The all-in-one Christian Web Site Community - Praize.com
Skip to Content

Alfie Evans...

Quote Reply
Alfie Evans...
Here is another tragic case of the UK's overwhelming power of healthcare and their idea that The State knows better than the individual.

Alfie is not yet two years old. He was born with a, as yet undetermined, degenerative central nervous system disease. His brain currently only functions at the stem, with all other brain matter nearly nonexistent. He has hydrocephalus, as well. He started showing symptoms of delayed development early on, but only started seizures at 7 months and shortly after he lapsed into a coma and has been kept alive for a year on life support, including feeding.

A few days ago, the hospital took Alfie off of all life support, including feeding. They demand that nothing be given to him to sustain him. It should be noted that he cannot swallow either food or water, among the other life supporting things his body cannot do. He is apparently still breathing on his own.

His parents want desperately for Alfie to live. The hospital wants him to die. His parents want to take him out of the hospital and have the full support of Italy and the Pope. The hospital refuses to let them do this.

While I agree that the parents should be allowed to remove their child to any hospital willing to take him, it will not save his life. They should opt for Hospice care in their own home or at a Hospice facility.

I understand the hospital wants to protect the child from continuing the pain and discomfort of futile treatment by allowing him to die, but the parents' should have that choice of trying to continue treatment or offering end of life palliative care.

This is a lose-lose situation for all involved. It breaks our hearts so because Alfie is an infant and not an elderly human being to which this is happening.

All who believe in prayer, should pray for Alfie and his parents and for the hospital, who has made such a decision. The rest of us, as well as believers, should be mindful of our own children and elders, hug them and love them and care for them, even as we cry for this family.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Alfie Evans... In reply to
I stated that this was a tragedy brought by the UK health system, as if our own country is not guilty of similar overbearing conduct, and that was wrong.

There have been situations that have been equally abusive of parental rights. And...no doubt, there are government entities in other nations that can be accused of the same sort of thing.

The frightening aspect of all this is that it could happen to any of us. What would you do if your child...or elderly parent...were trapped in a government hospital, nursing home, juvenile home and you were unable to get them out?

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Alfie Evans... In reply to
As I have continued to read about this tragedy, I have found this morning an article in "The American Thinker" which must certainly give us pause about the truth in all of this and it can be found here:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/alfie_evans_another_child_sacrifice_on_britains_nhs_altar.html

The author writes thus:

<<The world is witness to slow-motion murder. The perpetrators are the NHS, and the motive is not pecuniary, but rather a perverse form of institutional vanity.

Italy has conferred citizenship to Alfie, and there is a medical air ambulance standing by at the request of the pope to fly Alfie to the Vatican's children's hospital, Bambino Gesù, where Alfie can be treated.

But while socialism requires citizen confidence to operate, it will settle for coercion to gain compliance. This is why Alder Hey refuses to release #Alfie. Should the boy survive outside NHS care, their "infallibility" would be shattered, and (gasp!) the sheep may begin to question their shepherd.

Collectivist schemes of medicine are no more sustainable (or just!) than collectivist schemes of societal order. Both require submission, even unto death.

Once that logic is accepted as legitimate, the line will be pushed back farther and farther in future cases until a mere diagnosis is sufficient cause for the state to "act in the patient's best interest."

I can find no difference between the rationalizations of the Nazis and the arguments being made against Alfie Evans by the NHS.>>



Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/alfie_evans_another_child_sacrifice_on_britains_nhs_altar.html#ixzz5DtzVPI1q
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Jeanne: Hi

As I have continued to read about this tragedy, I have found this morning an article in "The American Thinker" which must certainly give us pause about the truth in all of this . . .

The author writes thus:

<<The world is witness to slow-motion murder. The perpetrators are the NHS, and the motive is not pecuniary, but rather a perverse form of institutional vanity.

Italy has conferred citizenship to Alfie, and there is a medical air ambulance standing by at the request of the pope to fly Alfie to the Vatican's children's hospital, Bambino Gesù, where Alfie can be treated.

But while socialism requires citizen confidence to operate, it will settle for coercion to gain compliance. This is why Alder Hey refuses to release #Alfie. Should the boy survive outside NHS care, their "infallibility" would be shattered, and (gasp!) the sheep may begin to question their shepherd.

