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

[Fisherking]

Now please, read the facts before jumping upon Fox News headlines bandwagon. It is very insulting to all the skilled professionals and excellent services which did so much for Alfie, the best they could do and more.

Sorry, the only coverage I’ve watched on this was BBC. But just for the sake of discussion:
It is not about the quality of care provided by the NHS.
It doesn’t matter one bit what treatment he received or what his chances of recovery were. The issue here is parental rights and the right of travel.

Any parent with a child would understand their desperation and seeking slim chances but that isn’t very relevant either.

NHS is within its purview to declare it a hopeless case. That is also understandable.

The tyranny arises from the NHS court case and the court’s denial of allowing the parents or child to leave the country and pursue what ever they may choose. In effect it is a declaration that all UK subjects are property of the state.

It would not be news or even controversial had the NHS simply stood aside and allowed further events to unfold for good or ill.

By what right or authority does the bureaucracy and the courts have to deny people their own liberty and rights to make decisions which effect their own family and not the health of the nation?

[Montmorency]

Sorry, the only coverage I’ve watched on this was BBC. But just for the sake of discussion:
It is not about the quality of care provided by the NHS.
It doesn’t matter one bit what treatment he received or what his chances of recovery were. The issue here is parental rights and the right of travel.

Any parent with a child would understand their desperation and seeking slime chances but that isn’t very relevant either.

NHS is within its purview to declare it a hopeless case. That is also understandable.

The tyranny arises from the NHS court case and the court’s denial of allowing the parents or child to leave the country and pursue what ever they may choose. In effect it is a declaration that all UK subjects are property of the state.

It would not be news or even controversial had the NHS simply stood aside and allowed further events to unfold for good or ill.

By what right or authority does the bureaucracy and the courts have to deny people their own liberty and rights to make decisions which effect their own family and not the health of the nation?

We've had almost the same discussion here a year ago with the Charlie Gard case.

I think (if not, it can be shown, but for now let's say it is) that the courts and hospitals are correctly applying UK and European human rights laws as they stand.

Without revisiting the discussion on parental rights (and I'm suspicious...), answer this for me. If the Parliament promulgated the following law, would you be satisfied?

In the case of medical care for terminal patients, a parent (or caretaker more generally, in the case of the elderly) may make the final decision whether to withdraw the patient from NHS care. This could be for the purpose of letting patient die at home, or die in some other healthcare system*

*That's how I'm framing it, but you should be readily able to imagine a more neutral framing in legislation

If this provision were overriding on the state's considerations according to other law, would you feel your concerns have been mollified?

[rory_20_uk]

He was a dud and active treatment should have been stopped over a year ago. Not like the NHS has money to waste on lost causes.

[Fisherking]

We've had almost the same discussion here a year ago with the Charlie Gard case.

I think (if not, it can be shown, but for now let's say it is) that the courts and hospitals are correctly applying UK and European human rights laws as they stand.

Without revisiting the discussion on parental rights (and I'm suspicious...), answer this for me. If the Parliament promulgated the following law, would you be satisfied?

In the case of medical care for terminal patients, a parent (or caretaker more generally, in the case of the elderly) may make the final decision whether to withdraw the patient from NHS care. This could be for the purpose of letting patient die at home, or die in some other healthcare system*

*That's how I'm framing it, but you should be readily able to imagine a more neutral framing in legislation

If this provision were overriding on the state's considerations according to other law, would you feel your concerns have been mollified?

I have no problem with with parents or caretakers withdrawing a patient or even with NHS stopping treatment as hopeless. It is after all a public entity spending public money. It is indeed a replay of Charlie Gard and another case shortly afterward. The problem I see is with the NHS and the courts preventing people from pursuing their own courses of action. Be that to die at home or seek treatment outside the county. As I said earlier, it would not be news or controversial had NHS merely allowed them to go on their way. It it the interposition of the apparatus of the state, once again, that makes it a tyranny.

[Beskar]

...The problem I see is with the NHS and the courts preventing people from pursuing their own courses of action. Be that to die at home or seek treatment outside the county...

Actually that choice was allowed and wasn't prevented.
As for the latter, I mentioned the Vatican Hospital scam in my post.

But there is the other point will emphasise again, Children have rights. They are not the property of their parents, they are their own persons and as such, their rights should be protected. The state has legal obligations to protect the rights of children, it is why things like child protection services exist too. In this case, the parents might have the best of intentions, but their actions would have caused their child suffering. There was no treatment, only torture. If there was treatment, the courts would have allowed the child to be moved to another country. If there was no reasonable suspicion of suffering either, they would have allowed the child to move. The state is not some cruel apparatus out to screw everyone over, even if that is your ideological belief.

The definition of Tyranny is as follows: "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control."
It wasn't cruel, it was reasonable, and the decision was not arbitrary nor was the use of power or control. It was completely justified. As such, the action was not tyrannical. You may have your opinion, but this does not change the facts.

