Talk:Charlie Gard case/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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, [1] 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 using Charlie, rather than Gard. 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, 30 July 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, 30 July 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)

• comment - I went looking for discussion of babies at the talk page of WP:NAMES (where SURNAME is) and found only one section directly discussing babies/infants/children, here. Pretty brief, no definitive outcome, and from 2006. that is about Murder of James Bulger who was 2 when he was kidnapped, tortured, and killed. That article refers to him by surname. There was very brief discussion on talk here in 2006 proposing to move to 1st name that had one rejecting response right away and a second rejecting response 3 years later. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm now, bizarrely, going to oppose my own proposition. The MOS says to use first names only when confusion is a problem. I'm persuaded by Jytdog's point that those who want to change the name don't seem to think confusion is a problem, and want to do it for other reasons.

I'd like to add that I personally don't give a shit either way; both options read well to me. If other editors want to create a discussion on the MOS about child names I'd support updating the MOS. But until the MOS changes we should stick to it. Popcornduff (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I just noticed this discussion after I changed most of the "Gards" to "baby" or "infant" and "child." Could not self-revert due to an EC. This is not a common situation and is not addressed by the MOS. Referring to an tiny baby by the last name is harsh, unnecessary, and not utilized by the sources. If someone wants to go back and revert to "Gard" it's OK with me. I can't figure out how to do so technically without screwing up the subsequent edit.Coretheapple (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"This is not a common situation"? Writing about children isn't uncommon on Wikipedia, and changing the MOS to refer to children by their first name would probably affect thousands of articles. There is clear interest in this here so I'll create an MOS discussion later, unless someone else wants to do it first.

Writing "the baby", "the child" etc is the worst option IMO, as it's indirect, which is bad writing for encyclopedias generally, and dodges the issue. Popcornduff (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well just to be clear I support Charlie or baby or child. My concern is that "Gard" reads poorly and is not a proper way to refer to a child of that age. I don't believe MOS helps us very much here. In the interim I'd not object to anyone changing all my fixes back. Like I said I attempted to do so but was edit-conflicted. Coretheapple (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Popcornduff, there's no problem with sometimes substituting a name for "the baby" or "the child", so long as it isn't overdone. Someone else said this was journalese, but it isn't if done carefully. If we focus on good writing rather than made-up rules, the article will be fine. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of a little dumpling or bundle of joy as if it were a human isn't harsh. It's just relatively plain. Plain talk seems harsh if you take it after sweet talk, but after harsh talk, it's a bit sweet. When feeding a disparate group and trying to digust as few as possible, it's best to aim for the middle of the road. Everyone has a name and pronoun, so that's the great (yet humble) equalizer in labels, whether discussing the baby, the cat, the Jew, the old lady, the hooker, the cop or the maniac. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. This is a well-trafficked article. We don't want to come across as hard, Dickensian villain types, calling tiny orphans and hospital patients by their last names, etc. If we can. Coretheapple (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If we wanted to come across as hard, we'd call him "the patient", "the doomed" or "the specimen". Next to these, "Gard" seems downright cheerful. That's how you know something's in the middle, when you can do better or worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I've created a discussion on the MOS talk page here. Interested editors, please make your voices heard. Popcornduff (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose; coming in from the MOS discussion - This is an encyclopedia, and we should retain a formal style. Sorry if being dispassionate makes some feel like we lack "empathy", but we're not here to let emotion dictate how articles are written. Resolute 14:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support using "Charlie", as that seems to be what the sources use (at least the half dozen I just randomly checked). Are there any articles at all referring to him as "Gard"? In cases where the sources overwhelmingly do something that goes against our MOS, we usually follow the sources. —Kusma (t·c) 15:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Kusma, I have seen no sources that call the baby "Gard". We would probably be the only publication in the world to do so. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: just follow MOS. We are not driven by tabloid manuals of style etc but rather by our own. If you want to move away from the formal then you need consensus via a change at MOS (and will have to explain there at what point a cut-off would apply, and what happens when the subject spans the cut-off point). - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment from member of medical team

FYI:

• Charlie Gard medic decries 'soap opera' that stoked abuse of hospital.
• It was our agonising job as Charlie Gard's care team to say: enough

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Ethics source

Forthcoming paper from Oxford (author page): Wilkinson, Dominic, et al. (2017). "The Charlie Gard Case: British and American approaches to court resolution of disputes over medical decisions", Journal of Perinatology. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That paper is available from that website and is a gold mine. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: and it supports the stuff that you and others have splendidly added. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"Spanner in the works"

Several sources have summarized the "spanner" sentence rather than quoting it in full. Several tabloid reporters, who I assume attended the hearing, do quote it, so I've used the Daily Mail as a source. According to the Mail, the sentence was: "The spanner in the works has been a parent-driven exploration of all alternatives internationally leading to a new specialist who has recommended a three month trial of nucleosides." [2] In case anyone googles this, there are a few variations; some say a "specialist from New York".

That makes more sense than the summary, so I've used it, though I normally wouldn't use a tabloid. I'll try to track down the Press Association reporting of the same hearing. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No way. Please bring that to RSN. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, do you have a COI here? Specifically have you had any close association with GOSH, the New York hospital, or associated institutes? I ask because your editing has been spectacularly disruptive, first with the AfD (despite the huge coverage), then the decimation and constant reverting. You seem not to want the page to be written.

For example, if you dislike what I've just added, you could have removed the most recent edit. But instead you removed the whole thing, including the good sources such as the judgment and NYT. [3] That is very disruptive. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I was just restoring the last good version and have done so. Please be aware that the BLP DS are at play here. I do not have a COI here. I am concerned about the advocacy in your edits. You added a link to the fund-raising website and have taken probably the most awkward thing in the hospital's conduct and amplified it, even reaching for the Daily Mail to do so. Those are both troubling edits. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what you did. You removed the whole thing. After your revert, I restored the last version you hadn't objected to. Now you've reverted again, and removed ITV and something from the judgment.

Could you answer the COI question about close associations? Your behaviour looks like some kind of reputation management, I am guessing not requested. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I restored to the last good non-tabloid version, and I answered your question already. I will repeat it - I have no association with any party in this. Please speak to your own advocacy here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that Jytdog objects to any criticism of doctors. If he is a doctor, this might amount to COI. Roberttherambler (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I really don't think this is fair to Jytdog. I believe that it got very little coverage in the serious newspapers and the responsible media in the UK because the judge went to great lengths to praise the particular doctor's empathy and compassion, and to acknowledge his embarrassment. He put the "clumsy" remarks into context. I believe the serious papers, for whom I hold no candle, respected that. Clearly papers like the Mail were bound to report it because of the picture it could hint at. I hold no candle for doctors either. Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Jacksoncowes, you have that the wrong way round. The broadsheets did cover it and appear to have got it wrong, perhaps because they were not in court; their shorter quote made the doctor's comment appear worse than it was. Why the judge did that I cannot explain. The tabloids quoted the sentence in full, and it seems less damaging to the doctor in the context of the whole sentence, assuming the quote is correct. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Sorry to be late. OK, I'm surprised. Am I a pain if I ask what broadsheets you are referring to?Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

He says he has worked in medical biotech, but on the business rather than medical side.

To go back to the "spanner quote". One of the doctors appeared to say of the baby's parents, in an email, that they were a "spanner in the works". The email was read out during a court hearing in April. The broadsheets quoted the phrase either in isolation or with a few of the words that followed it. Several tabloids, the Mail included, published the whole sentence, which made more sense: "The spanner in the works has been a parent-driven exploration of all alternatives internationally leading to a new specialist who has recommended a three month trial of nucleosides." Followed by "Recent deterioration with worsening seizures means trial is not in his best interests."