Collectivist schemes of medicine are no more sustainable (or just!) than collectivist schemes of societal order. Both require submission, even unto death.

Once that logic is accepted as legitimate, the line will be pushed back farther and farther in future cases until a mere diagnosis is sufficient cause for the state to "act in the patient's best interest."

I can find no difference between the rationalizations of the Nazis and the arguments being made against Alfie Evans by the NHS.>>

This seems to be an example of opinion based upon a prejudiced personal agenda, rather than the objective facts of the case.

Medical science has reached a stage where it is now possible to artificially sustain bodily functions well beyond the body's natural ability to sustain life of its own accord.

This presents a dilemma not faced by previous generations of medical decision makers.

Alfie's condition was arguably incurable by the standards of current medical knowledge. In past times he would simply have died, there being no artificial means available to sustain his bodily functions.

The article condemning the NHS as Nazis is merely cynically utilising Alfie's demise to make cheap, inflammatory, false claims in what seems an opportunist pursuance of propagandist aims.

The facts of the case do not support the conclusions of the article's author. It was not 'slow motion murder' and, as far as can be ascertained, the medical staff and administration behaved ethically throughout. In hindsight it would probably have been better if Alfie's parents had sought second opinion earlier, (a legally supported right within the NHS), though it would probably have not made any difference to the unfortunate outcome for Alfie.

The real issue here is whether incommunicable terminally ill patients should be indefinitely artificially kept alive, against their own interests, and who should decide when such artificial life support should be removed, to allow the patient to die naturally.

Should it be the parents / relatives of the patient or should it be the providers of the life support and the medical experts entrusted with the patients care? Or should it be an agreed decision of all carers involved, arrived at in the interests of the patient themselves or a court of law if such agreement cannot be reached by any other means?

When comparing two models of Medical Care such as The NHS or the American system it is all too easy to let personal prejudice obstruct objective reasoning. Of which I believe the author of the article is guilty

The diametrical opposite of "Collectivist schemes of medicine are no more sustainable (or just!) than collectivist schemes of societal order. Both require submission, even unto death."

Might be:

"Capitalist schemes of medicine result in the poor being denied medical care, while the rich, (being paying customers), have the right to demand it indefinitely, as long as they pay for the privilege."

Under the American system Alfie might still be kept artificially alive, as long as his parents can raise the money to pay for the medical intervention. If they run out of cash, Alfie dies. Though this may still not be in Alfie's best interests. Being kept artificially in a state of acute illness, with no hope of recovery, but with the prospect of indefinite continuation of enforced existence, because his parents are unwilling to 'let him go', but can afford to pay the medical authorities for their services, would be perhaps a 'fate worse than death'.

I do not believe either the NHS, the courts, or the American system would actually allow such a situation to continue. Someone had to help the parents to make this undeniably difficult decision. In Alfie's case it finally became the responsibility of a court of law and the decision was made in the interests of the patient, taking into consideration the many factors involved.

What is not needed is opinionated propaganda cynically capitalizing on the pain and misery surrounding a very difficult and complicated situation, only properly appreciated by those in full possession of the facts.

Regards Chris.

In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Apr 29, 2018, 2:33 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Alfie Evans... In reply to
These predicaments pop up every so often due to the conscience/spirit within us due to being created in God's image. It is God who gives life and many argue when a human life actually begins with some even saying that a perfectly healthy baby is not technically a viable life until a certain number of days after being born. Others say at conception. And still others take on the role of God in determining a human's worth to society.
It is these instances that opens the proverbial can-of-worms that continues to lean towards empowering men to determine another man's future. Here is a link to Nick Vujicic who was born with out any limbs - https://www.lifewithoutlimbs.org and at the least would have been aborted or allowed to die of starvation after birth if the doctors and judges in either the United States or Great Britain continue to act like God. Actually they are already acting like god - the god of this earth who according to John 10:10 has come to kill, steal, & destroy. BUT Jesus came that we might have life and life more abundantly. The word used in the English translation for 'life' is not 'bios' - the normal everyday physical life, but Jesus used the word 'zoe' which is life as God, the creator, lives it.
His kind of life to us is supernatural and miraculous. That is what Alfie's parents had faith for, but were denied the right to see God do a miracle that the world longs to see and put their hope in a loving God who defies man's finite knowledge of His power. Who knows if God's supernatural healing of Alfie would have sparked a world-wide revival of faith that caused even Jeanne to believe In Him.
Quote Reply
Re: [jamesgodson] Alfie Evans... In reply to
jamesgodson: Hi

