoing healthcare reform debate in the United States, as an example of the dangers of "socialized medicine" and of putative "death panels" in action. Parental rights rhetoric was also used by Alasdair Seton-Marsden, who acted as a spokesman for the parents until they distanced themselves from him, who for example called the child a "a prisoner of the state."

References

Again, I am very hesitant, and am OK without any of this, which is endless talking heads discussing other talking heads. I prefer the article remain focused on the actual events and people directly involved. -- Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad start, but it neglects to mention Seton-Marsden's political background, and his UKIP ties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Am trying to make it not too much about the particular people but the issues. If there were an article about him we could WL to it. Do you think he passes N?

Do you think this should go in as is?

What else does it lack or have too much of? Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Popcornduff you started to introduce the politics etc. What are your thoughts about the above? Jytdog (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links: overviews

I recently added these two links:

• A cruel and ignorant campaign by Melanie Phillips
• Charlie Gard: facts, medicine, and right-wing fictions by Charles Arthur of The Guardian

They have been removed, with edit summary claiming "Opinion pieces can't be used as overviews". This is strange, as not only is it a false claim, but both are reviews of the facts by established journalists (and by journalists for opposite ends of the political spectrum), not op ed. pieces. They should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of ELs for talking heads like this - I was one of the first reverters. I have proposed a block of content above that incorporates both of these refs as well as a mention of the original spokesman that you wanted. Would you please comment on it? thx Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What to call the child?

This had been set up where the parents were called Gard and Yates, and the child was "the child" or the like.

Earlier today, this diff series changed all that to refer to the child as "Gard" and refer to the parents otherwise.

That was contested here, changing that to "baby" or "child" or "Charlie". Referring to the child as "Charlie" is not OK per WP:MOS so I reverted.

How do folks want to refer to the child? I am OK with anything other "Charlie" Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The relevant MOS page is MOS:SAMESURNAME. Specifically:

"To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity. When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing"

This seems to indicate we should refer to the child as just "Gard", as I did in my edit, unless we decide it's too confusing, in which case it looks like "Charlie" is OK.

Either is fine with me, but I don't like substitutions like "the child", "the boy", "the baby" etc. It comes off as journalistic and becomes conspicuous. Wikipedia should be neutral and direct; use the name or, when the subject is clear, "he/him". I remove substitutions like "the singer" and "the entertainer" from articles about Michael Jackson, for example. Popcornduff (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and: as Charlie Gard (and the case around him) is the subject of the article, any references to "Gard" should reference him, not his father, who is merely one of several people involved in the case. Anything else is confusing, I think. Popcornduff (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We should use the baby's first name, as well as "the baby", "the child", etc, to avoid repetition. It would look extremely odd to call an 11-month-old baby by his surname, in addition to which Gard is the father's surname. The judge called him Charlie, [15] so we can follow suit. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep the judge did, as did a lot of the sources we cite, as did social media etc. None of those are WP or subject to MOS. I am opposed to using "Charlie". Otherwise I do not care as long as things are clear... Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't seem appropriate to refer to an 11-month old by surname. Seems we could go with full name, "the baby", "the child", or use pronoun when appropriate, or simply use "Charlie", especially if Charlie is how he's referred to in court documents.--DynaGirl (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh... none of you seem to have taken MOS:SAMESURNAME into account in your responses. I already quoted the relevant passage: can we discuss that, please? Jytdog is correct in that the judge and other sources don't follow the Wikipedia manual of style - we do.

