Alfie Evans and the end of the myth of the UK as a free country.

[Husar]

There needs to be overarching proof that the parents intention would result in grievous harm. The testimony of one set of experts vs. another set of experts is just a weighing of opinion. It is not proof.

It shows a flagrant disregard of individual liberty and abandonment of legal principles. This my not be of any importance at all, as I am informed, to individual Britons but on the world stage it smacks of supreme hypocrisy. They always decry the human rights abuses of other countries while giving less than lip service to their own people.

Well, if you want to talk about it like that, then you have no proof for the disregard of legal principles since you're not aware of the exact arguments made in front of the judge. Therefore, you are abandoning your own principles.

You don't know what exactly the two sets of experts said, what proof or experience they brought to the table and so on, or do you?
You're basically declaring the entire legal system and government guilty based on how you feel about a case and the bits of info you got without ever even having sat in that courtroom.

If individual liberties only go so far until they affect others, then the liberties of the parents were affecting the child in this case and that's where other people stepped in. It's a fundamental function of government in a free society to protect the rights of individuals from others overstepping their boundaries. Your liberties are worth nothing if those who can't defend themselves don't have any.

The court obviously concluded that prolonging the treatment was not in the best interest of the child, and perhaps not even the parents. It appears that once emotions toned down, even the parents agreed, since the father moved from wanting to sue the hospital to thanking the doctors...

[Fisherking]

Well, if you want to talk about it like that, then you have no proof for the disregard of legal principles since you're not aware of the exact arguments made in front of the judge. Therefore, you are abandoning your own principles.

You don't know what exactly the two sets of experts said, what proof or experience they brought to the table and so on, or do you?
You're basically declaring the entire legal system and government guilty based on how you feel about a case and the bits of info you got without ever even having sat in that courtroom.

If individual liberties only go so far until they affect others, then the liberties of the parents were affecting the child in this case and that's where other people stepped in. It's a fundamental function of government in a free society to protect the rights of individuals from others overstepping their boundaries. Your liberties are worth nothing if those who can't defend themselves don't have any.

The court obviously concluded that prolonging the treatment was not in the best interest of the child, and perhaps not even the parents. It appears that once emotions toned down, even the parents agreed, since the father moved from wanting to sue the hospital to thanking the doctors...

Did it now? How is it you know. Were you in court? Can you speak to the emotional state of the father also? Was it frustration, resignation, PTSD, not wanting more turmoil that made the change.
What made him drop the suit? Money, legal advice, perhaps remorse.

Are you familiar with expert testimony? Are you a parent? Ever lost a child or had one that was comatose? Ever had medical advice telling you to abandon all hope?

As the father said, the condition wasn’t even diagnosed. Do you think they were entitled even to seek that, particularly if they hoped to have more children?

Was it doctors who stood in the way or was it the bureaucrats? Do you know anything about the stages of grief?

It is obvious you are not an empath. You have no understanding of the ordeal this young couple has been through and I sincerely hope you never will.

Government at any level inserting its self at such a time shows a callous disregard for human decency. What would have it mattered to them had the child lived a few days or a few weeks longer. If the child were “brain dead” then how was it torture to the child? It seems a foolish excuse to exercise power.

[Pannonian]

Did it now? How is it you know. Were you in court? Can you speak to the emotional state of the father also? Was it frustration, resignation, PTSD, not wanting more turmoil that made the change.
What made him drop the suit? Money, legal advice, perhaps remorse.

Are you familiar with expert testimony? Are you a parent? Ever lost a child or had one that was comatose? Ever had medical advice telling you to abandon all hope?

As the father said, the condition wasn’t even diagnosed. Do you think they were entitled even to seek that, particularly if they hoped to have more children?

Was it doctors who stood in the way or was it the bureaucrats? Do you know anything about the stages of grief?

It is obvious you are not an empath. You have no understanding of the ordeal this young couple has been through and I sincerely hope you never will.