The reference to the three-month trial matters. The "spanner in the works" was the delay and perhaps trauma of the three-month trial, not the parents. I therefore used the Mail for the full quote with an invisible note in the text and this explanation on talk. I'm going to try to find a Press Association report of the hearing to replace the Mail, but in the meantime I think this is one of the rare occasions that using a tabloid is okay. They are actually pretty good at court reporting. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be considered when discussing Daily Mail articles about the case is the author of those articles. According to the current issue of Private Eye (Issue 1449, 28 July - 10 August, p6, "A Spin doctor Writes...") Anything with a byline of Alison Smith-Squire should be treated with caution due to Smith-Squire being a media agent and publicist representing the Gard family. It carries a quote from Smith-Squire stating "Yes, I am the spokesperson for the Gard family". - X201 (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that reasoning, SV. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

X201, the reporters of the article I used (diff) are Sam Greenhill [4] and Martin Robinson. [5] SarahSV ^(talk) 08:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't questioning, just putting it there for general knowledge. - X201 (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The thing about the DM version quoted above is that it is different from what the judge put in his decision: "There is an unfortunate email from Dr. B to Dr. E which included the words "parents are spanner in the works. Recent deterioration with worsening seizures means trial is not in his best interests". I can understand how distressing it must have been for the parents to read this email when they were later shown the hospital records. However, in my judgment, it is important to view this comment in its proper context." Given the latter remark, it would be very surprising for the judge to misquote so dramatically. I guess it could happen. Fwiw another tabloid the Sun, has the same quote as the DM. What is more reliable, the judge's decision or these tabloids? Is there something more reliable than either? Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The BBC report on that day [6] uses the words 'Their efforts to find treatment were described as a "spanner in the works" in an email written by a doctor.'

The Daily Mirror uses [7] 'Ms Roper said the email had included the phrase: "The spanner in the works has been a parent-driven exploration of all alternatives internationally."' Jrfw51 (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

With the BBC report it is looking like the judge got it wrong, and the NYT as well, which appears to have followed the judge. btw if we are going to go with that (and as of now the BBC is the best source for it) this should be moved up in the article, after the "On 30 December..." paragraph and before the "On 9 January 2017...". And do we deal with the conflicting authoritative sources somehow by describing them in the surface content, or dealing with version we don't use in a footnote? Going into this level of detail, this close to the event is somewhat dangerous as we are making factual claims based on fragmentary and contradictory evidence, about loaded things that are generally treated as private and kept that way. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Defnitely skip detail. Like the Madeleine McCann case, this story has been driven by emotive claims, which form much of the detail, and it is always worrisome when PR people get involved. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• When looking for the most appropriate source for what was said in court, short of having a transcript the best source is a court reporter. The BBC story above is analysis, not court reporting, unlike the Mail story. The Mail is quoting the family's barrister, who read the email out in court. The tabloids have an appetite for stories like this, and are likely to have had reporters at all the hearings. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

We can't use the Mail for anything in this article. It has been manifestly biassed. The media agent and publicist employed by the Gard family - Alison Smith-Squire - is also by-lined on stories published by the newspaper, although they do not credit the conflict of interest. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Per the existing consensus, the Daily Mail is not usable as a source anywhere on enwiki. Consider this notice that continued attempts to insert DM refs will be considered disruptive and dealt with under BLP DS (as discussed at ANI). Pinging SarahSV and Jytdog so they are both aware. GoldenRing (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

GoldenRing, no one here is going to use it (or any other source) against consensus, but just to be clear, there was no consensus for an absolute ban on the Mail, and the RfC closers apparently did not intend there to be one, although the close was worded that way. It's something that should be fixed for the future. See my post here. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail stuff is only used to give the full quote. A consensus about its use of course exists, but it can be worked around. For instance, The Sun also quotes the full sentence in email by the doctor: The spanner in the works has been a parent-driven exploration of all alternatives internationally leading to a new specialist in New York who has recommended a three-month trial of nucleosides.

SlimVirgin's point about the contents of the email are correct; the tabloids are more likely to cover the stuff in detail, because they have an interest to. The concerns about the bias of the Daily Mail due to COI are fine, but in this case, they are unfounded. I hope we can go beyond Wikipedia's silly bureaucracy and try to reflect the truth. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Sun is no more reliable than the Mail. You do realise that the British tabloids feed off each other? - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thank you. Repeatedly referering to Wikipedia processes and consensus as 'silly' (twice now) is unhelpful, as is advocating 'work-arounds.' The first demeans consensus, the latter defies it. — fortunavelut luna 13:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

No, workaround does not mean "defying" consensus, it just means "working around" the consensus. The Sun is no more reliable than The Mail. However, unlike the latter, it has no formal RfC deeming it "unreliable", so I suggested we use it so that particular RfC is rendered moot. Whether to use the quote or not depends on consensus on this talkpage; there is no need for any external referent. As for calling the RfC silly, I call many things on Wikipedia silly, because they are. You may or may not share my opinion; that is fine. I do not propose to violate the rule, just to render it irrelevant.

Now the only question remains is: did the Mail and the The Sun make up the quote from the doctor? I don't see why they would: it does not have any POV implications at all that I can see. Also, there is no source which contradicts it. In my opinion, it's reliable enough for our purposes. But I leave to other people the question of whether or not to use the full quote. I am not really interested in the matter to pursue it one way or another. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• The New York Times reported the "spanner" issue as follows: Communications between the parents and their son’s doctors had grown tense; around this time, a pediatric intensive-care specialist emailed another doctor to say that the parents had thrown a “spanner,” or wrench, “in the works.”[8]. That and the judgment are currently cited/quoted. The judgment goes into more detail, apparently. Isn't that enough? Also I think we need to translate or at least wikilink "spanner" for US readers. Coretheapple (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Break

Here are the three versions:

1. "parents are spanner in the works. Recent deterioration with worsening seizures means trial is not in his best interests." Sourced to the April High Court decision. The judgment should be a good source, but it seems the judge left out some words.
2. "The spanner in the works has been a parent-driven exploration of all alternatives internationally." Sourced to ITV News. The Daily Mirror also uses this version. [9] (To be used along with "Recent deterioration with worsening seizures means trial is not in his best interests", sourced to the court.)
3. "The spanner in the works has been a parent-driven exploration of all alternatives internationally leading to a new specialist in New York who has recommended a three-month trial of nucleosides." Sourced to The Sun. (To be used along with "Recent deterioration with worsening seizures means trial is not in his best interests", sourced to the court).

   Similar version in The Daily Mail: "The spanner in the works has been a parent-driven exploration of all alternatives internationally leading to a new specialist who has recommended a three month trial of nucleosides."

In the first version, it looks as though the doctor is insulting the parents, whereas in the fuller version it's clear that the doctor is calling the three-month trial "the spanner in the works". I wonder whether we could obtain a transcript of that portion of the hearing. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Melanie Phillips

Why are we quoting Melanie Phillips, the notorious MMR vaccine opponent and climate change denier with no medical qualifications?—S Marshall T/C 18:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

     :@S Marshal: Sorry re delete of 'American'. It was in the Article - must stay.  The other delete is not me. Phillips is not my cup of tea but this article is excellent and all the more powerful cos it comes from her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksoncowes (talk • contribs) 

It was added here and explained here. I'm not keen on it for the reasons you outline. I suppose the point was that it was surprising that she expressed that view. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC) I find myself in a strange position defending? M Phillips She is very old testament and now of the right. She attracts criticism from the left because, in addition to her views she used to be a leftish journalist for the Guardian and then moved rightwards. She is now in the Times and describes herself as a liberal who was mugged by reality. She is a highly respected journalist, clear thinker, straight talker, too B&W for me. I believe this article has won universal applause in the UK and I stress I hold no candle for MP. Jacksoncowes (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to name a commentator who isn't involved in the case, has no relevant background, isn't an academic (e.g. medical ethicist), etc, and who would normally not be used for the reasons listed above. The Pope, for example, was very different because of the notability factor and because it was accompanied by the offer of treatment, and therefore wasn't just a "talking head". But outside views shouldn't be added just because editors like or dislike them. If criticism is needed of the American comments, there are scholarly (and less contentious) sources that could be used. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:36, 5 August 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.