but Jesus used the word 'zoe' which is life as God, the creator, lives it.
His kind of life to us is supernatural and miraculous. That is what Alfie's parents had faith for, but were denied the right to see God do a miracle that the world longs to see and put their hope in a loving God who defies man's finite knowledge of His power. Who knows if God's supernatural healing of Alfie would have sparked a world-wide revival of faith that caused even Jeanne to believe In Him


With all due respect though, how do you know what Alfie's parents actually 'had faith for'?

The issue for them was whether the machinery should continue to keep Alfie alive while they continued to hope for a cure for him. The court decided that, in view of the prognosis, there was no reasonable chance that a medical cure would be possible in his case. The hospital authorities were therefore ordered to switch off the artificial means of prolonging Alfie's life and effectively 'leave it to God to decide the issue'. That is what actually happened and Alfie has finally been 'allowed' to 'submit to the will of God'.

Presumably if a miracle were possible in his case, God would have performed one. Unfortunately for Alfie's parents, that was not to be and Alfie survived only a few days after artificial support was removed. They have my greatest sympathy in their bereavement. Alfie had my greatest sympathy in his courageous struggle for survival. The Hospital authorities have my sympathy for the unwarranted, shamefully ignorant physical attacks on hospital staff, only desperately trying to do their best for Alfie, in impossible circumstances. The Courts and judge has my sympathy for having to be the final arbitrator in a case which could probably have no satisfactory outcome for anyone concerned.

I have no sympathy however for anyone who wants to use Alfie's case to further their own 'hobby horse' politics, to preach their personally cherished religious ideas, or to heap uninformed criticism on the people who actually had to make the impossibly difficult decisions regarding this particularly difficult case.

One should always 'walk a mile in someone else's moccasins', before 'critically commenting on their peculiar gait'.

In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: May 1, 2018, 1:31 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Hi Chris.

The reference to Nazism, I believe was in the idea that the State owns the individual and is the only power that may make decisions about the individual's worth to the rest of society in regards to the money, time and resources spent toward that individual's well being.

That is my thrust; that Alfie's parents had no control. They were not allowed to get an independent second opinion or take their child to another hospital despite requesting such and suing for such over the course of many months. The means was offered to them from different hospitals and doctors and from two other countries.

The hospital told the parents that they would not cooperate unless their "attitude" toward the hospital and doctor altered. What?! They could not even take him home for hospice care and eventual death on their own terms, like so many of us have for our own dying family members. The hospital did not trust them to care for their dying child in their own way or to find solace in one more try under different treatment care, which could have happened much earlier in his life.

They denied the parents any control over their own child. That is the point. I have read that they even denied them the presence of their priest.

Even those who understand the science behind determining brain damage caused by degenerative neurological diseases/conditions, can understand that the hospital displayed the tactics of a supreme entity, which cannot permit activity in variance with its law. If the child were to survive, even if brain damaged for life, if he survived with some sort of individual personae...they are screwed.

After these two recent instances, would anyone be surprised if parents were reluctant to admit their child to hospital? What other situation might parents lose control of their child if the State decries it is to be?

Perhaps we will see contracts drawn up by parents to ensure that they will always be the ones in control and the ones to make decisions regarding their children and family members who have to be admitted to the hospitals in not just the UK but in the US as well.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jamesgodson] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Hi James.

I have heard Nick speak and am wowed by his joie de viv.

I don't think his parents believed that Alfie's brain would be returned to its healthy state, but that they would just have their little boy alive and relatively in their lives in what ever state he could be maintained. That and the fact that they were denied any second opinion or hospital, despite the means provided for them to do so.

Even had they accepted palliative care until his death, the hospital did not trust them to take their child home to die in hospice, but kept him prisoner under absolute starvation/dehydration regimen, even after he was breathing on his own. They expected Alfie to die immediately when he was taken off breathing support, so the alternative was to starve and dehydrate him as fast as possible.

