From the article: [size=78%]"Against his parents’ wishes, the hospital where he was receiving care withdrew life support; his parents were barred by British courts from seeking care for Alfie elsewhere."[/size]
Also, "Ultimately, however, the Evans case was about who gets to decide what the best interest of a child really is. When the view of the state and the view of a child’s parents are at odds, who gets to have the final say? The answer ties into wider questions — about medical ethics and what it means for a life to be “not worth living,” and about popular trust, or lack thereof, in the UK’s National Health Service, a paradigmatic example of both the pros and cons of socialized medicine. The question at stake in the Alfie Evans story, in other words, isn’t just should we let the state decide? It’s do we trust the state at all?"
I favor trying to keep government out of these decisions. We don;t turn our kids over to the government. Certainly the article showed there's a lot of support for this point of view from millions of people across the globe. Certainly, you have a right to disagree and have your point of view. But I would not call your view "...utterly misinformed, ...propaganda...ignorant..." Nor would I demand an apology from you. This case certainly has plenty of room for reason to believe one way or the other without you calling people names.
How are you ignorant and ill-informed? Let me count the ways.
First, some facts.
1. Alfie had a severe degenerative brain disease. CT/MR scanning had demonstrated extensive destruction of his brain, both cerebrum and cerebellum, and its replacement in his skull with fluid.
2. He also had intractable epilepsy, near-continuous seizure activity being demonstrated on electroencephalography.
3. There was some evidence that he was in pain.
4. He was unresponsive to his surroundings; apparent responses to touch represented induced seizures.
5. While the diagnosis was not established, its dramatically destructive and irreversible effects were beyond doubt.
6. The "state" did not intervene in his care.
7. The doctors involved in his care formed the view that continued supportive therapy was unjustified, futile and, given some evidence of pain, harmful.
The hospital Trust therefore applied to the High Court for a declaration that withdrawal of treatment would be in Alfie's best interests and therefore legal. The application, of a kind not infrequently made, was opposed by the parents and therefore came to a hearing, at which Alfie's interests were represented by Counsel instructed for that purpose; his parents appeared and so did the Trust. The case was heard by Mr Justice Hayden, an extremely experienced High Court Judge.* His careful and detailed judgment can be read
here. Although listed I think for two days, the hearing lasted for seven because of the Judge's attempts to ensure that the parents were given every assistance. He granted the declaration sought.
The parents appealed to the Court of Appeal; the appeal was dismissed for reasons given
here. The Supreme Court declined to hear their further appeal.
They applied to the European Court of Human Rights, which held that there had been no breach.
There were several subsequent hearings, concerned in part with the plan for withdrawal of treatment. Links to those decisions can be found
here.
There was no intervention by the State. There was a difference of opinion between medical staff, supported by a wealth of objective evidence, and the parents who, understandably, were reluctant to accept the inevitable. Where such difference arises, it must be adjudicated upon.
It is an obvious nonsense to suggest that in such circumstances the parents are or can or should be the sole arbiters of the child's welfare. The child is not the plaything of his parents; he is an individual. It is equally nonsensical to suggest that even if they are capable of reaching a conclusion as to his best interests, all parents will act in accordance with those interests. The issue was not whether the life was worth living; it was whether there was in reality a life at all.
If you knew any of that, you hid it well. That is why my adjectives are appropriate.
Jeremy
* disclosure: I know Sir Anthony Hayden well; we were in Chambers together for several years and he was Head of my previous Chambers while I was a tenant.
(I have not had time to proof-read this, the longest post I have yet made here. Errors are, of course, mine.)