Government at any level inserting its self at such a time shows a callous disregard for human decency. What would have it mattered to them had the child lived a few days or a few weeks longer. If the child were “brain dead” then how was it torture to the child? It seems a foolish excuse to exercise power.

Some of us have gone through the process for a parent. Painful, despairing, but at no time did I feel that the doctors have anything other than the welfare of my parent in mind.

[Husar]

Did it now? How is it you know. Were you in court? Can you speak to the emotional state of the father also? Was it frustration, resignation, PTSD, not wanting more turmoil that made the change.
What made him drop the suit? Money, legal advice, perhaps remorse.

Are you familiar with expert testimony? Are you a parent? Ever lost a child or had one that was comatose? Ever had medical advice telling you to abandon all hope?

As the father said, the condition wasn’t even diagnosed. Do you think they were entitled even to seek that, particularly if they hoped to have more children?

Was it doctors who stood in the way or was it the bureaucrats? Do you know anything about the stages of grief?

It is obvious you are not an empath. You have no understanding of the ordeal this young couple has been through and I sincerely hope you never will.

Government at any level inserting its self at such a time shows a callous disregard for human decency. What would have it mattered to them had the child lived a few days or a few weeks longer. If the child were “brain dead” then how was it torture to the child? It seems a foolish excuse to exercise power.

I'm not the one accusing people with a very broad brush...
You can spare yourself the comments about my empathy, I never said I blame the parents, but that doesn't mean I have to rationally agree with their every move just because my feelings say so. Are you advocating we base all our laws on who has the strongest feelings about something? Bring back family feuds, revenge killings and witch burnings?

[Fisherking]

I'm not the one accusing people with a very broad brush...
You can spare yourself the comments about my empathy, I never said I blame the parents, but that doesn't mean I have to rationally agree with their every move just because my feelings say so. Are you advocating we base all our laws on who has the strongest feelings about something? Bring back family feuds, revenge killings and witch burnings?

I have been discussing a very narrow range of circumstances. Why the need to concoct strange scenarios of possible outcomes found no where in these cases. Why try to colour it with criminal acts of violence?

The UK doesn’t take parents to court when they wish to holiday outside the country under normal circumstances. They don’t interfere in travel to other EU countries unless there is some evidence of criminal activity. Then why would they assume that desperate families with critically ill children do not have their children’s and their family’s best interests at heart by seeking medical help outside the country?

We don’t hear of every case a child dies. I would surmise in most the family goes with the medical advice and allows the child to die. Not just in the UK but around the world. And we don’t see these cases in other countries because there are no court cases seeking to restrain people from seeking medical assistance in another country, including the UK.

It is almost assured that these other countries have similar child protective laws. It is certain that the US and Canada do. And yet, it is only in the UK that we discover that the seemingly distraught but loving parents are intact monastery who only want their child alive a bit longer to endure torture. How would you like that verdict handed to you? Not stigmatising at all for the rest of your life, is it. And this is always the verdict. The courts have always found for the state. It is as if they are sending a message of Don’t Even Try!

[Husar]

I have been discussing a very narrow range of circumstances. Why the need to concoct strange scenarios of possible outcomes found no where in these cases. Why try to colour it with criminal acts of violence?

The UK doesn’t take parents to court when they wish to holiday outside the country under normal circumstances. They don’t interfere in travel to other EU countries unless there is some evidence of criminal activity. Then why would they assume that desperate families with critically ill children do not have their children’s and their family’s best interests at heart by seeking medical help outside the country?

Because these acts of violence also come from strong feelings and people having the best interests of their family at heart.
You're misreading the comparison. I'm not saying the acts are comparable, I'm saying the underlying motivations may be comparable and that people in general tend to do things they themselves may think of as stupid later on when they are very emotional.
Some try to take their own lives in such moments and later regret it and thank those who saved them. I don't doubt their motives, I question the validity of their desired course of action. It might as well have just prolonged the suffering of the whole family needlessly, strained them a lot more financially and in other ways, and so on.