You write:

<<His kind of life to us is supernatural and miraculous. That is what Alfie's parents had faith for, but were denied the right to see God do a miracle that the world longs to see and put their hope in a loving God who defies man's finite knowledge of His power. Who knows if God's supernatural healing of Alfie would have sparked a world-wide revival of faith that caused even Jeanne to believe In Him. >>

God could have worked a miracle. This was the time to do it. Alfie was off of all life support and no longer under any doctor's care and in the same hospital that was trying to kill him. Restore his brain function, soften a heart so that Alfie was allowed to receive fluid and if he could swallow on his own, the boy would have proved he could live.

God chose not to do so.

But...I still wouldn't believe in your God. I would believe in the miracle of the human body to heal itself and the fallibility of medical science and its technicians to diagnose and predict outcome.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Jeanne: Hi

The reference to Nazism, I believe was in the idea that the State owns the individual and is the only power that may make decisions about the individual's worth to the rest of society in regards to the money, time and resources spent toward that individual's well being.

Which is the prejudiced opinion of a few biased American journalists wanting to gain monetary or political capital out of the story by spinning, ignoring or faking the facts.

Cardinal Nichols, of Westminster Cathedral has supported the hospital staff in their handling of the case, and I trust his assessment of the facts more than self serving American journalists.

Alfie Evans, who suffered from an undiagnosed brain ailment which left him in a semi-vegetative state, died on Saturday morning, just days before his second birthday.
His parents - Thomas Evans and Kate James - fought a legal battle to move him from Liverpool’s Alder Hey Hospital to the Vatican-owned Bambino Gesù pediatric hospital in Rome. (Fact)

The Liverpool hospital said it was in Alfie’s “best interest” that his ventilator be removed, and said further treatment was futile, and a move would cause the child undue distress.
Although many commentators around the world questioned why Alfie could not be moved, the bishops in England were supportive of the hospital, and the British legal system which prevented the Evans family from moving him.

(The apparent alternative would have been the possibility that Alfie, a very sick little boy, would have been passed around to any hospital which claimed it could perhaps cure him. This might have continued indefinitely, with the onus placed entirely on the parents to 'do whatever they were led to believe might cure little Alfie', when medical experts from around the world had already agreed a cure was not available worldwide, and that Alfie's suffering had to end soon, in the child's own interests).

“It is important to remember that the Alder Hey Hospital looked after Alfie not for two weeks or two months, but for eighteen months,” Nichols told KAI. “And during this time, they consulted the best specialists from around the world. Therefore, the position of the medical staff was very clear that there was no more medical help that could be given to the boy.”

“In recent weeks, many people have held positions on Alfie, without knowing all of the facts,” he said. “This did not always serve the boy’s greatest good. Unfortunately, there were even those who used this situation for political purposes.”

As Alfie’s case made its way through the courts, several commentators accused the doctors of Alder Hey of wanting to kill Alfie or accusing them of promoting euthanasia (which is illegal in Britain.)

Nichols said the staff at Alder Hey were “hurt” by these accusations, and the cardinal noted that many of the doctors and nurses caring for Alfie were Catholic.

“The Church makes it very clear that there is no moral obligation to continue extraordinary treatment when it has little effect, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church also teaches that palliative care, which is not a denial of care, can be an act of mercy”.

Cardinal Nichols also praised Alfie’s parents for doing “everything possible” for their son, and noted their last public statement before Alfie died, in which they expressed a desire to heal their relationship with the hospital.

“I think that the most difficult thing is to act in the best interest of a child, which is not always the same as what the parents would want,” the cardinal said, defending the British judicial process.

“Therefore, the court is not judging what is best for the parents, but what is best for the child. It is not in the child’s best interest to prolong extraordinary and futile treatment which the opinion of the entire medical establishment says cannot help.”

Full article here: https://cruxnow.com/church-in-uk-and-ireland/2018/05/01/british-cardinal-defends-hospital-in-alfie-evans-case-says-outsiders-didnt-have-all-the-facts/

Not only did they not have all the facts, but for their own nefarious reasons some journalists in the media have made up some of their own. It all makes bucks or moves political 'band wagons', I suppose.

Regards Chris.

In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: May 1, 2018, 12:54 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Hi Chris.

Actually, all those facts are known to those who have written of this case. Even the healing of the attitude of the parents toward the hospital, which at this late date and given what was conveyed and what was not said, can only be construed as coercion to comply.