Initial proposal for treatment

Would the initial experimental treatment proposed by GOSH have involved Hirano/NY-P hospital or was this treatment to be provided by GOSH alone? Whizz40 (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

On 9 January 2017 notes kept by GOSH doctors recorded that the team intended to attempt the nucleoside treatment in the next few weeks. One of the doctors applied to the hospital's ethics committee for approval. A committee meeting was scheduled for 13 January, and Charlie was provisionally scheduled for a tracheostomy on 16 January.

It was to be administered out at GOSH, in consultation with Hirano, paid for by NHS. In Hospitals Position Statement and the first judgement.Jacksoncowes (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

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.

---

Proposal to fork

Let's move the legal and medical ethics content (primarily the first paragraph of the High Court section and relevant parts of the Medical Ethics section) to a new article called Best interests in the United Kingdom where they can be expanded on. There's a lot of complexity and nuance to be added, I think.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the High Court section could be a footnote, and I'd prefer the medical ethics section to be shorter for now. Medical ethicists will write peer-reviewed articles about this case, and the section can expand then. I'd support your suggestion about starting a new article about best interests. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I go with the spirit of these proposals but, there is an article Best interests and another on Wardship. Both are inadequate for the UK. Also article for Parental Responsibilities - inadequate. All these need to be corrected before these bits are removed or reduced to footnotes. Look at the Ashya King case. It is impossible to gain any understanding of why what happened happened - there is no information about the legal lacuna the hospital was in, the wrongly issued arrest warrant, the belated use of wardship, the inadequacies of wardship in the particular circumstances of that case etc. The Charlie Gard article now gives its context. When I clumsily tried in this talk page to get over the legal framework etc it was dismissed with comments like - isn't that so everywhere etc etc. All fair enough but wrong. This article now puts the event into the different legal, ethical and cultural backgrounds that exist in the country where the case was happening and the country where the bulk of the powerful uninformed criticism was coming from. It is very difficult. We are divided by our common language. Spanner. What is the US equivalent of the phrase "he put a spanner in the works"? There must be an equivalent phrase, and I bet it doesn't include the word wrench. I will now wrench myself away from this Talk page and go and have my elevenses. Converting it to spanner doesn't work Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually it does. In the U.S. we call it a "monkey wrench" getting thrown into the works.  :) Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Its a fair cop - your right I looked it up - I'm banged to rights. To be a little more serious; they "threw a spanner in the works" denotes, perhaps, a deliberate act of sabotage, whilst the parents are the spanner etc is, to my mind more like saying they are the snag. However, interesting and thanks. Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, slight change -- that should be Best interest decisions in England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have different legal frameworks that I'm really not qualified to write about.—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

These could be separate sections within a United Kingdom article, or within the Best interests article until it is large enough to be spun out. Whizz40 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Help welcome at Draft:Best interest decisions in England and Wales.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you think it could be structured as an article for the United Kingdom, with separate sections for Scotland and Northern Ireland? Where differences arise, these can be highlighted, nonetheless, I anticipate there is enough commonality, or UK-wide laws, for it to make sense to cover it in one article. Whizz40 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• I would personally be cautious about that. The law in England and Wales largely hangs off the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as amended and the Children Act 1989. I understand this law, and it's supported by excellent sources from 39 Essex Chambers, which include lots of very high quality FUTON content here which gives us access to detailed, expert analysis of the case law. The law in Scotland hangs off the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, which I have never read. If there's a 39 Essex Chambers equivalent then I don't know what it is. And when it comes to Northern Ireland I don't even know where to start. If others would like to develop articles about Scotland and Northern Ireland then I applaud that -- but I personally would not have anything to contribute.—S Marshall T/C 14:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Email between GOSH consultants

Why are we covering the contents of one email between GOSH consultants?—S Marshall T/C 21:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Because it was highlighted by the media, including BBC, New York Times, Independent; it was discussed by the judge; and it contributed to the poor relationship between the parents and hospital when they saw it in the hospital records. We don't know when they saw it, and we therefore can't judge how much the relationship had already deteriorated. The only thing that remains is to find an RS that quotes the whole sentence (as discussed at length above), rather than pulling out the contentious snippet. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay. The decision to terminate a child's life support is a very difficult and nuanced one. At the moment, more than half of the text in our section on "termination of life support" deals with this one email, and as I understand it you're proposing to increase its length. Why is it appropriate to give the email such a disproportionate amount of attention?—S Marshall T/C 23:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

No, I would reduce the length. I'd add the whole sentence or a longer fragment of it (depending on what source is most appropriate), and I'd remove the judge's comment or move it to a footnote, with a few words about how it affected the doctor-parent relationship. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

If you look at this diff, both versions of that sentence are mine. The former sourced to ITV, the latter to the Mail, for reasons I've explained above about their court reporting. The Sun agrees with the Mail. (And I stress again that I usually go around removing tabloids, not adding them.) Someone wrote that the tabloids just copy each other, but that's not true when it comes to court reporting. Experienced court reporters tend to do a good job, whether they do it for the Mail or the Times. But the ITV version would be fine too, or least better than what is currently in the article.

Ideally we should look for what the Press Association wrote, or get hold of that part of the day's transcript. Perhaps we should leave in a shorter version (the ITV version) until we've had a chance to do that. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the "tabloid" argument is a red herring. I think that if it was needful to quote the text of the email then in the circumstances, this might be one of the rare occasions when we might consider using the Daily Fail as a source; but I really don't see why we're quoting it. We could just say that the legal discovery process meant the parents had sight of an email the consultants thought was private, and they found the contents offensive. If we're going to quote sections of text in full, then I would suggest that GOSH's position statement of 13 July, paragraphs 7, 8 and 13, are more useful to the reader.—S Marshall T/C 01:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The sentence in question, or part thereof, got a lot of attention. Even the judge felt moved to comment on it, and he highlighted that one phrase. It isn't trivial detail; it isn't UNDUE (if we reduce the commentary); and there's no editorial reason to include it without telling the reader what it said. Saying the parents found it offensive raises the question "why?" in the readers' minds, and we know why, so it would be odd not to say. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I think the prominence we're giving to coverage of that email risks skewing the article towards an anti-medical point of view. I feel that we need to reduce the focus on it; but as we can't reach consensus to exclude the text, I intend to add some more from GOSH's position statements to that section.—S Marshall T/C 13:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I hope it does become possible to reach some agreement on reducing the prominence. I very much support that and would go with your suggestion that "We could just say that the legal discovery process meant the parents had sight of an email the consultants thought was private, and they found the contents offensive." We know that it was seen during discover - it seems to have been read for the first time in court on the first court day but I cant find a quote that exactly proves that. We know that it did not cause or play a part in the cause of the absence of trust of the hospital by the parents because it only came to light during discovery. The parents had declined to agree to the hospital's plans re life support, had instructed solicitors and were talking through their solicitors of taking legal action against the hospital/doctors. trust/cooperation was well and truly gone by that time. It did have publicity so cant be ignored but should be greatly reduced in prominence. Why did they find it offensive? that seems to me to speak for itself. The remark can so easily be taken to mean the hospital saw them as irritants, in the way.

