There isn’t anyone I know who wasn’t touched by the incredible sadness of little Charlie Gard’s devastating situation some months ago.
Can any one of us with children of our own even begin to contemplate what it must have been like for Charlie’s parents to have had to endure, beyond the very fact of Charlie’s illness, the endless Court battles that ensued? The answer must be a resounding no. Conversely, those doctors and nurses working in the intensive care unit of Great Ormond Street, painstakingly looking after the sickest of children, could never have contemplated the wrath and anger targeted towards them by the general public after the sad passing of Charlie.
Mr Justice Francis gave his Judgment on the 11th April this year which ends with his procedural note “I have already expressed the opinion that I believe that it would, in all cases like this, be helpful for there to be some form of Issues Resolution Hearing or other form of mediation where the parties can have confidential conversations to see what common ground can be reached between them. I believe that that type of hearing, be it Judge led or some other form of private mediation, would have led to a greater understanding between the parents and the clinical team in this case. I am not saying that it would necessarily have led to a resolution, but I think in many such cases it would and I would like to think that in future cases like this such attempts can be made.”
Whether or not mediation would have been taken up if offered in this case remains unknown, as does the question of whether or not mediation would have assisted the parties had it been offered.
In any litigation however, it is the offering which is vitally important. As lawyers, aren’t we depriving our Clients of ultimate Client care if we don’t always consider whether mediation would assist the parties in settlement of a litigious matter?
Liz Kendall
Vice Chair, Mediation Sub-Committee, Devon & Somerset Law Society