We don’t hear of every case a child dies. I would surmise in most the family goes with the medical advice and allows the child to die. Not just in the UK but around the world. And we don’t see these cases in other countries because there are no court cases seeking to restrain people from seeking medical assistance in another country, including the UK.

It is almost assured that these other countries have similar child protective laws. It is certain that the US and Canada do. And yet, it is only in the UK that we discover that the seemingly distraught but loving parents are intact monastery who only want their child alive a bit longer to endure torture. How would you like that verdict handed to you? Not stigmatising at all for the rest of your life, is it. And this is always the verdict. The courts have always found for the state. It is as if they are sending a message of Don’t Even Try!

How many court cases were there and how did comparable cases play out in other countries?
It's irrelevant to appeal to my potential emotions because I'm talking about the logical course of action. I don't even think I'd go to court in the first place just to prolong the inevitable for two more weeks if I'd already had 18 months to say goodbye.

[Fisherking]

Because these acts of violence also come from strong feelings and people having the best interests of their family at heart.
You're misreading the comparison. I'm not saying the acts are comparable, I'm saying the underlying motivations may be comparable and that people in general tend to do things they themselves may think of as stupid later on when they are very emotional.
Some try to take their own lives in such moments and later regret it and thank those who saved them. I don't doubt their motives, I question the validity of their desired course of action. It might as well have just prolonged the suffering of the whole family needlessly, strained them a lot more financially and in other ways, and so on.



How many court cases were there and how did comparable cases play out in other countries?
It's irrelevant to appeal to my potential emotions because I'm talking about the logical course of action. I don't even think I'd go to court in the first place just to prolong the inevitable for two more weeks if I'd already had 18 months to say goodbye.

In the first part, this is conflation and only leads to obfuscation of the topic. But as courts have traditionally taken the emotional state of the accused into consideration as extenuating circumstances.

Child protective laws such as this were mainly crafted for the opposite circumstance. Parents who refused to treat seriously ill children as a means of safeguarding the minors, mainly for religious reasons.

These cases in the UK are the only ones I am aware of where a law is used to prevent further treatment or to exit the country. Without reading the entire law I surmise that the suits by the government are for parents refusing state medical advise. One would expect that advice and treatment to be lifesaving but here it is being used to force the parents to sit by while their child dies. It seem a perversion of the original intent.

In roughly the last 5 years the UK has extended their End of Life Pathways to cover children. It had already proved controversial with the elderly with reposts of coercion by family members and it has proved the same with children where parents also have complained of pressure and coercion. In most other countries this would be something specifically requested by the patient or next of kin. In the UK it appears to be urged or even forced upon them by some in the medical community. Hence, why we only see these cases coming from the UK.

[Pannonian]

In the first part, this is conflation and only leads to obfuscation of the topic. But as courts have traditionally taken the emotional state of the accused into consideration as extenuating circumstances.

Child protective laws such as this were mainly crafted for the opposite circumstance. Parents who refused to treat seriously ill children as a means of safeguarding the minors, mainly for religious reasons.

These cases in the UK are the only ones I am aware of where a law is used to prevent further treatment or to exit the country. Without reading the entire law I surmise that the suits by the government are for parents refusing state medical advise. One would expect that advice and treatment to be lifesaving but here it is being used to force the parents to sit by while their child dies. It seem a perversion of the original intent.

In roughly the last 5 years the UK has extended their End of Life Pathways to cover children. It had already proved controversial with the elderly with reposts of coercion by family members and it has proved the same with children where parents also have complained of pressure and coercion. In most other countries this would be something specifically requested by the patient or next of kin. In the UK it appears to be urged or even forced upon them by some in the medical community. Hence, why we only see these cases coming from the UK.

The intent of the law is already perverted by outside agencies providing ill-founded medical advice. The US with its religious base, exorbitant medical-legal industry, and the power to push its agendas, is particularly fond of providing second, third and fourth opinions that usually involve courts and extraordinary procedures, both of which divert eye-watering amounts of money to already deep pockets. The NHS wasn't designed to serve US legal minds.