I also see no reason why referring to a baby by his or her surname is "extremely odd"; people just keep saying that like it's obviously the case. Why? Popcornduff (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless we want to look as though we have no empathy, we use first names for young children. Examples: Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Michael Dunahee, Death of JonBenét Ramsey. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes in the case of kids there are some where we do and some where we don't. I looked through the category Category:Child deaths - people don't follow MOS consistently; WP is shot through with bad content. The recent high profile child death was Death of Alan Kurdi and there they mostly use full name (writing about families who share surnames is hard in any case). I do not think it is relevant that this case is about a baby; appearing empathetic or not, is not part of the mission of WP. That is an emotion-driven thing and there has been way too emotion about this case, and we need to steer very clear of that. The level of detail in the Ramsey article is an example of how weird people get (that one has the child beauty pageant fetishistic stuff so is a really bad example of anything) Jytdog (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Empathy, not emotion. The MoS doesn't mention young children, but even within that we would use the first name because there are two Gards in the article. First names are used for young children. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - how other articles might do things doesn't mean they're doing it correctly. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we use a formal encyclopaedic tone. I can find no guideline that says we should use first names for young children.

I would like to keep the discussion focused on actual Wikipedia guidelines, rather than throwing personal preferences back and forth with nothing to back them up. The passage I quoted above indicates we can use Gard, or "Charlie" to avoid confusion with the father. There is no need to use "the baby", "the child", etc, as we currently do, which is just dodging the issue and solves no problems of repetition. Popcornduff (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

In the interests of keeping the discussion useful, I propose we use "Charlie". This is supported by MOS:SAMESURNAME for articles that mention multiple people of the same surname (see the passage I quoted above). Additionally, two (three?) editors here have expressed a preference for "Charlie" over "Gard", though for different reasons. Is that an acceptable compromise?

If not, we'll have to default to Gard, which is the standard way of doing things per MOS:SAMESURNAME. Popcornduff (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• The Judge in this case referred to the baby as Charlie. Telegraph style guide: "Children under the age of 18 are referred to by their forenames and surnames at first mention and by their forenames later." Guardian: "Under-18s should normally be referred to by their first names." The Manual of Style doesn't discuss children's names, but MOS:SAMESURNAME does recomend first names when there is more than one person with the same surname, as there is here. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think there is grounds here for a separate discussion, elsewhere, about whether the MOS should be brought in line with this. Popcornduff (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Two of these examples are newspapers and we are not a newspaper; we avoid this kind of informality. I don't know what style constraints the judge had but reading his decisions (and thinking of the context) his decisions directly addressed the parents and dramatically affected their lives, and he clearly wrote with sensitivity in light of his power and the pain that his decisions were causing the parents. These considerations are not ours. We need to be careful here per WP:Beware of tigers - WP is not in the dispute here, we are just describing what happened, and in an encyclopedic manner. MOS does not recommend use of first names generally, but rather only in spots when there is risk of confusion. You have not argued that "Gard" is confusing. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• oppose as informal and not encyclopedic, and it is especially important on this article that we remain formal due to all the passion that was generated around this case because an infant was at the center of it. SURNAME directly advises against first names: Generally speaking, subjects should not be referred to by their given name. The use of the given name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which is not relevant – even if true. The move to use just the surname complied with the "people with the same surname" subsection, which says When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, though, it's the last part you quoted we should be debating: "unless... use of the surname alone will be confusing". Is it sufficiently confusing in this article to warrant using the first name? Popcornduff (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No it is not confusing. Your implementation of "Gard" did not cause confusion, but SlimVirgin changed most of it to "Charlie" in these 3 diffs, the middle of which says don't call him Gard. The objection is not based on causing confusion. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, I think. Popcornduff (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Generally oppose, but it's fine when the one Gard might reasonably be confused with the other. There's nothing weird about calling a kid by his surname, after his birth certificate is filled. That's what last names are for. Calling him Mr. Gard is the messed up thing to do. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, July 30, 2017 (UTC)

Though even "Charlie" is better than "the child/baby/something". Whatever we decide his name was, it should totally replace that sort of characterization/characterisation. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, July 30, 2017 (UTC)

• Support - per MOS and to be consistent with other articles on child deaths. Also, he was referred to as "Charlie" in court.--DynaGirl (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting

Jytdog's serial reverting needs to stop so that the article can develop. We now have two people in the article referred to by the surname Gard, and I have never seen a surname used for a baby on Wikipedia.