Had the father and mother wanted to end the international status over the case, they should have directly stated that they know their child's condition is not going to get better and sent the waiting helicopter or plane back to the Pope. If they believed the hospital had only their child's best interest at heart from the beginning, why all the hysteria and lawsuits?

Was it their intent to make their dying child an international news story that involved other countries and the Pope?

What has been seen is that a hospital denied the parents of a dying child to make any decisions for that child. If the hospital had done so and the parents have lied to sensationalize the case, then that is on them. If the parents had wanted to move Alfie to hospice for less strict end of life care, then why did they not do so under the hospital's advice? Why did they still allow Arie to be portrayed as being murdered by the state? Were they considered unfit to make such a decision?

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the case now that the little one is dead.

The blame is not on the reporting or on the fact that socialized medicine is involved, it is directly on what was conveyed by the parents and their lawyers and their priest, as well as, the Vatican and others who wanted to help the parents help their child.

There are cases in the US where parents have lost decision making control over their children because of the government and I wrote of that in my second post. The news of these cases also created reactions of varying degree of hysteria and finger pointing, which may not have been reported internationally or even much in the nation.

No, most of us do not like your brand of health insurance and we did not want Obamacare. Canada is moving slowly away from socialized medicine, as are other countries that found out how bad it can be for the individual and for the economy. Obamacare is failing, as it was intended to do, so as to aid in the permanent transformation of the US into a Marxist state. The changes made by this new administration have allowed it to fail faster and before it accomplished all that it was supposed to, so maybe something of our old system can be salvaged, while something of a new system can fix the small problems that the old one had.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Jeanne: Hi

No, most of us do not like your brand of health insurance and we did not want Obamacare.

Which seems to inform most of your rhetoric on the matter.

And most of us do not want American sickness profit companies making bucks out of our population, when we already have a system FREE at the point of need for all those who need it.

Currently companies from the USA are hovering, carrion vulture like, to get in on the cash bonanza they hope to accrue from our NHS, as soon as 'bWreck-Zit' is irrevocable. The Tories just can't wait to flog it all off to the highest bidder, and to hell with anyone who can't afford private insurance. Typically greedy, selfish, "We're all right Jack, pull up the ladder", capitalist politics.

Regards Chris.
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Hi Chris.

No, it does not inform my rhetoric on the matter. We may disagree on the disadvantages of government health care, but my position on this particular case remains apart from that.

The issue is about control. Does the individual have control over his life or does the government have control over his life? If the parents are the legal guardians of Afie, then they have the right to make decision for that child. If the state gained legal guardianship of Alfie, then how did they do it? Did the parents unwittingly sign their parental rights away when they signed the government hospital admittance papers?

And...if the state usurps parental rights in this case, what else is in jeopardy when the state chooses to make decisions for the individual?

As to our different brands and styles of offering healthcare to needy families and individuals; your notion of what we had here is warped by socialist media. We have a great example of government controlled health care that is the Veteran's Administration and it is dangerous to the health of the individual, while a great sucking hole of taxpayer money.

We can't get that straight, yet. All the problems that Obamacare..and before it Hillarycare...was predicted to incur, have been fulfilled beyond the wildest imaginations of any who "read the bill" before it was passed.

It has done more and done more faster to undermine our economy and our healthcare system than our Marxist president and his cronies thought possible. We weren't supposed to have really noticed until Clinton was anointed and by then it would have been much too late. Hopefully, it is not too late to salvage the healthcare, hospital, surgery, innovative techniques and pharmaceutical business that makes people from all over seek help with the US. And...do you know why it became so noticeable so fast? Obama and other Marxist elites offered waivers to their big donors so they would not have to comply. That began a cascade of insufficient funds, which eventually broke the wheels off the cart. This is a very simplified explanation. Crooked, cronyism is the hallmark of Marxist agendas.

The few million that were without health INSURANCE...not healthcare...could have been accommodated by an extension of Medicare and Medicaid. Instead, we were lied to, bribed and lied to some more before finally having Obamacare thrust down our throats and screwing up a lot of people's healthcare and businesses and our economy.