I also agree that more from hospital's statement should be added and/or precise. The statement from the US hospital is in in full. GOSH were constrained by medical confidentiality until the case was in the High court when it could then release statements through the court with the approval of the court.

Your latest edit. Of course they are. Much of the material that has recently been removed dealt with that very big issue better. Removing M Phillips article was understandable but the issues she tackled - Republicans efforts to kill Obamacare, death panels, Socialised Medicine, resource rationing etc now need tackling. Jacksoncowes (talk) 14:28, 6 August 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)

Ashya King case seems the most similar case, and it doesn't have a person infobox. (Surely, we can discuss the matter and seek consensus here and should try to do so before moving to an RfC, per WP:RFC.) Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking at infobox options and we should be using Template:Infobox court case at the top of this article. My preference would be to just do that, although we could preserve the person infobox lower down the article as well. The current person infobox says so little of use that I think it's pretty pointless. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to use infoboxes here, i'm not opposed to that. It is better in some ways (at least court cases are about a dispute) although in some ways the court case infobox is as "off" as the person infobox.

The heart of this article is a disagreement between parents and the medical team about care of a very sick child. The article exists to describe that and the stuff around it. There is no infobox for that, that i know of. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just noticed this discussion. I think the infobox is not a good idea without a photo. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a fair use photo of Charlie Gard? I notice the Terri Schiavo case includes an image of Schiavo. It seems if it included an image, the inbox would be more useful. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Or perhaps the hospital photo? Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If both are available, perhaps the images could be placed side by side, using a similar layout as is used in Disappearance of Madeleine McCann article which was mentioned above.--DynaGirl (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of the hospital in case a photo of the child is not available, but yes, both can run. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

We'll only be able to host one fair-use image of the baby. The two Madeleine images are compared by sources, so that's the justification there. Bear in mind that the infobox will grow as we know more, and there's also the option of adding fields that are not in the original box. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It remains the case that the article is not about the baby, and the key facts you would want to summarise about the article in an infobox are not the things a person infobox gives you. We can of course include a photo of the baby (if one is available) outside of an infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Any field can be added to any box using the |child = parameter. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not required and in this case (sic) are not helpful. There is even doubt as to which template would apply, which rather suggests the pointlessness. When in doubt, omit. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

About the photo thing above, AFAICT no one is suggesting we use 2 NFCC images of Charlie Gard. The side by side suggestion above seems to be referring to use of both a photo of Charlie Gard and of the hospital. I don't see why we'd ever use a NFCC image of the hospital here, and none has been proposed anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You know. This Article has now been added to WikiProject Biography. That is good enough for the Infobox as far as I'm concerned. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Page Title

I propose that this page should be moved to Charlie Gard since adding 'case' is neither the correct way to reference the litigation, nor the correct way to refer to the person. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks I'm interested. I don't think it fits well as a biography and am not wild about the photo. I wouldn't get worked up one way or the other and be happy to bow to others. I don't think the medical aspect is all that notable but the difficulties created for the medics by the (publicity? social media?) is. So are the delays. The legal aspect has not yet been developed fully. I'm about to put in a rewrite of the evidence at the first hearing. The second and very important hearing has not (yet) been covered. There was a sentence that said the second hearing had been to decide death details! There were a couple of issues at the supreme court of interest not yet covered here; what is said thus far about the supreme court appeal is inaccurate. All this a long winded way of say I would see it as better named as a legal article. Or, as you suggest just Charlie Gard. Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Im going to wait and see how this progresses, since i am unsure which project it should be classified as being most relevant to. I am leaning more towards just focusing on the legal side.A Guy into Books (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have moved it to match proper legal case titling guidelines.A Guy into Books (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the title. Anyone wishing to propose a move, please open an WP:RM. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have opened a WP:RM since this is clearly in contention.A Guy into Books (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Court Sections

I have amended the first section (HighCourt) because it was not fully accurate and did not set out the interplay between wardship and the Children Act. The testimony section needs more work. At this first hearing there were some 6 Doctors - 2 from GOSH, others from elsewhere whose second opinions had been sought, and one appointed as the parent's expert witness (which needed the court's permission). All these Doctors agreed. This first hearing was meant to be a final hearing. However, what is labeled in the article as "Further litigation" was in fact a second hearing, and at least as important as the first - again the testimony needs expanding. I think the section headings of these court hearings need to have some uniformity. The sections on the appeal is inaccurate and the interplay between the UK courts and the European could do with more work. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Popcornduff What does the "where" in the ref mean?Jacksoncowes (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone had put a comment there saying "where?", presumably asking for clarification about where the scan was performed. I changed this to the proper tag, which indicates to readers and editors that information is possibly missing. In other words, I used the correct tag instead of a hidden comment. Popcornduff (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it was my ref but I will try to find out where. I'm fairly certain there is no public record of where, and fairly certain all the scans were done at GOSH. You can't get them at the COOP and no other hospital is mentioned in anything I have read. It is conceivable he went to a local hospital for that first scan and that led to his admission to GOSH.Jacksoncowes (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I am clearly wrong there. That scan was done before he went to GOSH - presumably at a local hospital, perhps Wembly but I cannot find a reference say where. Should the "where" just stay?

I have now finished Court Sections except - that is up to but not including the final High Court hearing. Whilst I have changed headings and shuffled thins about a bit I don't think I have removed anything. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksoncowes (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Historical context.

I am thinking of adding a short section to put this case into its context in time. If the case had happened at say the time of the 1989 CA, indeed perhaps only 5? years ago it would have been heard in camera - either none or scant publicity - and over very quickly. Obviously I neither supporting nor decrying that. The count's policy re openness is in fact quite recent -as is the social media.Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest that kind of context might belong better in Draft:Best interest decisions in England and Wales?—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @S Marshall: Thanks for that. I have just looked at the Draft - very interesting. I think you are ahead of me. Is it the intention that children wardship cases will be dealt with in the Court of Protection? Surely not.
    

