Alfie Evans

[Lighthouse 84]

In England, parents do not have that absolute right.  The courts have a right to intervene if they believe it is not in the best interests of the child to be on indefinite life support.  Obviously that is a very troubling sentence to type, but I do agree that parents do not have an absolute right to make these decisions and I also agree that life for the sake of being alive and nothing else isn't really "life." 

But I'm not sure as to where those lines need to be drawn.

Regarding the bolded part, until it's your child about whom the decision is being made.

As someone who has represented a Hospice for more than 20 years, been involved with their ethics committee regarding discussions on end of life issues and had both his parents go through hospice care, I couldn't agree more with your last statement.  An adult is free to choose whether he or she wants to be kept alive, regardless of whether the benefits outweigh the burdens of being kept alive.     
A person's autonomy should be paramount.  But it's a personal decision.  Whether you or I would make the same decision is irrelevant.  In the case of a child, and the parents want to extend life rather than shorten it, it is not unreasonable to allow the parents to make that decision for the child, especially when they come down on the side of life.  In this case, it's neither costing the government, the hospital or the doctors anything to allow the parents to take the child to Italy.  For them to decide that they know more than the parents about how best to allow their child to live, and in this case die, is asinine.

[GGGG]

Regarding the bolded part, until it's your child about whom the decision is being made.

As someone who has represented a Hospice for more than 20 years, been involved with their ethics committee regarding discussions on end of life issues and had both his parents go through hospice care, I couldn't agree more with your last statement.  An adult is free to choose whether he or she wants to be kept alive, regardless of whether the benefits outweigh the burdens of being kept alive.     
A person's autonomy should be paramount.  But it's a personal decision.  Whether you or I would make the same decision is irrelevant.  In the case of a child, and the parents want to extend life rather than shorten it, it is not unreasonable to allow the parents to make that decision for the child, especially when they come down on the side of life.  In this case, it's neither costing the government, the hospital or the doctors anything to allow the parents to take the child to Italy.  For them to decide that they know more than the parents about how best to allow their child to live, and in this case die, is asinine.

I'm hedging a lot by saying this, but I used "absolute" for a reason.  It may be 99.9% the parents' right, but I would never really say 100%.  I do think in this case it seems quite reasonable to let the parents take the child to Italy and try another treatment. 

[rocket surgeon]

  "And the fact that he will be forgotten means nothing.  Everything and everyone is forgotten.  That doesn't make the case irrelevant. "


  thank you for this!  just because some here will forget alfie's name or forget about this whole situation doesn't mean someone out there(umm, his parents?) will forget so easily. this is a life and if britain's system can so easily dismiss this little guy, who's next?  someone near and dear to you?   if the tree falls in the woods? 

[Golden Avalanche]

Firstly, the Vatican reached out, but so has Italy.  The hospital in question is in Rome, not Vatican City, and Italy has granted citizenship to the family. 

Secondly, as mentioned, how are the courts not part of the government?

Thirdly, isn't that their job?  And how does that explain why he can't leave?

Fourthly, yeah, that's the deal there right?

Fifthly, I have no idea what you are trying to say.  Since the costs have been covered by the NHS, they should just shut up about it?  Is that your point?N

None of that explains why he can't leave.  Unless receiving the care of the NHS makes one beholden to remain in the UK for the rest of one's days.

And the fact that he will be forgotten means nothing.  Everything and everyone is forgotten.  That doesn't make the case irrelevant. 

I understand the end of life care situation.  What I don't understand about this situation is how the child seems to have become property of the state, where the courts have said he can't leave the hospital to go home, or to another hospital.

You have all the answers to the questions you ask yet you continue to ask them. The people on a basketball board are not going to be privy to the details of why the child is at the mercy of the courts. You should be phoning an expert in UK law if that is your true aim, rather then a run around about something else.

And, yes, the financial burden does in fact play a large part of this. Many times here in America a financial aspect is the impetus to deal with ending life support systems. Eventually the medical knowledge becomes clearer the longer your wallet gets thinner. Without that influence the only result of prolonging this situation is to increase publicity of the matter so that public sympathies result in a windfall for the family.

This ends in the most predictable way: "after a lengthy and emotional discussion the hospital sees fit to release the child to his parents so that they may spend his remaining hours in the comfort of their home. The NHS stands by its medical professionals and their decisions based on decades of expertise and experience in these matters".

And so we move on to the next outrage.