Because the article is being stymied by repeated reverting (including as I was in the middle of making a change recently), it is missing a lot of information, and contains misunderstandings and a lot of poor writing. Wikipedians are actually quite good at fashioning decent articles out of current events if the usual process is allowed to take place. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

See above about the child's name. No one has personalized the editing here yet; please don't start doing that. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No, not see above. This is about your reverting and repeated removal of information, which follows an attempt to have the article deleted. If it continues, I'm going to ask for admin assistance. Let other people work on it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't personalize this. Please discuss what to call the child above. Am very comfortable having admins review everyone's behavior here, including yours. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Am very interested to see what you find is incorrect or a misunderstanding here. Lots of people have been watching and working on this, and that would be surprising. So am interested to see that supported. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Please note WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Location of gofundme content; rename "Reactions" section?

This has been in the Reactions section for a long time. It has been moved to the "Background" section and back again a couple of times so seems worth discussing.

In my view the Reactions section is for stuff that happened outside of the medical context and outside the legal context, in the public sphere, and the gofundme belongs in that section. Perhaps that section should be called "Public sphere" or the like. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

tried it here. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't agree with this here, sorry. The main sections should cover the timeline of the entire case, not just litigation or medical background, etc - there's more to this story than just those. (Note I also renamed "Medical background" to "Background" a while ago, because why constrict ourselves?) The fact that the parents ran a very successful public crowdfunding campaign is part of the story and belongs there chronologically. Renaming the "Reactions" section to a kind of all-purpose "public stuff" section confuses matters more than it clarifies, IMO - and the crowdfunding still wouldn't belong there because the amount of money it raised for the parents' case is just as important as the fact that the public were involved. Popcornduff (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the money being raised for the 'case" - it was raised specifically to bring the boy to another facility, per the content and its sources. it was never used and it seems to be it just represents public interest in the matter. But I do hear the point about chronology. I hear that. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Popcornduff. The article needs a more chronological ordering. A lot is missing or is confusing because out of place. This was an important medical-ethics case for lots of reasons, and some of the aspects being removed or minimized were key parts. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Expression of concern

User:NPalgan2 you added content here and then restored it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Gard_case&type=revision&diff=793134310&oldid=793125840 here[, about the "expression of concern". per BRD you should have opened a discussion, but I am doing it.

As I noted in when I reverted in this diff series, the edit messed up the sourcing (you are not contesting that, which is good) but more importantly:

• this is the section on the actual litigation - what happened at court
• per the ref you provided, "Charlie Gard's parents have privately expressed their concern after discovering that the lawyer appointed to represent their 11-month-old son in court heads a charity that backs assisted dying. "

In other words, this was not part of the actual litigation and played no part in it. If their legal representative had made some motion to exclude Butler-Cole from the case, this ~might~ make sense to bring in, but they didn't do that.

We have kept this section very clean of commentary and editorializing by the parties involved - it is just presentes the facts of what happened. This would explode and become hard to follow if we add the commentary by the parties involved (and others) as this unfolded.

Does that make sense? Interested in other people's thoughts as well. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

All right, but you didn't move it to next to, say, the "The interventions of Hirano and other individuals were criticised by the High Court judge and medical experts for causing delays to the process and giving the parents false hope of a chance of recovery for their child." you removed the parents' reaction entirely, which was the main point of the article. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

My main concern is that it not clutter up the litigation section. Their feelings about the counsel for the guardian is a small thing in the big picture (we don't say how they felt about many things in this case) but you would have a better case to make putting it there... but I don't think it belongs anywhere. We are trying to be encyclopedic - to capture things on a big scale. I ~think~ your main goal was to make sure the relationship between that attorney and the organizations was noted in the article and I did not contest that. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytog, you've been asked to stop reverting. A revert is any undoing of another editor's work. I haven't been counting, but it wouldn't surprise me if you had violated 3RR more than once.

As for the issue, one of the problems with the article is the forcing of issues into these separate sections, then when you dislike something removing it as inappropriate for that section. If the sections are hindering narrative development, they should be removed or changed. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you have been asked to discuss content. As you know, with "hot" articles like this, one of the difficult things is managing the level of detail. and there has been extensive here on talk about that. Keeping the article encyclopedic is not "hindering narrative development". Please do see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't post on my talk page.