Back to Charlie Gard, I was simply thinking that the Ethics section is likely to show arguments from the utilitarian ethicists will highlight delay taken by the court process - ("some 4 months on life support whilst he might just as well been having the parent chosen treatment") I paraphrase badly. The delay was counter to the no delay principle and that delay sprang largely from the (very?) recent Family Division practice direction/s about openness but was necessary for justice etc.Jacksoncowes (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• The Court of Protection would be involved with applications for deputyship for a child ---- if they had severe impairment that was going to continue into their adult life, for example. So yes, they have some jurisdiction over best interest decisions even for a non-adult. (MCA 2005, §18 (3)).—S Marshall T/C 09:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• While we're talking about context, you may find this case interesting?—S Marshall T/C 11:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved - additional rationale: consensus appears to be against the move on two grounds: sources and common name DrStrauss talk 11:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Charlie Gard case → Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates and Gard – This entire page is primarily focused on the litigation, therefore the page title should reflect the litigation, 'case' does not indicate anything useful and is the incorrect way to title a page. A Guy into Books (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the name change proposed. The medical (and the ethics)stuff is important and vital to an understanding of the case and I did not intend to imply otherwise in my comment above. Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: would have to agree that the opening section currently makes no distinction between a "medical case" and a "legal case". Not sure if this is deliberate. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose -Charlie Gard case is supported by the bulk of reliable sources referenced in the article. Title should reflect the sources. For example: [10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]. Also, the current title is consistent with the titles of similar articles such as: Ashya King case, Joseph Maraachli case, Terri Schiavo case, etc --DynaGirl (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Just because other articles may also be ambiguously named, does not make it right, nor does it influence my opinion, which is that this article should be about the case, or the person, not some mis-mash of the two. While the sources noted are reliable, they are written for sensational impact and don't use the correct wording either. (the academia.edu source is american and refers to the 'case' in the medical sense whilst also making comparative legal arguments.). The comparisons you draw to other articles are to other confused situations. It may be that this article could be spilt in two if Charlie Gard is notable in himself. It should be noted that an equal number of sources (even from the same organisations) can be found which do not use 'Charlie Gard case' as the reference. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A page move shouldn't be used to change the topic of the article, seems the topic and the scope of the article should be determined by the reliable sources. Also, I strongly disagree that the The British Medical Journal and The Journal of the American Medical Association are "written for sensational impact". These are serious medical journals. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, you'd rule out just renaming this article simply "Charlie Gard", as it's unclear that he was "notable in his own right"? I must admit I have difficulty separating out just him from the controversy that surrounded him, over the course of his very short life. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Yes, if there is to be a "Charlie Gard" article it should be built separately to this one, I suppose an AfC discussion could clarify whether it is a good idea. At the moment my main issue is that this artcile is trying to be a biography and about the legal case all at the same time. A Guy into Books (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: There are enough reliable sources to split this into three topics if you wanted (person - medical case - legal battle). To clarify, I was accusing the BBC and the Guardian of being "written for sensational impact" not the medical sources. I am not a medical doctor nor do I know any so i cant comment on the value of this event as a 'medical case' but that should not be the focus of this article. Perhaps it should be included in Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome under a controversy section or something, rather than taking over this article, which I still maintain is chiefly about the litigation, context of, and arguments used within. A Guy into Books (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks: The reliable sources don't cover this as three separate topics, but rather one topic, and the best title for this topic seems to be The Charlie Gard case. If you split this into 3 separate articles (one on Charlie Gard, one on his medical condition and one limited to the court case) seems you'd be doing a disservice to the readers and not following the sources.--DynaGirl (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: I can understand your opinion. However I disagree that all the sources cover this as a single topic. My argument is that none of the sources cover Charlie Gard as a person only (which is understandable due to his age). Some of the sources (notably The British Medical Journal and The Journal of the American Medical Association) cover Charlie Gard as a medical topic, focusing on the condition, treatment, delays and affect therof. Other sources cover Charlie Gard as a legal issue, focusing on the litigation, and the human rights and legal issues, referring to medical issues in a evidence based way. Then other sources mix the entire issue but could be equally used for all three topics. I don't deny that splitting the article is a bad idea, i simply think that the legal issues should be the topic, with medical issues as a subsidiary issue which could also be incorporated into another article. A Guy into Books (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually the BMJ and JAMA sources cover the medical, legal, social media, and bioethical issues of the case. These are medical sources but they are not solely focused on medical issues here. This case involves multiple issues. I don't think trying to limit the scope of the article to strictly the court proceedings is appropriate given the bulk of the sources. I don't think limiting the article (or splitting this into multiple articles) would benefit the readers. --DynaGirl (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that it is too soon to consider splitting and probably too soon to rename. To my mind the major issues are the controversy, the different reasons for that controversy in the UK and in the US, and the way those publicly expressed views here and there affected the way the case progressed. This will become clearer when the medico-ethics, the different ethicists opinions are set out. At the moment the current title says it all on both sides of the Atlantic, in the sense that everyone knows and has an opinion about the Charlie Gard case.Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I still don't think the title is correct. Nevertheless Jacksoncowes's point regarding the medico-ethics is important, as they may become the most relevant issue in time. regarding what DynaGirl said about not limiting the article is concerned, probably an issue, i can see the potential for this article to spin off into two separate issues later down the line. right now i agree it is too soon to rename it into any one topic. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is about the medical ethics as well as the lawsuit, and high-quality sources refer to the "Charlie Gard case" (e.g. BMJ, Washington Post). Also see Terri Schiavo case, Sun Hudson case, Joseph Maraachli case, Jahi McMath case, Spiro Nikolouzos case, Aruna Shanbaug case. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Really surprised that such a controversial change was executed without discussion. Using the formal legal title, known to only devotees of the subject, flies in the face of WP:COMMONNAME and would make this article unnecessarily hard to find for casual readers. Also as has been pointed out, this article is about far more than just the legal case. Coretheapple (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I do agree. More concerned about it being a biography (but not sure why) perhaps the photo. Jacksoncowes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksoncowes (talk • contribs) 13:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think maybe it's the opening sentence more than the photo that needs tweaked to make clear this isn't a biography. Specifically, seems the opening sentence should say Charlie Gard case instead of opening with his name and date of birth. Following the example of the Terri Schiavo case, I think the opening sentence should probably be tweaked to something like The Charlie Gard case was a best interests case in 2017 involving Charles Matthew William Gard (4 August 2016 – 28 July 2017), an infant boy from Bedfont, London, born with mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS)....--DynaGirl (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That would help. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. The concentration in British child protective legislation of Parental Responsibilities not parental rights. Your phrase @DynaGirl points at that. Many thanks. Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I also agree. A very good suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a good idea and would deal with a lot of the confusion regarding biography/case issues. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: I should probably point out the original move was done per WP:LAWMOS as a Topic-specific naming convention for article titles based on legal cases. The legal element presumed to be the most important element of the article (which still needs rewriting to make it clearer that there are issues not connected to the litigation involved). I won't go into detail but I still can't see how WP:COMMONNAME can be used to support the existing title directly. A Guy into Books (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand the rationale, I was just troubled by the process, as I note that it took an admin to reverse the move. Anyway, no biggie. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aguyintobooks: I agree with much of what you say. You were WP:BOLD - fine by me. The discussion that it led to was helpful. To be as clear as I can be (sadly perhaps not very clear) I think it is a little too early yet for either a name change or for considering splits but I feel sure that will need to be looked at again. I do think the legal aspects are important because that is the framework against which it all happened but I do not think it is either the most important or the most interesting aspect. The political/cultural/social aspects, driven in my view by an almost complete ignorance of the legal framework, are quite the most important and the most interesting; e.g Hirano's offer to the parents during the process of the legal hearing was, by American norms, pretty straightforward. If the parents want it and came pay for it why not? "That is what we do." From a British point of view it was outrageous - he hadn't examined the child, hadn't read the contemporaneous medical notes or even the first judgement. "We just don't do that." I do agree with you when you say "which still needs rewriting to make it clearer .... etc. and I think your phrase covers a great deal. I think, but am not sure, that these aspects will be brought out in describing the lead up to the July High Court hearing and then in the medico ethical stuff. I am yet unclear just where - in what order they will go but will do the last of the legal stuff and will of course welcome comments.Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Yes that's understandable, i was not even aware of the requested move process beforehand, so probably caused unneeded problems there. @Jacksoncowes: I am actually in agreement with you on this, it does seem too soon to rename or split, at least while the topic is still a current event. A Guy into Books (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• I executed Dynagirl's very good suggestion. The infobox also needs to be changed. Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the infobox seems mostly ok, but maybe it would help to add "Charlie" and a brief description of the photo, similar to the infobox for Terri Schiavo case. --DynaGirl (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, evidently there is no "case" infobox. However, sometimes in articles I have seen double infoboxes, so one could be added for the legal case I imagine. Coretheapple (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as per everyone else. However, I also oppose writing the article as if it is about the person rather than the case. If there's an infobox, it should be a legal case infobox. We can't sneakily turn this into a Charlie Gard article when Wikipedia policy is clearly against such an article. Bondegezou (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Medical Ethics: The section mentioning the comparison of medical ethics in the US and UK goes on to discuss medical ethics in the US, but fails to follow through on making a comparison to medical ethics in the UK.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed sentence from lede

[16] I was looking this over from a different debate and that sentence in the lded stuck out like a coatracking sore thumb given what else the lede offers, and found that there is no mention of the stance in the body, nor seems supported by the two sources that follow the WAPost quote. As such, failing WP:V, I removed it. I am not watching this article, just putting down a concern; if this can be sourced, then it needs to be put and discussed in the body first, and determined if it is actually within UNDUE. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem is "right wing." That's a red flag pejorative. I think what it's summarizing might have dropped out along the way. Skimming Google I find https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/07/24/charlie-gards-case-is-tragic-but-its-not-a-warning-about-public-health-care/?utm_term=.43ed8a1cf760http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/07/05/the_right_is_turning_the_charlie_gard_tragedy_into_a_case_against_single.html and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/3/charlie-gard-makes-trump-case-speedy-obamacare-rep/ There is more if you google "charie gard us healthcare debate" Coretheapple (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I inserted a sentence which should work I think. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Just read them, very germane. Thanks. See my remarks above re the lede problems. I wonder if you agree re the removal of the article?

