Cardinal defends hospital in Alfie Evans case

  • Thread starter Thread starter Casilda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know all of the facts, but I don’t agree. I have read that the hospital stopped feeding the little boy for more than a day. How was that in his best interest?
 
This case really comes down to what’s normal in your culture, ie prioritizing the childs needs or the parents rights.
 
I’m not sure what the conflict between the child’s needs and the parents’ rights is in this case - the parents wanted to get their son the best treatment they could find, but the government refused to let them try. I keep wanting to call the government’s decision barbaric, but as G.K. Chesterton wrote, it’s the “civilized” cultures that sacrifice human lives, not the primitive ones.
 
The doctors felt that as Alfie was terminally ill without hope of recovery that moving him wasn’t in his best interests. Some cultures would favor the rights of the parents to do what they think best, cultures like Britain favor the best interests of the patient.

Obviously each culture thinks their approach is the right one.
 
The problem here is “what is best for the patient” is a value judgement, not a medical one. The hospital is doing nothing upstanding by deciding that the child is better off dead sooner than later. They are simply using the power of coercion to enforce what they think is the better judgement. The parents or guardians have every right to make that call, but because the hospital staff disagrees that somehow trumps them. On what basis I do not know, as it is a researched and documented fact that medical personnel, no matter how well meaning, routinely value the lives of their terminally ill patients less than the patients themselves or the parents/guardians do.

This is not a “my culture is just different than your culture” issue. Especially considering that all English-speaking, European-decended countries are nearly identical culturally and vary only in fairly meaningless ways. This is an issue that goes to the natural laws governing the mother-father-child relationship across humanity. Saying that the UK just cares more about the patient than others is disingenuous and is a hand-wave at criticism.
 
Well medical factors will come into the decision. I can certainly think of other terminally ill individuals who have had life prolonging treatments because doctors have supported applications for funding for expensive drugs. There were no treatment options in this case.

Culture goes way beyond language and I would argue the cultures of the UK and US are hugely different especially with regards to healthcare and parental rights. Even England and Ireland are very different culturally despite being next door (though you could argue are becoming more similar).
 
ConfusedLucy said:
The doctors felt that as Alfie was terminally ill without hope of recovery that moving him wasn’t in his best interests.
Click to expand...
The doctors’ job is to diagnose and recommend; the decision should belong to the patient, or in the case of a minor, the parents.
 
The decision by the NHS and the English courts to murder this child should be a wake up call to all of society. This is where Socialism leads. The State becomes god. The State decides who lives and who dies. And apparently, those who should be on the forefront of defending life prefer to keep their collective mouths shut lest they incur the wrath of the State!
Dear Lord give us courageous Bishops and Priests!
 
In the UK parents have responsibilities towards their children and not rights over them.
 
ConfusedLucy said:
This case really comes down to what’s normal in your culture, ie prioritizing the childs needs or the parents rights.
Click to expand...
How can these in any way be mutually exclusive? I mean, should not the rights of the parents be organized around the child’s needs?

That being said, the irrational desire to “save” children with debilitating and terminal illnesses for the benefit of the parents seems macabre.

50 years ago we would not even have such an argument, because we did not have the technology. Now there is a pre-occupation with holding on to people of all ages rather then letting them leave this earthly plane.

I was reading somewhere today “Alfie Evans must be saved”. Really? What kind of bizarre standard is that?! What if God wanted him to come home? Who are we to try to thwart it?
 
I think it’s only in very extreme situations the two are mutually exclusive. Most parents of terminally ill children work with the doctors to come to a decision as to when to let them go, these controversies are pretty rare.
 
I was not speaking merely to language. I have close family throughout almost the entire Commonwealth: England, Scotland, NZ, and Australia, with myself in the US. I have either lived in or visited all of these places multiple times for extended periods, and I can assure you that the similarities vastly outweigh the differences. Especially when we are taking about something so basic and natural as parenthood. Saying that parenthood in England is just different rings a little hollow.
 
But it is different, the emphasis is on responsibilities rather than rights.
 
From the Catholic point of view, rights stem from responsibilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top