[rocket surgeon]

You have all the answers to the questions you ask yet you continue to ask them. The people on a basketball board are not going to be privy to the details of why the child is at the mercy of the courts. You should be phoning an expert in UK law if that is your true aim, rather then a run around about something else.

And, yes, the financial burden does in fact play a large part of this. Many times here in America a financial aspect is the impetus to deal with ending life support systems. Eventually the medical knowledge becomes clearer the longer your wallet gets thinner. Without that influence the only result of prolonging this situation is to increase publicity of the matter so that public sympathies result in a windfall for the family.

This ends in the most predictable way: "after a lengthy and emotional discussion the hospital sees fit to release the child to his parents so that they may spend his remaining hours in the comfort of their home. The NHS stands by its medical professionals and their decisions based on decades of expertise and experience in these matters".

And so we move on to the next outrage.

gee, sounds like that was really difficult for you to write i'm gonna go out on a limb here, but i'll bet your career aptitude assessment steered you away from anything to do with bereavement care

[Jockey]

Regarding the bolded part, until it's your child about whom the decision is being made.

As someone who has represented a Hospice for more than 20 years, been involved with their ethics committee regarding discussions on end of life issues and had both his parents go through hospice care, I couldn't agree more with your last statement.  An adult is free to choose whether he or she wants to be kept alive, regardless of whether the benefits outweigh the burdens of being kept alive.     

Interesting subject. My wife worked on a cancer floor for several years. She saw many, many times where patient's were only getting treatment because their families expected it. They were ready to go, but felt guilty about it because the family wanted them to hold on.

Like Sultan, I don't know where to draw the line with children. But I do think we need to separate illness with even a small chance of recovery and the case in England where there is no brain activity.


Above all, this is a good time to advise everyone here to make sure their immediate families know what they would want in end-of-life situations.

[tower912]

Everybody dies.  I feel bad for Alfie's parents.  Terrible agony for them.  Anyone who has had to watch a child suffer and/or die knows about the near infinite pain.  Many marriages can't survive it.   I've seen too much death over the years, but it is the deaths of children that tear me up and what led me to become active in peer counseling and Critical Incident Stress Management.


But they cannot stop the inevitable or reverse the reality.

[rocket surgeon]

Everybody dies.  I feel bad for Alfie's parents.  Terrible agony for them.  Anyone who has had to watch a child suffer and/or die knows about the near infinite pain.  Many marriages can't survive it.   I've seen too much death over the years, but it is the deaths of children that tear me up and what led me to become active in peer counseling and Critical Incident Stress Management.


But they cannot stop the inevitable or reverse the reality.

Your service, counseling et.al.  Awesome tower!!   👍👍👍.  That takes a special guy 🙏

[tower912]

Nah.  Everybody does something.

  Horrible conundrum.  I think just about anybody could take either position and make a coherent argument.  Sympathy for both sides.

[buckchuckler]

You have all the answers to the questions you ask yet you continue to ask them. The people on a basketball board are not going to be privy to the details of why the child is at the mercy of the courts. You should be phoning an expert in UK law if that is your true aim, rather then a run around about something else.

I wasn't trying to "run around something else".  I was curious about that part of the case and know there are people here that love in the UK  and others that seem to have spent significant time there.   I wanted to see if anyone had any insight, and Sultan had a pretty good answer, so tip of the cap to Sultan.

[Coleman]

A Catholic perspective: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/04/26/case-alfie-evans-what-does-catholic-tradition-say

[buckchuckler]

A Catholic perspective: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/04/26/case-alfie-evans-what-does-catholic-tradition-say

Informative and interesting.  Thanks.

[GB Warrior]

A Catholic perspective: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/04/26/case-alfie-evans-what-does-catholic-tradition-say

Thanks for sharing. Not catholic or religious despite 16 years of catholic education, but this helps me reconcile. As a parent to a young child, there is definitely conflict in the sense that it felt as though the parents were being selfish, while obviously still having sympathy

[rocket surgeon]

Alfie passed today-RIP little guy

[Hards Alumni]

Alfie passed today-RIP little guy

+1

[GGGG]

Does this mean we can forget about him now??????

[muwarrior69]

A Catholic perspective: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/04/26/case-alfie-evans-what-does-catholic-tradition-say

They don't address who decides those difficult questions; the parents or the state.

[tower912]

They don't address who decides those difficult questions; the parents or the state.

Then they are wise.  Because regardless of which side they came down on, if they made an official stand, somebody would extrapolate and project it to the abortion and euthanization arguments.  Better to speak in philosophical, ethical generalities.