You are most likely correct, that your country is so far into single payer government healthcare that to alter it is going to be chaos.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Jeanne: Hi

If the parents are the legal guardians of Afie, then they have the right to make decision for that child. If the state gained legal guardianship of Alfie, then how did they do it? Did the parents unwittingly sign their parental rights away when they signed the government hospital admittance papers?

It is not as simple as you are trying to make it seem. Alfie's parents did what was in Alfie's best interest when the took him to hospital. They knew he was ill and took him to the people best placed to care for his needs. Needs that they could not provide themselves.

Alfie's care was then supervised by medical practitioners who it seems were not in any way negligent or uncaring.

The medical practitioners consulted worldwide to get the best possible advice on dealing with Alfie's condition.

The best advice was that there was no cure and Alfie was suffering unduly by being kept artificially alive, with no hope of eventual recovery.

Alfie's parents were unwilling to accept the advice of the medical experts. Understandably they wanted to prolong the possibility of finding an 'expert' willing to promise to cure Alfie for them.

This is the point at which the interests of the patient, are weighed against the desire of the parents.

The parents had rights but so did Alfie have rights. Alfie had the right to be released from medical intervention which was prolonging his incurable distress. His parents had willingly handed responsibility for Alfie's medical care over to the medical practitioners because they had no hope of healing or reducing his distress themselves.

Our children are not our inalienable property to do with as we see fit, in all circumstances.

This was one of those difficult cases where the 'right's and responsibilities' of the parents conflicted with the 'responsibilities' of the experts and hospital staff and the 'rights' of the patient.

The case was obviously so difficult that it had to go to a court of law and be decided upon by a judge, after consideration of the available evidence, (much of which the American press are either unaware of or have concocted for themselves).

The issue is about control. No it's not, its about responsibility.

Does the individual have control over his life or does the government have control over his life?

Does the American Government allow individual's the right to assisted suicide?

Does the American government step in and override the 'rights' of parents if they are treating their children in ways that are seriously against their children's interests. Damn sure they do and so they should, but not without irrefutable evidence that the children were suffering unduly as a result of the parents imagined 'care'.

If the parents are the legal guardians of Afie, then they have the right to make decision for that child.

As I have tried to show, that depends on the circumstances. Parents have no 'inalienable' or 'absolute' rights to determine what is 'best' for their own children, in every circumstance and in every case, no matter what.

To pretend that that is, or should be the case, is tantamount to saying that all parents can do whatever they like to their own children and the government cannot intervene on behalf of the child.

All this just goes to show that 'hard cases make bad case law'.

Regards Chris.

In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Alfie Evans... In reply to
It is fairly simple. We know how this all went down, but we also know that there was an alternative.

First, the parents wanted another opinion and another set of doctors and another hospital. They had to means to provide this for their son. This is why they sued in the beginning. This is why other countries got involved and why the Pope made them Italian citizens and had transportation and a hospital waiting to take Alfie.

Then, when they could not secure his release from the hospital, they gave up. Whether they came to realize that Alfie was not going to make it under any circumstances or not, they gave up and the father made nice with the hospital in a public statement.

They had a new choice; to take their son home once he was off life support and allow him to die at home under hospice supervision, which is not as strict as the hospital insisting on no fluids, no moisture in his mouth, which is very uncomfortable for the dying. It was reported that they ousted their priest. The parents were not allowed to remove their son to hospice care at home. The hospital thought he would die immediately upon being removed from his breathing apparatus, but he didn't and didn't and there was hope by some that this was a good sign, but nonetheless the hospital denied any fluid, which seemed cruel to many. At least at home in hospice, he would be allowed the comfort of moisture, even if he could not swallow.

It is about control.

I do hope that the UK government is as concerned with the non-dying children that are abused or hungry or in danger from family members or Islamist rapists.

I know how Child Protective Services fails everywhere to address these issues and save children and how overwhelmed the system is by the number of children in need. I suspect it is the same in the UK.

The problems are very real. Assisted suicide can be got around, but probably not in a government hospital...or maybe it is encouraged in nations where the state has more control over individuals?

This is the point; what do we give up to allow governments run programs to have control over us?

