Cardinal defends hospital in Alfie Evans case

  • Thread starter Thread starter Casilda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again the British government doesn’t go looking for children to kill off. It’s just for when doctors feel asked to do something by families that goes against their professional judgement or when families disagree with the doctors.
 
in this case, why should the doctors’ conclusion have taken precedence over the parents’?
 
Because the decision was based on the childs best interests, in this case it was felt the doctors conclusion was closer.
 
It was reported that the condition Alfie had had destroyed much of his brain and he was unable to feel or experience anything. So on what basis was death deemed to be in his best interest?
 
Once again, “in his best interest” is purely a value judgement. “It was felt” is an attempt to reduce agency in the decision. But “it was felt” is meaningless until we finish the sentence. It was felt by whom? You will have to explain why the subjective value judgement of the “whom” is more correct than the value judgement of the parents. You will also have to explain why the options presented by the parents for continued care or hospice disqualified them from decision making abilities in this instance, other than saying the hospital staff and courts made the decision in the child’s interests. What possible greater harm could have been committed to a dieing child who could not feel pain vs soffocating to death?
 
Last edited:
The outcome of the case was published so I won’t rehash it here.

I’m assuming there must be some limit to what decisions parents can make for children in the US?
 
We have similar cases here in the US, And the outcome depends on the arguments presented, so I don’t agree with those who criticize the UK system on this basis.

However, this is an issue which will have to be sorted out. If with minimal care a child can be cared for and there is someone willing to care for him, it seems wrong to take him off ventilation.

If, however, all are in agreement, then there is no problem.

We also had this case: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BRAB&usg=AOvVaw1OuD0CIQTzF2Hqe4-jpFgd&ampcf=1

Realizing the above was a different case from one I’d heard about some time ago, I searched and found this: List of Brain Dead Patients Who've Recovered | KGOV.com

It may seem sensationalist, but provides enough info to find regular news reports about.
 
I do understand that the above links are about cases which differ from Alfie’s, but it provides evidence that doctors don’t always know what is in the best interests of the patients, and that is all right except when they start acting like they are omniscient.

In Alfie’s case, there were people willing to care for him. The parents should have been allowed to make that decision. It is one thing for the hospital to say we can no longer care for him; another for the hospital to say no one should be permitted to care for him.
 
Annie said:
We have similar cases here in the US, And the outcome depends on the arguments presented, so I don’t agree with those who criticize the UK system on this basis.
Click to expand...
The cases are quite rare in both countries, I suppose. However, the one case that I remember in the U.S. has different family members wanting different treatment and the issue was one of which family member had the authority to make the decision. The court stepped in when the family could not resolve their issues internally. In this case is was parents against the doctors/government.
 
If the family is poor enough, or they can arrange their situation sufficiently, the child can go on MediCaid and be very well cared for. A child I knew was treated successfully for leukemia and it all worked well.

Until the ACA, middle class families were the ones who ran into problems.
 
Last edited:
Cost is a factor. It has to be, and I have no problem with the doctors in the UK deciding they could no longer afford his treatment. It is disingenuous to pretend that cost is not a factor. That said, this was not an objection I raised to their actions. As I said before it is one thing to assert that “We will not provide treatment” and quite another one to say “We won’t let anyone else provide it either.” That’s a bridge too far.

Now I don’t know any of the details of this case, but you asserted that he had already been treated for 16 months so it’s not apparent that he was going to die in the next few days regardless of whether they treated him or not. That actually seems quite unlikely. If he was going to die within a week anyway surely someone would have suggested his treatment continue just to avoid the very scene that played out, especially if his “treatment” was little more than a ventilator and a drip bag.

The doctors decided it was time for Alfie to die, and they took steps to ensure that it happened on their schedule.
 
Perhaps, but this was not the issue I raised.
The treatment was considerably more than a ventilator and IV. He could not be moved without a risk of death in flight if you do look up the details of the case.
Click to expand...
It seems a hard case to make that he was kept in England so he would die so in order to avoid the prospect that he might die on the flight to Italy.
If you don’t know the details of the case I suggest you take time to look them up and the background to the case.
Click to expand...
I’m familiar enough with the situation. The UK authorities refused to allow his parents to fly him to Italy when they terminated his treatment (and the ventilator) and he died five days later. That about it?
There was no treatment that was going to make Alfie better unless someone has invented a means by which brains can be regenerated.
Click to expand...
Again, this fact has nothing whatever to do with the problem. It was never Alfie’s medical condition or his prognosis that was my concern. It was solely the fact that the government decided it had the authority to refuse to allow someone else to treat him and to take steps to ensure a rapid death.

You may be comfortable with a government having that kind of authority. I am less sanguine about this turning out well in the future.
 
Last edited:
The doctors were unable to diagnose/treat the child but determined that the parents would not be allowed to seek a second opinion in Italy. Please don’t shift this to a “parents just couldn’t let go” issue.
 
I am aware of a number of cases where treatment was stopped even against the wishes of the family and the patient died, but this case goes well beyond simply stopping treatment. One similar case I am familiar with is the one in Florida where a man got his wife removed from hydration so that she would die. As horrendous as that example was it was a case of who had the right to decide for the woman: the husband or the parents. It was not a case where the government stepped in to assert that that right belonged to them. That’s my concern in this case.
 
If that were the case, why was there a military transport plane waiting to take him to Italy? I don’t think the doctors in Italy had reached that conclusion at all, especially since they were unable to actually examine him.
 
This is where I choose to differ with you. The article says:
“What is not being proposed, she says, is to cure Alfie, since his condition is not curable, but to care for him.
Possible treatment could include basic hydration, and a tracheotomy to help him breathe. In addition, it might be possible to identify his illness.”

The major difference between the Italian doctors and the British doctors is that the British doctors wanted to provide “end of life care” for the child where the Italians wanted to provide “care.”

The British doctors wanted (and did) pull the plug on this child. The Italians offered care for the remainder of his natural life.

I see that as a significant difference and it thoroughly horrifies me to think that any government would take away a parent’s right to decide what is best for his child.
 
The UK doctors offered a slightly different version of end of life care than was offered in Italy. They were careful to ensure that his life was ended.
 
There is a significant difference between allowing someone to die and causing someone to die, which is also the difference between the treatment he would have received in Italy and the “treatment” he received in the UK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top