Stigmatising death means family doesnt talk about their wishes in case of trauma/brain damage so poor communication when such an instance does happen. (Rachel Clarke teaches us that we need to speak to our family about death i.e. we need to destigmatise this convo)

Christian Legal Centre antagonised the hospital and since it has a religious background it could reduce the trust the evangelical christians have on the NHS

The way Rachel clarke explained what happened was different to the other news sources, she included her emotions in as well, explaining how the team in Barts trust were devastated, too.

The article is explaining how online media coverage can have its own advantages and disadvantages.

Rachel Clarke is providing a different perspective than what the media has already offered to share

They might feel like the doctors didnt communicate with the family effectively which lead to this escalation.

Doctors would agree that taking out life support was the right thing to do. MRI scan showed his brain stem was necrotic (no blood flow) and was coning (pushed into spinal cord)

Rachel Clarke doesnt take a side but she empathises with the healthcare team and archie's parents. She is a palliative care doctor so she knows what its like to lose a very close person/patient because the grief lives on w the loved ones even though patient dies.

No, because the family was being cyber bullied by people online saying that archie should just die. Made the whole situation more distressing than it already was.

CLC views so going public may cause other christians to distrust the NHS as well

Destigmatises death which is something that must be done because 500k die every year in UK but no one talks about it. Makes decision making easier for families if death was understood as more natural and less institutional.

Yes, it allows the public to learn about the legalities around such a sensitive topic and talk about them with their family

Archie used resources from May 31st (presumed to have died) to August 6th so he used up many resources over many months. (distrubitive justice)

shared decision making. parents right in humanitarian but doctors right in biological expectation. Court to manage it therefore.

I dont think anyone was right or wrong in this case. Both parents and doctors had their own reasons. Usually they both make the decision together.

If i had to pick a side then go for Doctors because, best interest + no prospect of archie recovering (no blood in brain stem + coning)

BMJ Ethicist said they didnt involve the hospitals ethics team and if they had then this could have been prevented. Therefore involve an ethics team and maybe an independant mediator since clearly the doctor-family bond was broken and a mediator acts to help them recover this bond and think about what really matters (Archie's best interest and the way that there is no prospect of recovery)

Mother had her own reasons. Archie was said to be a fighter and she thought that archie himself would want to live. But maybe the seriousness of what happened was clouded by the emotional distress of having to lose the child

Conflicts were essentially related to differences in participants’ views on what constitutes ‘good care’ based on different care approaches. Healthcare professionals’ views on good care were based predominantly on a biomedical care model, whereas families’ views on good care were mainly inspired by a holistic lifeworld-oriented approach. Since their views are fundamentally different, it creates tensions.