I think there should be a whole lot less 'opinion' and 'interpretation' and that it should be more 'fenced off' from the main facts of the case, therefore I'm not going to over-defend the removed text. However, here is a UK source criticising US right wing involvement and a US response to that criticism. The first source was, I believe, published in The Times but is £££ there.

That the case was a political football among some in the US right is pretty clear, whether, where and how we should report that is less so. Pincrete (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sections 3

I hope to be able to tackle the 3 section 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 and I genuinely hope others will too. I have been reading and marshalling references and am finding the topic, particularly the ethics turgid and hard going. @Pincrete: Your comment "what?|reason=in the media perhaps, not in court". Again, this is not a section I wrote and I do believe it is badly in need of a rewrite. Actually that was in court and later became part of the parent's Appeal. The relevance of all the US stuff is that it drove this case in the direction it went, and did great damage in doing so. The is a lot of talk in the US references about the law there being the same as here. There is some justification for that claim but only some - it is not a wholly accurate claim. The US is not a signatory to the UN Declaration - not all state law adheres to the best interests. The UK law on best interest is stronger then the UN Dec. Some of the manny reasons I say these sections need a rewrite. Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason for my what tag was that the text implied that during the court hearing itself comparisons were made between US and UK. The refs I could see didn't support that or make it clear in what sense. Perhaps that did happen in some way in court, but if so it's bizarre. Imagine the response in a US court if one side spent a lot of time arguing how things were done in some other country.

There seem to me to be several distinct strands to this case, one is medical, one is the legal process of arguing expert medical testimony and clarifying where/why legal responsibility lay. The third is the media storm - much of which IMO - was unbelievably ill-informed, especially in the US, where the case also became partly a 'pro-life' and partly a vehicle for 'anti-state-health-care' arguments. Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Absolutely! It was exactly that feature of this case that grabbed me - particularly just how remarkably ill-informed the comments were and how insulting and damaging they were. In one of the very excellent American articles (currently ref 1) he says "the story of Charlie Gard is a window into several of the deep and fundamental debates that are roiling the governance of health care delivery both domestically and abroad." The word roiling was new to me but now I know it I can say Dr Truog hit the nail on the head. The timing of the Appeal Court and European Court rulings came just as Trump was trying to deal with Obamacare and the case got used and abused. That linkage needs to be shown in this article if it is to give any real understanding of why what happened happened. See [17]. I understand why this was knocked out but I still think that was a pity. I suspect its removal also led to the lede problem. How do I give a link on this page to a piece I am writing on say my sandbox? I am concerned about getting the weight right and wand to show it here first. I not yet ready! Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I had already read the M Phillips, and a 'tasty' US response to her. How I personally react to this 'media circus' is that much of it was IMO, staggeringly misinformed, medically and legally illiterate and morally repellant in the way that it felt entitled to pontificate about a very sensitive case in another jurisdiction, solely for domestic political advantage. It is a very rare day indeed that M Phillips and I agree on anything, here I think she is largely spot-on.

Having got that "off my chest", the proper solution IMO on WP is not mainly to try to redress the balance of 'interpretation', but rather to seperate that strand from 'facts'. The medical history of the disease and this case, the legal arguments and legal process, should, as far as possible, be presented clearly and neutrally seperate from and before 'opinion'.

At times reading the article for the first time a few days ago, I thought I was reading US-opedia, specifically, framing text about the UK in terms of the US. Of course it is right to 'explain' UK institutions etc to a non-UK audience, however we don't define the US presidency by recording how he fails to reach the standards of the Glorious British Queen. The article is called the "Charlie Gard case", it isn't called "How politicians and the media reacted to the Charlie Gard case" and even less "US response to the Charlie Gard case". Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Glad its off. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Second - High Court

The (second) section labelled 'High Court', barely mentions the UK High Court, nor indeed anything that happened in the UK at all. Pincrete (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Thanks for you comment. I'm not sure I understand so bear with me a bit. There is no section headed "Appeals - High Court" The second section headed 'High Court' is to cover the second full hearing of the case that, of course, took place in the High Court again. The beginning of that section is to describe the circumstances and pressures that led up to the second hearing. That is covered under the heading 'Second full and final hearing'. I labeled the headings to give some uniformity. I couldn't think of a way of heading the 2nd bit of the High Court other than 'High Court again' or 'High Court 2' or the like, and I didn't like. Just to be clear in case it is not - It didn't go back by way of appeal, it went back to the court of first instance, and to the same judge seized of the case, on the claim that there was new evidence. He heard the evidence, rejected it and confirmed his April Declarations. If I have missed your point forgive me. Jacksoncowes (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the Mail ref you deleted. That particular bit was put in by someone else. It is unclear to me whether GOSH had one or more letters. However, the Mail, I repeat not mine, contains a photocopy of the important letter from the Rome hospital, the letter that triggered the second hearing. It is the only reference that does and in that way is shows the exect wording of the letter. On that basis I think it should stay. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Jacksoncowes, yes I'm sorry, it is the second 'High Court' section. There are three intro paras in which anything happening in the UK appears to be secondary. If Mike Pence wants to score (ill informed) domestic political points from this case, what does that have to do with the UK High court? Were his comments offered in evidence? Was Trump's offer made to the High court, perhaps he was offering to appoint judges for us? The irrelevance of most of those three section-intro paras is borderline insulting.

Insulting to whom? All that was part of the pressure that led to the second court hearing. Did I miss your point or did you misunderstand how the case progressed? I note the change of heading. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Whether there was good reason for the (primary source) 'Mail' ref, I leave to others to judge, but the text it was attached to was not accurate, neutral or necessary. What the Gdn actually said was "The clinicians and researchers say in their letter, sent from the Vatican children’s hospital in Rome, that unpublished data suggests ...". How expert these clinicians were and whether they were fully appraised of all relevant info, was, precisely what a second hearing was called to establish. Pincrete (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You are right, that text was not accurate for the source and right to remove it. You are not right about what the second hearing was called precisely to establish. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• i changed the title to "Second High Court proceeding" to avoid confusion. We need either that or some other title. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Having calmed down a bit (!!!), I think the majority of the 'proceedings' elucidates an extremely complex story comprehensively, calmly and clearly, well done. At this point however, (2nd hearing, 'intro' paras), the 'media circus' (Trump, Pence, Pope F) distracts IMO. Although chronologically this may be correct, I wonder whether thematically their presence is a distraction at this point? Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: Thank you for your comments - most appreciated. I had just copied that section to work on it when I saw your edits. My plan was/is to add it to the stuff currently under the heading Termination of life support proposed, and to alter that heading to something like Public Reaction or Publicity. I think we are in accord. I am keen to get across that the American clamour hotted up after the Pope and Trump, was linked to the kill Obamacare campaign and, at least in part led to the second hearing. I put the stuff in as a preface to the 2nd hearing because IMO it is almost impossible for anyone not familiar with these type of proceedings, and I am primarily thinking of people in the US, to understand why it went back to court. So, I don't think they are a distraction, I think they are vital but not yet in the right place.

