Alfie Evans has died

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheNeutral
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The court, " prohibited Alfie’s parents from seeking treatment elsewhere."

This is the part I don’t understand. Withholding treatment because it is futile, yes. But prohibiting treatment elsewhere, I don’t get it.
 
It was because the danger from flying (seizures from being moved, different air pressure, general stress and bright lights triggering seizures) far outweighed any benefit, as the hospitals concerned were only going to do the same things as Alder Hey were doing already i.e. keeping him comfortable. It would have been inflicting stress and possibly pain for no reason

There was no cure, so no actual treatment possible.
 
Last edited:
I see. Thank you. But unless he was a ward of the state it seems a desion for the parents not the court or hospital.
 
Right? I don’t see the point in restricting parental rights when the choices are potentially dying in flight and certainly dying in the Liverpool hospital. Either way he was not in pain-he was on much pain medication. These choices should be determined by those who love them, not childless activist judges. As long as the parents were informed of the risks of flight, there would be no liability against the hospital if something happened. It was simply pride and stubbornness that prevented Alfie from even being released to his home.
 
I’ve said it before and will say it again, children aren’t their parents property. Cases like these are about the childs best interests and not the wants of the parents.

I really hope Alfie’s idiots have backed off and his bereaved parents are getting some support in their grief.
 
Have you looked up biographies of all the judges (High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights) and ascertained that they were all childless? It seems improbable that none of the judges have children. I can tell you for certain that the President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, has a daughter, and one other Justice of the Supreme Court who was involved in this case, Lord Wilson, has a son and a daughter.

I’m also not sure what you mean by “activist”. I think I’m correct in saying that you are from the USA. The judiciary is perhaps quite different in the UK, as well as in Europe more generally (at least with regard to the European Court of Human Rights, which is a body of the Council of Europe). British judges are appointed completely independently of the government. There is no process such as you have in the USA of executive appointments confirmed by the legislature. Our judges have no political biases, explicit or implicit; they are appointed purely based on their expertise in the law. Indeed, the chief responsibility of a British judge is to interpret and apply the will of Parliament.

Lady Hale is a woman of the most extraordinary intellect. She ruled in a Supreme Court case in which some friends of mine were involved and when I read her judgement I was just astonished by the clarity of her reasoning. She is probably a genius, having finished top of her year in her law degree at Cambridge and top of her year in her bar exams. She became a member of the Law Commission at the age of 39, the youngest person ever to serve on the commission, and she was a professor (what Americans would call a “full professor”) by the age of 41. As for Lord Kerr (who by the way was a Queen’s Counsel by the age of 35), he was the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, a role in which one would imagine that absolute objectivity would be essential.

I think you may be projecting some of your prejudices about the judiciary and reaching some unfair conclusions.
 
The government should have no interest in how someone dies. When the govt thinks they know what the “best interest” is for a human being in regards to death, what kind of door do you think that opens? Forced abortions on disabled babies? Euthanasia? Certainly nothing in line with Catholic teaching…
 
Children aren’t their parents property?

I’ve never seen a government that was 9 months pregnant.
 
If only this site had a dislike button. Calling Alfie’s Army idiots does not look good on you.
 
To be fair, some of them are idiots. Quite a few of them actually. This case involves three groups: the parents, the hospital, and the judges. The so-called Alfie’s Army are not really a part of this process. Alder Hey is a large hospital that provides treatment to a lot of children from throughout the northwest of England (and beyond). The protesters at the hospital were hindering the smooth operation of the hospital in a way that was harmful to other patients and staff. If your child was a patient at Alder Hey, possibly extremely ill, would you want to be confronted by a self-described “army” of protesters every time you went in and out of the hospital? Do you think they made it a pleasant working environment for staff whose jobs are already demanding and stressful? There were reports of doctors and nurses being spat upon. Some protesters were demanding that every motorist who drove by had to honk their horn in support and were abusing any people who didn’t comply.
 
I agree with not blocking things like highways and entrances to hospitals. The poster I replied to did not provide context. Every side has its crazies.

But there is nothing idiotic about standing up for parental rights. And, to be honest, I would have spat on the judge and anyone else who played a part in denying the parents their rights. If it was my kid, I probably would have done worse.
 
Children are separate human beings under the care and authority of their parents, but not property.

We want the state to be able to step in on a child’s behalf when parents abuse their position or behave irrationally. The question, always, is where to draw the line, not that there is a line.
 
I’ve heard this argument repeatedly. But clearly medical professionals in Italy disagreed with this assessment. Where there’s disagreement among experts, the parents should be left to decide which risks and benefits to assume.
 
Last edited:
You keep talking about “the government”. This is not about the government. In the UK we have something called “Her Majesty’s Government”, which comprises the Prime Minster, Secretaries of State, Ministers of State, and other more junior ministers. All ministers are members either of the House of Commons or House of Lords. The judiciary is not a part of HM Government and is not a part of either house of legislature; they are a body of entirely independent people.

It is only in the most exceptional cases that judges unfortunately have to be involved in determining questions of life and death. This occurs either when there is disagreement between family members and/or between family members and medical experts or when medical experts are uncertain whether a course of action would be lawful. In the vast majority of cases (let’s call it 99.999%) families and doctors agree upon a course of treatment that is in the patient’s best interests. The problem arises when family members dispute whether medical experts are acting in the patient’s best interests and where the medical experts remain convinced that the preferences of the family would be detrimental to the patient. In such cases I cannot see what alternative there can be than to put all of the facts before a judge, or a panel of judges, who can determine what is in the best interests of the patient. The family cannot make the decision, as they lack medical expertise, and the doctors cannot make the decision, as they lack the authority to do so. Sometimes an independent judiciary really is best placed to make decisions where family members and medical experts are irreconcilably opposed about a patient’s treatment. Unsurprisingly, they usually find that medical experts really do know best when it comes to decisions about patient care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top