My personal opinion was that Alfie should be allowed to die, as he was not going to ever regain his brain matter, nor was he ever going to be cured of his terrible disorder. I thought the same about Terry Shivo, but the difference there was that her husband had control over his wife's supposed desire not to live as a vegetable. Her palliative end-of-life care was as excruciating as Alfie's was, I suspect. Or...not, perhaps he was so weak already that his dying was not as bad as hers. I don't accept the veracity of the photos supposedly showing a child that had been in a coma for so long. We see what we want to see when someone we love is in a dire health situation, as did Terry's family.

What would it have cost all around for Alfie to have been released to another hospital or allowed to die at home under hospice care?

What did it cost the UK and its healthcare system to keep these sensational two cases at hysteria level?

One of the most often spoken and written laments was; "Let the poor child go home, for heaven's sake."

Yes, it was a difficult case and we have had such cases here, wherein the parental rights were denied for the sake of the welfare of the child. His parents were willing to continue searching and there were doctors willing to accept his care and there was the Vatican willing to foot the bill for both care and transportation. There were medical professionals encouraging a different approach to his condition, which was one of the parent's initial concerns.

Why not? Why exert all the power of the UK government to continue their control over this family? These are the problematic questions concerning this case, which give many of us pause.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Greetings,

Jeanne you asked:
This is the point: what do we give up to allow governments run programs to have control over us?
In all countries the people are considered subjects of the King/Queen except in the United States. The "citizens" of the United States of America gave up their rights just like the individual states did in order to gain a benefit that was offered by the Federal Government. Every state Constitution declares in the Preamble that they are sovereign, but they gave up their sovereignty and the sovereignty of their citizens by 'accepting' help from the Federal government. Interstate commerce was one of the first things the states agreed to be overseen by Washington DC.
Another was allowing the 'greenback' (created by Lincoln) as 'legal tender' across all state lines (just recently over 7 states have declared that 'community currency' is now legal tender like I wrote in my books - the Goldie).
The Voter Registration card was changed years ago from being a citizen of a sovereign state to being a resident of the state and a citizen of the United States that is different than the United States of America. The United States is strictly defined as Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and any other federal enclave (such as military bases, embassies, world-wide and national parks & forests and deeded tracts of land in the various states). Just like any city, or county, the United States is an incorporated municipality with the right of it's residents to vote for representatives and various monetary issues to improve the quality of life within its jurisdiction.
We have personally given the government the right to make decisions for us by allowing them to overstep the boundaries of 'Parens Patriae' - parent of the country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae. The original intent was for the government to be the guardians of anyone who was unable to care for themselves. Mainly children, mentally incapacitated, & elderly. In kingdoms, it was automatically assumed that the king would take care of his subjects as they all shared in the common wealth (commonwealth) because they were his property (chattel). But nearly everyone who has come to America was looking to be free to make their own life as a sovereign citizen, but we have been duped into agreeing to accept a benefit in exchange for our freedom or as Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Quote Reply
Re: [jamesgodson] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Hi James.

Thank the Founders, some of whom had the wisdom to fight for inclusion of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.

From Wikipedia:

<<The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.[1] Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. (emphasis mine)

The door for their application upon state governments was opened in the 1860s, following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the early 20th century both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments.>>

The Fourth Amendment states; The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This also means that if a hospital will not allow you to remove yourself or your child, you have protection rights under the Fourth Amendment, and the government must prove that you are a danger to yourself, others or the child if you decline their accommodations. In this case, the parents had access to funding for medical assistance elsewhere and for the transportation of themselves and their comatose child. The parents had that choice and the government denied them that parental right to fulfill the action upon which they had decided.

This was an international case of great sensation. How many other cases are resolved because they are not contested, but just accepted as the hospital and government "knowing best" for the individual? The individual and/or the family may agree with their assessment, but should they not, then that choice should be theirs to make. Alfie was held a prisoner by the state, no matter how well-meaning they may have been, he was a prisoner.

That is the bottom line; who has control over the individual. And...that is what many fear, both now and throughout our history, is the true power of a centralized government.
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Jeanne: Hi

This also means that if a hospital will not allow you to remove yourself or your child, you have protection rights under the Fourth Amendment, and the government must prove that you are a danger to yourself, others or the child if you decline their accommodations. In this case, the parents had access to funding for medical assistance elsewhere and for the transportation of themselves and their comatose child. The parents had that choice and the government denied them that parental right to fulfill the action upon which they had decided.