Your last edit changed guardian to legal guardian. Beware, they are not the same thing. Regards, Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Would it work to say something very simple at this point, such as 'partly as a result of international interest in the case (see below) the GOSH team took the matter back to court for these reasons on this date". I would be wary of throwing medical fact and media frenzy into 'a blender'. It might be viable to have distinct US/UK reactions sections LATER.

I realised that gdn/legal gdn were subtly different in this instance, trouble was that gdn on its own ALSO implies legal gdn, aside from the echoes of the UK newspaper. If I replace with 'court appointed gdn', is that clearer? Pincrete (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

International experts ??

I have amended the sentence in the lead which refers to the 'letter writers' as 'International experts'. IMO this is not neutral or wholly accurate. We refer to the 'GOSH team' simply as that, although they include some of the world authorities on this disease. 'GOSH team' or 'GOSH doctors' is simple, and factual, 'international experts' however implies that they possess expertise beyond that of the GOSH team. The reverse is probably true, Robert Winston said "interferences from the Vatican and from Donald Trump" were "extremely unhelpful and very cruel". Lord Winston added: "This child has been dealt with at a hospital which has huge expertise in mitochondrial disease and is being offered a break in a hospital that has never published anything on this disease, as far as I'm aware." I've replaced 'experts' with 'practitioners' though I would be happy if any other neutral term were used to describe the 'letter writers'. I don't think it should be implied that they had any info or expertise which GOSH lacked, especially on first use.

It is also not clear that any meaningful 'new evidence' actually existed, merely that the writers and Hirano claimed it did. Pincrete (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

And in court?

This change, how and why and what was concluded when comparisons were made between US/UK ethics in the court? The text of the section does not say, nor why such was significant at all. I agree that US media were asking themselves why/how things might be different, I don't see much evidence that UK media were to the same extent. This looks an awful lot to me to be like implying that UK courts were asking themselves if US ways were better, which is something I doubt strongly except in the most superficial of senses.

Of course local media will describe things in local terms to their own audience, that isn't the same thing. Pincrete (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

See footnote 4 page 3, in which the Brit court did make reference to ability to pay being a factor in the US.[18]. Wording can still be tweaked. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I would say that this reply is somewhat different to the implication of present text (ie this is a specific ref in court rather than a general discussion over differences). I also wonder what purpose present text serves as an intro to the section - to introduce an idea (comparison), but not explore it. Pincrete (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Would it work to amend "During the court proceedings the ethical approaches to experimental treatment in the US and UK were compared in the media and in court" to something like "As a result of the case/ in response to the case, the ethical approaches to experimental treatment in the US and UK were compared". What concerns about present text is the implication that the UK spent any significant time discussing whether it should adopt a US approach. Alternative is to expound on what was said in court. Pincrete (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

As ever, thanks to both. I will shortly put in a rewrite of the Medical Ethics section that is long. Your comment "I also wonder what purpose present text serves as an intro to the section - to introduce an idea (comparison), but not explore it." I do agree that at the moment the "and in court" does just hang there and I hope its relevance will be clearer.

I think it was raised in the court hearing as a criticism of Hirano's evidence, and later by the judge to precede his remarks that he would make his judgement on the evidence and not on ill-informed tweets, public comment etc. The bit I am about to add will include an opinion by an ethicist that the American courts' "rights of parents approach" is unreasonable and therefore unethical and, perhaps in the Political and public policy section, that that approach it is not following the law.

Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I have just changed the paragraph number in the ref. The cultural differences were raised by the GOSH expert (Prof A?) when telling of her discussions in Jan with Hirano "in her view, there was a cultural difference in philosophy between treatment in the United States and in the United Kingdom. She said that she tried to have the child at the centre of her actions and thoughts whereas in the United States, provided there is funding, they will try anything.". This criticism(?) by her was then raised in the CofA in a (failed) attempt to say the judge was unduly influenced by that. Jacksoncowes (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ouch!Pincrete (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: don't understand Ouch - your question was welcomed, it helps me to get my muddled mind in order. Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Would it help to say "...and in court testimony"? We don't want to imply that the judges made that comparison, or to imply that it was a major element of the case in any way. We may just want to exclude the reference to the court entirely if it leaves that impression per WP:WEIGHT, or rephrase in some other manner. Coretheapple (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ouch referred to "Prof A"'s comment, not in the least a criticism of your work.Pincrete (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Coretheapple, took it out.

Put in the first bit of rewrite. Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Do we actually need this level of obsession with the "American" angle in way that has little bearing on the actual case? Since this is primarily a UK issue, whatever the US media were saying amongst themselves has virtually zero relevance. Wikipedia is certainly not the place for people to construct what they think the case should have been about from a non-UK perspective. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is a British case but it was heavily heavily influenced by the American commentary throughout its progress. I do not agree with you that the US commentary had virtually zero relevance. Some would say the case was almost derailed by that commentary. Sadly, there was little unusual about this case except the powerful influential American comentary. CAFACSS reported 18 parent-doctor disputes last yeas - neither you nor I (I guess) know anything about those cases. Why not? Those cases were conducted without the American commentary that caused this case to drag on interminably to the clear deficit to the child's welfare. That needs to be shown and to be understood. The question "who should decide?", and the very different British and American answers, go to the nub of it. To the Americans, almost to the entire nation, what the Brits were doing was anathema. In the UK (& the US), women and children were, until about 1860 were the property of the man. There has here been some progress away from that position of chattel-hood of children and the (1989) U N Convention and the UK 1989 CA are a mark of that. That progress did not happen there. Interestingly, the American medical profession has been the group in the US most likely to express publicly an understanding of the UK position. "Well they would wouldn't they". The American approach causes their doctors to do what they believe to be unethical. This case, following the Asha King case are the first cases of this kind where the international effect of social media comment dramatically alters their progress and the CAFCASS figure indicates they won't be the last.

That the American commentary influenced the case is fact. What one thinks of the "American angle" is a point of view. Not to mention it is an expression of a point of view also, and is therefore wrong. I believe that an encyclopaedia article should put those very different answers to the question "Who should decide?" alongside each other to show them for what they are. Jacksoncowes (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Jacksoncowes, your remarks HERE sometimes go off-topic, I don't think you are doing so in your editing of the article. I basically agree that if we have to have the 'media angle' then it needs to be given context. My own private bit of WP:OR, which of course should not go into the article, but which occurred to me when I first read all the media comments (mainly but not exclusively from the US), was to ask whether all the commentators would still uphold the 'parents should always make the decision' principle, would still think that if the treatment proposed was a faith healer in Haiti or somesuch. I actually knew two parents from Ireland who sought to take their child to an alternative healer, GOSH sought to do a traditional treatment which GOSH acknowledged was dangerous, but likely to cure. The parents 'kidnapped' the baby from hospital, took it to their 'healer' outside the UK and it died a few weeks later. The ethics of these situations are not always easy. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

How exactly was the case "heavily influenced by the American commentary throughout its progress"? British courts do not bow to the whims of the American media. Your suggestion that "we" would not have heard about this case in the absence of "powerful influential American commentary" is demonstrably utter nonsense, given that the UK media were reporting on it months before anyone west of Cornwall was even aware of it. You can claim all you want that "the American commentary influenced the case," but that doesn't make it so. American public interest being whipped up by its own media does not equate to "influence." The odd quote is acceptable, but we do not need reams of text outlining the legal or ethical situation in a completely different and utterly non-relevant jurisdiction. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Both you, Nick Cooper and Pincrete make some fair criticisms of my poorly written Talk page entry. You are both right to show that the critical commentary came from both the UK and the US and I wrongly left out the UK commentary in my reply to you. I stand by my point that the commentary influenced the progress of the case. I know of no other wardship case that progressed in the way this one did and I don't think you will be able to show me one. I know of no other wardship case with this level of public commentary - do you? Your original point was "Do we actually need this level of obsession with the "American" angle in way that has little bearing on the actual case?" Which bits are obsessional? Which bits do you think should be in - and/or out? Point me to the reams of text outlining the legal or ethical situation in a completely different and utterly non-relevant jurisdiction. The majority of ethicists quoted are UK based. What is different about this case from the 18 cases last year? If you really believe that what you have described as the American angle is of zero relevance then you see it so differently to me.