[Fisherking]

Actually that choice was allowed and wasn't prevented.
As for the latter, I mentioned the Vatican Hospital scam in my post.

But there is the other point will emphasise again, Children have rights. They are not the property of their parents, they are their own persons and as such, their rights should be protected. The state has legal obligations to protect the rights of children, it is why things like child protection services exist too. In this case, the parents might have the best of intentions, but their actions would have caused their child suffering. There was no treatment, only torture. If there was treatment, the courts would have allowed the child to be moved to another country. If there was no reasonable suspicion of suffering either, they would have allowed the child to move. The state is not some cruel apparatus out to screw everyone over, even if that is your ideological belief.

The definition of Tyranny is as follows: "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control."
It wasn't cruel, it was reasonable, and the decision was not arbitrary nor was the use of power or control. It was completely justified. As such, the action was not tyrannical. You may have your opinion, but this does not change the facts.

So, you find it reasonable and justified that government prevented others form travel outside the UK and see nothing arbitrary in that decision?

Is it typical that you submit your holiday plans to a government body before travel?

It is despotic to dictate to others what they may or maynot do. Why should NHS care once they have made their pronouncement. It was cruel to deny sustenance to the child in order to assure his death. This is merely another example of “child rights” being used to control people. It is arbitrary to even think that such a decision is what is best for the child.

What you cite is governments justification in its arbitrary decision. It was only one governmental body upholding the wishes of another governmental body against the wishes of the parents.

Explain how liberty was upheld. Explain how this is not degrading treatment. Explain how there was fair trial of the facts, because it was only government judges upholding the wishes of NHS, in the absence of a jury only government adjudicates the facts.

The intervention by the NHS and the court served no one in the end. No one was going to be harmed by the child leaving the country. It turned into nothing more than government imposing its will on grieving and desperate parents and it does not present the nation in a good light.

[rory_20_uk]

So, you find it reasonable and justified that government prevented others form travel outside the UK and see nothing arbitrary in that decision?

Is it typical that you submit your holiday plans to a government body before travel?

It is despotic to dictate to others what they may or maynot do. Why should NHS care once they have made their pronouncement. It was cruel to deny sustenance to the child in order to assure his death. This is merely another example of “child rights” being used to control people. It is arbitrary to even think that such a decision is what is best for the child.

What you cite is governments justification in its arbitrary decision. It was only one governmental body upholding the wishes of another governmental body against the wishes of the parents.

Explain how liberty was upheld. Explain how this is not degrading treatment. Explain how there was fair trial of the facts, because it was only government judges upholding the wishes of NHS, in the absence of a jury only government adjudicates the facts.

The intervention by the NHS and the court served no one in the end. No one was going to be harmed by the child leaving the country. It turned into nothing more than government imposing its will on grieving and desperate parents and it does not present the nation in a good light.

Why did they wait 18 months before going? Why did Italy await an equally long time? You honestly think that transporting them by ambulance to a plane, then airlifting them to another country would at that point be helpful? Right at the start that would be OK, but by the end? This was nothing but a PR game.

As has been mentioned, the only "liberty" that they would have got in the USA is the "right" to die from lack of money.

The UK continues to have the freedom to pack one's bags and leave to wherever else in the world one wishes to live. They could have done this at the start and can do it now. They will not be missed.

[Fisherking]

Why did they wait 18 months before going? Why did Italy await an equally long time? You honestly think that transporting them by ambulance to a plane, then airlifting them to another country would at that point be helpful? Right at the start that would be OK, but by the end? This was nothing but a PR game.

As has been mentioned, the only "liberty" that they would have got in the USA is the "right" to die from lack of money.

The UK continues to have the freedom to pack one's bags and leave to wherever else in the world one wishes to live. They could have done this at the start and can do it now. They will not be missed.

I have said time and again that I had no problem with the NHS’s decision to treat or not to treat the patient. My only problem was their seeking of a court decision to prevent the patient or his family from going elsewhere.

However, I do take issue with your apparent ignorance of medicine in the US. In large part the reason hospital care is so expensive in the US is to make up for those unable to pay and there still are charity hospitals there, even ones who specialise in children and hopeless cases.

Apparently that right to pack one’s bags only seems to apply before seeking medical treatment from the NHS.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As a concomitant of the existence of the United Kingdom, a subject of the UK has no inherent rights per se. Numerous rights have traditionally been associated with UK citizenship, and those traditions have held a lot of power over the body politic. The worst despots of English history were more constrained in their use of power than were any other contemporary executives in the rest of Europe.

These traditional, albeit not constitutional, rights were subsequently spelled out in an act of Parliament. Though any act of Parliament could, subsequently, be overturned, the current electoral system strongly mitigates against the removal of this act regarding the rights of citizens in the UK.

gives UK citizens the following rights:
the right to life
freedom from torture and degrading treatment
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
freedom of expression
freedom of assembly and association
the right to marry and to start a family
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
the right to an education
the right to participate in free elections
the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

These rights are more numerous that the CODIFIED individual rights of a citizen of the USA.