[Husar]

These cases in the UK are the only ones I am aware of where a law is used to prevent further treatment or to exit the country. Without reading the entire law I surmise that the suits by the government are for parents refusing state medical advise. One would expect that advice and treatment to be lifesaving but here it is being used to force the parents to sit by while their child dies.

They would also have sat by and watched their child die in another country. One might even argue their child was already dead for quite a long time. Should the doctors have tried to keep a more or less brainless body alive until it stopped moving at age 75 if possible and if required by the parents?

In roughly the last 5 years the UK has extended their End of Life Pathways to cover children. It had already proved controversial with the elderly with reposts of coercion by family members and it has proved the same with children where parents also have complained of pressure and coercion. In most other countries this would be something specifically requested by the patient or next of kin. In the UK it appears to be urged or even forced upon them by some in the medical community. Hence, why we only see these cases coming from the UK.

That may well be a concern, but you extrapolate the "end of freedom" in the UK from that, which I just don't see, because freedom can mean a lot of things and not just the ability to do what you want provided you can pay all the private corporations you need to do it (which in itself could be called a lack of freedom for the poor).

[Montmorency]

Fisherking,

You don't realize how vegetative cases and debates over termination of treatment tend to gain national attention in various countries. Certainly in the US I can remember a number, most (in)famously the Terry Schiavo case. These cases seem to be inherently attention-getting regardless of the underlying medical etiology or details.

It is almost assured that these other countries have similar child protective laws. It is certain that the US and Canada do.

Well, that's begging the question, unless you mean it in the tautological sense that there are laws that have to do with child welfare, in which case I wouldn't be surprised if this applies to every single state.

How would you like that verdict handed to you? Not stigmatising at all for the rest of your life, is it. And this is always the verdict. The courts have always found for the state. It is as if they are sending a message of Don’t Even Try!

Your confusion over why the NHS would bring attention to itself by seeking to resist the parents' position here seems to related to an interpretation of the process as of callous and expedient bureaucratic shuffling, when this may be the wrong lens. On the other hand, if the system maintains an overall policy and applies it consistently across similar cases, that's an indicator of a robust and responsive framework. In that case of course the state should make similar findings and decisions, it would be suspicious if it didn't. If there is a government-wide policy of "no whistling indoors", then outside marginal cases involving sophistry around "indoors" the state should always rule against a whistler where the whistling has been established (although in this example it would be a bad, useless policy).

And when you say "always", are you aware of more than the two cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans? Would you like to share some of these so we can assess them?


So far you've been frustrated that I haven't tried to argue specifically on why it was necessary to prevent the parents from moving the child to another healthcare system, and you haven't cared to engage with slightly different abstractions I've raised about authorities.

Let me just address it so you don't feel ignored, and can move on to more directly respond to lateral questions: The "best interests" position in the UK vis-a-vis vegetative patients (children?) is that it is inhumane past a certain point to maintain their life through intervention. Therefore, the patient should be allowed to die, and merely allowing the patient to be moved elsewhere with a different policy (to continue the same sort of intervention) would be wrong. That's the position of the UK government. I don't personally have a strong belief that the best interests of a child can be construed this way, or that a termination decision (while sound) necessarily needs to follow according to a best-interests finding, but I am satisfied with the UK's deliberative process here even where it doesn't produce IMO superlative, exciting results because I think it makes a fair judgement making good use of the facts and taking some effort to accomodate aggrieved parties. Essentially, it's fine. If you believe there is pressure or coercion, that would certainly be bad and wrong (badong; I didn't see evidence of it here). It can happen anytime when citizens interact with state apparatus, and we should always be vigilant to correct individual misconduct and procedural inadequacies. But it doesn't really impact the substance of this case.