Does this logically extrapolate into a potential situation where Alfie could be dragged from hospital to hospital indefinitely, until either, the parents decided enough was enough for Alfie, or they ran out of finances or they could not find a hospital anywhere that would accept their money on the grounds that it would have been unethical to claim they could cure Alfie, and charge high bucks to 'try', when they actually knew they probably could not, but would probably charge for trying anyway?

And while this is all going on, 'presumably in the interest of the parents', what about poor little Alfie, trying to find peace by submitting to the inevitable, but not being allowed to.

How long would you condemn Alfie to that then Jeanne?

It might not last eternally, but it sounds potentially hellish to me for Alfie and it might have even for his parents, who compelled to 'do something' for Alfie out of love for their child, would be forced to see him suffering a slow and lingering death, with no hope of any real recovery at the eventual end of it.

Would you like to be kept artificially alive long after your natural bodily functions were capable of supporting life? Unable to indicate to anyone that you just wanted to pass naturally and peacefully away, but forced to remain alive knowing your current situation is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, until the persons who want you kept alive run out of cash to pay for the machines and nursing staff.

If you were completely unable to make any decision for yourself, who then should make it on your behalf, if there is someone, 'with rights' compelled by concern and wealthy enough to pay to keep you indefinitely and painfully "alive"?

Regards Chris.
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: May 5, 2018, 4:24 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] Alfie Evans... In reply to
Hi Chris.

No. It does not logically extrapolate to that, but it does at least to an actual second opinion by someone who hadn't long before decided that Alfie was not going to live with this condition and whose government system's evolving statutes seem to be leading to the notion that such human beings should be euthanized for their own good and the good of the whole.

In this case, neither the UK government nor the parents were footing the bill for that independent second opinion (the first and second having been overseen by the one neurologist in charge at the hospital that was treating Alfie) as the Vatican was offering to pay for treatment and transportation.

This gives Alfie another chance and his parents another reason to accept the original prognosis. It is not unusual that an original prognosis is proved to be wrong. I don't think for a minute that this was for the parents, but for the child. I don't know to what lengths I would go for my children or my grandchildren, if I believed that there was a chance of their living in a non-vegetative state. There are many children alive today who can only be said to live in a non-vegetative state, whose parents love and enjoy a relationship with, however limited it may be.

I would not condemn a child or an adult like Alfie to that at all, but my views are a bit more radical than most in that field of euthanasia. Personally, I view the resources spent on vegetative and nearly vegetative and traumatic brain injury and severe autism with mental and behavioral disabilities to be wasted. The time, treasure, emotion and housing and caregiving resources spent on these very damaged human beings from infancy to middle age and sometimes beyond is wasted in most cases, but that is the fault of societal evolution, which unless we are willing to euthanize, we are stuck with because we believe it is evil to eliminate such individuals. And...a hard heart it would take, even in dire times.

I was not Alfie's parent. It was up to them to decide. I do think that they would have come to that conclusion quickly under different circumstances, but could not trust the doctor and the hospital that wanted Alfie to die quickly and for them to let him die.

No, of course I would not want to forever live in a vegetative state. But...I would want my family to do everything they could to make sure that I was actually not capable of coming back from any condition that held me comatose. There is a small percentage of medical hucksters that would gleefully make money off desperate families, but I don't know of many who would be handling extreme cases, such as Alfie's. I would rather beware of the hospital and doctors who made a decision at the beginning that pursuing further treatment was worthless and so was the life of their patient worthless, but couched the terms in "best interest" wording.

We may discuss in abstract ways this idea of government facilities holding a person by law and treating them in the manner in which they approve, but until it happens to our family, we don't know what such a terrible situation that might be. If a time came when one of ours was taken for his or her own good to receive treatment that the government felt was in the best interest of that person AND of the state, how would we react? What terror would fill us as we stood by helpless to affect the outcome?

Is this a slippery slope to George Bernard Shaw's determination of individual worth being decided by the state and being based on what that individual provides to the greater good of the state? And..of course such unworthy individuals need to be eliminated...for the good of the many and of the state and in their own best interest, for how could any sentient being bear to go on living an unworthy life. The Fabian Society has influenced much in the West and continues to do so. It greatly disturbs me that some of my more radical thoughts come too close to this.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."