@Pincrete: Your "bit of WP:OR" is heart rending and I see exactly the relevance of it. I take your point! Thanks.

Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Vatican Statement

@Pincrete: The statement is clearly in support of the courts' decisions and was heavily criticised in the American press for being so. Jacksoncowes (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a beginner compared to you on knowledge of this case, sometimes I'm just 'reacting to text', in the hope that it helps, if it doesn't, ignore it. Pincrete (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)== Hospital's statutory duty ==

@Bondegezou: Either you are wrong or I am. I hope it won't rile you when I say I think you are wrong. The Hospital had a legal duty to safeguard welfare - a referenced fact. They took it to court - a referenced fact. Any SYNTH yet? The steps they took satisfied their statuatory duty OR ? Paris is the capital of France. Why didn't you start on Talk? One of us is wrong - it'll be sorted. Its not a very important entry. Its relevance is within the Ethicists' discussion with some saying it would have better had he been given treatment early.Jacksoncowes (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edit here and previous edits only reference materials pre-dating the Gard case. You are, thus, injecting your own interpretation of the law in saying that the legal duty in question applied here. That is not allowed under WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. For the material to be included, you need a citation (or more than one) explicitly referencing this case. Bondegezou (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think I see your point under WP:OR (not under WP:Synth). With my first 2 attempts - by saying "they would have been in dereliction....." is OR. Of course I couldn't reference that because they weren't in dereliction - they took steps. Saying, as I do, to quote you above "that the legal duty in question applied here" is not, it seems to me, OR. That legal duty applies, it simply applies. It applies all the time - in all circumstances. It doesn't just apply to some child patients and not to others. The statutes do not say what steps, if any, the hospital must take. It says it must safeguard the welfare of children in its care. It must consider the welfare and, if it considers it necessary, take steps. That not my interpretation of the law. It clear in the law and clear in the guidance to the law. I referenced that.

Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The question remains whether this is relevant in this case. You presumably put this paragraph in to inform something about the case. What point are you trying to make? Because as soon as you apply the general principle to this case, you'll need a citation. Bondegezou (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

If that is an acknowledgement that it is neither WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH please be kind enough to say so. Are you still maintaining that the two sentences below breach WP:OR/WP:SYNTH?

Uk law requires hospitals to safeguard the welfare of children in its care. When, in January, GOSH knew that the parents were not in agreement with Charlie's doctors and had started a campaign to raise funds to enable them to remove Charlie from the hospital it took steps to safeguard Charlie's welfare, in compliance with its statutory duty.

The first sentence referenced with the law and the guidance to the law; the second sentence referenced with evidence that it made application for Sec 8 orders.

If you are please say which and address the points I made above. Your last sentence "Because as soon as you apply the general principle to this case, you'll need a citation." suggests you are hedging your bets. I am not talking about a general principle, I am citing a hard statutory requirement. I gave you a pointer to its relevance in my first reply to you and am happy to expand that if we are past the WP points. Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "it took steps to safeguard Charlie's welfare, in compliance with its statutory duty" requires a citation showing that that was the hospital's reasoning. Otherwise, it's WP:OR. That seems fairly straightforward to me. Bondegezou (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh it's straightforward alright. Too straightforward? I ref its against law to rob bank - I ref that man walks past bank and doesn't rob it. I say or imply he didn't rob it becausec it was illegal to do so. Straightforward OR/SYNTH. To say that a corporate body that took actions that complied with its statutory duty needs a ref to show it did so because it had a statutory duty; that it intended to comply with its statutory duty, takes the notion of what was in its mind too far. It may well have had a long list of reasons, however, it complied. Your straightforward view, with respect, over legalises the issue, and I think this is covered in the WP. This issue is not important just now. I respect your view and will alert you if I need to insert this phrase. Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Lede

Apropos your last edit of the Article under the rationale "The lede was longer than recommended for articles, so I've tired to trim some of the detail from it." Your first four deletions removed a few superfluous words from a 544 word lede. Good. Your fifth removed just another eleven. Not at all superfluous. They were important and well supported. I don't think you should have removed them - that's not trimming that is a significant alteration. I think you should revert that bit and bring it to the Talk page. If you have some as yet undeclared reason for its removal perhaps you could share it. In my view trimming doesn't cut the mustard. Jacksoncowes (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I've split this into its own section: hope that's OK. WP:LEDE has recommendations. The current lede is rather long for an article, so it could do with cutting down. I have no strong views of how best to do that.

By the fifth edit, do you mean the sentence about the case being discussed in the context of US health care reform? That seemed somewhat tangential to the issues -- as the article says, the Gard case wasn't actually anything to do with the UK having a public-funded health service -- but then I'm in the UK, so maybe I'm underestimating how big a thing it was in the US. Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bondegezou:Yes, the article says the Gard case wasn't actually anything to do with the UK having a public-funded health service, but so so many press reports on both sides of the pond said it was and used that to support the then current campaign to remove Obamacare. Yes, I think you are underestimating how big a thing it was in the US, and here. (I'm in the UK. We read different things? Ive never heard of King Crimson. Evidence of lack importance or of my narrowness of - crumbs, a whole host of things. I can't bear this - must look it up.) Regards, Jacksoncowes (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I have just realised this was covered under "Removed sentence from lede" above and I still think you should re instate it. Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

BarrelProof Last edit.

@BarrelProof: Please explain your last edit. What is not contained in which ref?

Jacksoncowes (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Photo of parents meeting Pence on 15 Dec 2017

This photo has been put within text that is about events several months earlier than the meeting depicted in the photo and has nothing to do with the accompanying text. It relates to events long after the case was concluded. If it has a place in the article it is in a new section covering the aftermath of the case.Jacksoncowes (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering its the only photo of Charlie Gard's parents we have, I think it should be included. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@70.44.154.16: It is a photo that says a lot but was, I think, confusing where it was. It is much more that just a photo of the parents; I think Pence (and you?) know that. I am going to try to organise the stuff under the heading Impact and legacy a bit better. I will try to use the photo in that section. But, I am firmly of the view that it shouldn't go where you put it and that it will need some text relating to the parents' recent visit to the White House and the controversy surrounding it. I am not at all sure of its relevance. Jacksoncowes (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no controversy surrounding their trip to the White House minus a few sensationalist headlines, if you're trying to imply I'm attempting to boost Pence's image with the photo that is not the case. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I wasn't trying to imply that. Pence's tweet carried a message - whether it boosted him or diminished him requires a point of view and I have no knowledge of or interest in your point of view. The tweets responding to Pence's tweet show the message and the controversy surrounding the message. Jacksoncowes (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I hardly think tweets can be a good estimation of the controversy surrounding something especially if its a political figure's twitter account to the notability of Pence's when anybody under the sun can comment. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm in two minds as to whether a photo of the parents is useful or necessary. On the one hand thay became 'public figures' and were widely shown in news around the world, on the other hand thay have returned to 'private life' and WP is permanent in a way that news is not. I don't have a clear conviction either way, but think that we should be sensitive to the 'privacy' considerations. Pincrete (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)