It's irrelevant to appeal to my potential emotions because I'm talking about the logical course of action. I don't even think I'd go to court in the first place just to prolong the inevitable for two more weeks if I'd already had 18 months to say goodbye.

For instance on the operation of the courts, if the father hadn't delayed the issue with legal challenges Alfie may not have lived to see Age 1. Although it wasn't easy on the part of the father, who took much time to do extensive research to develop and argue his case.



Some words on Alfie's dignity, and Alfie's dad, from the judge in the first judgement:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In her evidence the Guardian* expressed her clear support for the Trust’s application.
Her view had been foreshadowed in her report. The evidence, she told me, had
served ultimately to confirm her recommendation. She stated that in her view
Alfie’s life now lacks dignity and his best interests can only be met by withdrawing
ventilation. This evidence from an experienced children’s guardian requires to be
considered very carefully. I have done so. With great respect to her I disagree with
her view on Alfie’s dignity. As I had promised the family I attended the PICU at
Alder Hey to meet Alfie. I was greeted not merely with courtesy by the parents and
a number of aunts and uncles but with a sincere and genuine warmth. I was and
remain grateful to them. Alfie’s pod in the unit is large, comfortable and he is
surrounded by some of the world’s most up-to-date technology. F was, in my
presence, assiduous to Alfie’s care. He is entirely besotted with his son. M, both
parents agree, is far less involved in Alfie’s practical care and less confident. Her
contribution, in my assessment, is of an entirely different complexion. She has, if I
may say so, a zany and delightful sense of humour entirely free from self-regard or
pomposity. Her love for her partner and her son was obvious. The atmosphere
around Alfie was peaceful, dignified and though some might find it surprising for
me to say so, very happy. The primary engine for all this is Alfie’s mum.

55. Alfie’s bed is festooned with toys. His walls are plastered with photographs and his
many supporters have delivered a variety of football shirts to him. One, in
particular, was signed by the entire Everton squad specifically for him.

56. Supporting all this is the diligent professionalism of some truly remarkable doctors
and the warm and compassionate energy of the nurses whose concern and
compassion is almost tangible. All this creates an environment which inherently
conveys dignity to Alfie himself. In my judgment his life has true dignity. The far
more challenging question is whether and if so how that can be maintained.

I indicated to F that if I felt him to be under any disadvantage during the course of
the Hearing he could restore his application to be represented. In the event, as
anybody sitting in Court would immediately recognise, F’s presentation of his case
was extraordinarily impressive. His knowledge of the paperwork and the medical
records was prodigious. His understanding of the functioning of the brain and his
exploration of competing hypothesis was remarkable. At one point in the evidence
when he had asked a question of particular complexity I asked him if somebody had
been providing the questions for him. He told me, entirely convincingly, that he had
written it out a moment or two before. His uncle, sitting next to him, confirmed it.
F left school at 16. He served an apprenticeship as a plasterer. It says much about
his commitment to his son and the time and energy he has directed to this case that
he has absorbed the issues so completely and intelligently. He believes passionately
that his view of Alfie’s future is the correct one. As I said during the course of the
evidence it can only be in Alfie’s interest for all the available theories to be
evaluated. On this premise therefore Alfie could have had no more articulate voice
on his behalf than his father’s in this Court room.

*The state assigns patients a Guardian in cases like this, not for purposes of caretaking but to determine and advocate for their interests in the court. This can be either for or against the judge's position.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Alfie Evans is just one of these cases that American conservatives love to trot out to scare Americans about the government.

In Reality, if Alfie was American, he would have reached his insurance maximum long ago, his parents would have mortgaged the house, started a go fund me, and then divorced as they failed to forestall the inevitability of their sons death.

But that is just the FREE MARKET telling you that his life doesn't provide as much value as his expenses. You would rather have BIG GOVERNMENT make such decisions??!?!?!?

[Fisherking]

Some of you seem confused and elevate postulated rights with natural rights and think that is freedom.