Wikipedians are surprisingly good at fashioning narratives out of current events, but your reverting has stymied the process and driven people away. The usual organic development is therefore not taking place.

You tried to have the article deleted, then you removed important details and important parts of the chronology. Now we have these section headings blocking everything, and you're taking advantage by removing things that in your view don't fit inside them. I'm therefore asking you again to stop undoing other people's edits and to allow the article to develop. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It is very clear that you are trying to put a frame in place ( I understand how you operate) but the actual history of this article is what it is and the frame falls apart; i have added a lot of content to this article. You continue to make misrepresentations, so be it. I do hope you will contribute your skills to editing and discussing content here on the talk page rather than turning this into a battleground. You are very aware of the difficulties in keeping articles that are "hot" well-focused, as you did at Hypatia transracialism controversy for example. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

No, you don't "understand how I operate". And I have no idea what you mean about trying to put a frame in place. I'm asking you to stop reverting, and if you continue I'll report you for edit warring. Here are your edits to the article. Lots are reverts of edits that were helpful. Someone adds something; it's not quite right; someone else tweaks it; someone else moves it; someone adds a heading; and so on. Things often get worse before they get better. It works well with new articles if lots of people are interested. There's no comparison to the Hypatia article, which very few cared about. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to keep running around this tree; I believe you understand exactly what I have written. I understand what you have written. We both understand the issues here. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Does anybody else have thoughts on the matter of stating the "parents expressed concern"? Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Legal aid

The legal aid issue should be explained. It's not that they simply didn't apply. They weren't eligible, even though parents with similar finances are eligible in care cases where the state is seeking an order against them, which is effectively what happened here. The judge commented on it. It's explained here.

I would normally create a section on this, but the serial reverting is such that spending time on this feels as though it would be time wasted, so I'm leaving this note instead. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion.

It appears complicated. In the Guardian source that is cited, we have

A spokeswoman for the Legal Aid Agency said: “Legal aid is rightly available for high court cases in relation to children and vulnerable adults. However, there was no application for legal aid in this case.”

and the pro bono attorney says: “You don’t automatically get legal aid in any situation other than where there are care proceedings … You don’t get legal aid in life-and-death cases like this.”

and the article goes on to say: "The exceptional case funding scheme, which was supposed to provide a safety net for urgent cases of public importance, was so strictly interpreted initially that it failed to function, convincing many lawyers that spending many hours applying to Legal Aid Agency was wasted time. "

The ref cited above talks about means testing but doesn't say how that applied to Gards and Yates. It also quotes the judge asking why they didn't get it. It doesn't actually say why they didn't get it.

It ~appears~ that the issue is that legal aid funding was a) not automatic and easy to obtain; and b) the parents may have not been able to pass the means testing (?): c) maybe (?) the lawyers determined it was not a good use of their time to apply for the exception;

So yes the current content is not the whole story, but it is also apparently not incorrect.

My druthers would be to not discuss this at all, since this is not essential to the story and the reality is not clear from the refs at hand. Especially because, as the judge noted, they were able to obtain excellent representation. (If they had bad representation, it would be worth discussing, in my view)

In my view the actual issues here are hard enough for people to understand (as much of the commentary about the commentary has noted).

recapping the editing around this -

Content about legal was introduced in this diff 22:25, 29 July 2017 and it said "denied legal aid. (it was added in front of this ref which doesn't mention legal aid.

that was changed in this diff (now with the Guardian ref added) to "did not apply for legal aid" at 17:16, 30 July 2017

which is where it has stayed until now.

So I would say take it out because a) it is peripheral since they had excellent representation; b) it is complicated; c) the sources are not clear about why they didn't apply.

I also don't think it is reasonable to say that what happened here, was the "state is seeking an order against them." This was a disagreement over the best interests of the child that was in the hospital, not something like removing a child from their house. But it was very serious for sure. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)