Those rights postulated to you by government always come with a mermaid of statutes, conditions, and a bureaucracy for implementing them. It is not a right if it must be delivered or overseen by others. It is not what freedom is predicated upon.

The idea that a made-up right trumps a natural right is a convenient fraud perpetrated by government.

With actual right the government only must stand aside. Their mandate is to punish those who force their will upon others.

Bureaucrats have incentive to enforce regulations because their jobs depend upon it. Courts are also a part of the government and most often side with government in regulatory and statutory measures. There is no one to hold government to account.

The Hospitals receive economic incentives for caring out the Liverpool path. NHS and the general government have economic incentive to remove net consumers of services. It is obvious, baring a miracle, that the child would ever be a net contributor (tax payer) to government. The same as with the elderly.

There is no recognised right to die. There is right to life and a right to liberty. It is clear that these were disallowed by the parties of government. Rights government is forsworn to uphold. That is tyranny.

As to the father’s apology to the hospital, that was for the fear caused by demonstrators calling for the hospital to be burned down. Alder Hey Hospital. As the father was only a three year old when the last great controversy broke (2001), he may have been ignorant of what transpired there.

Nothing in the government argument saved the child from harm. That was the clear intent of the law. So called experts theorising does not alter that.

Government disregarded its actual responsibility for a feigned responsibility and I see nothing there to debate.

[rory_20_uk]

At the risk of going around the same circle again... where do these "rights" come from? The ones you say clearly exist as opposed to the ones you clearly say don't exist and are a Government construct.

[Montmorency]

But Fisherking, why can't the charge be levelled that you're just making stuff up?

Some of you seem confused and elevate postulated rights with natural rights and think that is freedom.

Those rights postulated to you by government always come with a mermaid of statutes, conditions, and a bureaucracy for implementing them. It is not a right if it must be delivered or overseen by others. It is not what freedom is predicated upon.

Every right is such, except when the only government is that of ritual, normative force, and physical force: you satisfy your perceived rights and wrongs by your own strength.

[Husar]

I see nothing there to debate.

Then why open a thread?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Folks, you are arguing 'givens.'

If you accept as a basic premise the idea of rights "endowed by their Creator," then you probably wish to see those rights curtailed as minimally as possible and that the social compact of governance should accord to each individual the greatest degree of choice possible without impinging on those same rights for others.

If you don't accept the concept "natural" or "Creator endowed" then you probably believe efforts to preserve them are fatuous, and that the 'greatest good for the greatest number' is the best to be hoped for from the social compact.


But you are arguing givens -- one side asserting "Apples, surely?!" while the other responds "Oranges of course!"

[Husar]

Folks, you are arguing 'givens.'

The only given for me here is that I won't join Fisherking in the zombie apocalypse because he'll be the one telling his people that the zombies have a right to live and the right to go wherever they want...

[Montmorency]

Folks, you are arguing 'givens.'

If you accept as a basic premise the idea of rights "endowed by their Creator," then you probably wish to see those rights curtailed as minimally as possible and that the social compact of governance should accord to each individual the greatest degree of choice possible without impinging on those same rights for others.

If you don't accept the concept "natural" or "Creator endowed" then you probably believe efforts to preserve them are fatuous, and that the 'greatest good for the greatest number' is the best to be hoped for from the social compact.


But you are arguing givens -- one side asserting "Apples, surely?!" while the other responds "Oranges of course!"

There are more fruits than apples and oranges, but in this case we're probably closer to arguing Fiji apples and the grandma ones ("natural" vs. "human" rights).

The only given for me here is that I won't join Fisherking in the zombie apocalypse because he'll be the one telling his people that the zombies have a right to live and the right to go wherever they want...

There's a TV show about that.

[Beskar]

If you accept as a basic premise the idea of rights "endowed by their Creator," then you probably wish to see those rights curtailed as minimally as possible and that the social compact of governance should accord to each individual the greatest degree of choice possible without impinging on those same rights for others.

Got me confused by social compact, but it is another way to mean Social Contract.