Skip to comments.The impact of Alfie Evans
Posted on 05/03/2018 11:53:02 AM PDT by Morgana
The story of Alfie Evans in the United Kingdom shocked and captivated an international audience. His death on April 28 was tragic, leaving his parents and countless people across the globe heartbroken, including his devoted online advocates in Alfies Army.
Many things happened during his case. The medical details are complex, with Alfie perhaps suffering from a unique disease.
While the details may be hard to follow, the controversy over Alfie is really quite simple: Alfies medical care was forcibly removed from him because of his quality of life. This was a fight about imposing quality of life judgments on the unwilling.
If you didnt follow all of the ups and downs of his story the last few months, you really ought to care about how he died, because it could very well impact you soon, or a loved one.
Heres all of the important points you need to understand, and this might be all you need to read:
1. Patient choice matters. Parents are responsible for children who cant express their own wishes.
2. Subjective quality of life concerns are dangerous for the sick and disabled.
3. Courts took away Alfie from his parents entirely based on their opinion of his quality of life. His parents were doing nothing wrong or abusive.
4. There was no evidence that Alfie was suffering other than his being alive with a disability.
5. Courts should not take children away from their parents because judges believe death is preferable to disability.
Some people are having difficulty grasping the above points, however, or disagree, especially on the first two statements.
If you want to read more about Alfies case, please do so. There are a lot of important issues that deserve discussion. The source of the controversy, however, was the legal fight to force the hospitals care plan over the objection of Alfies parents, forbidding them to even take him home to die. The purpose of that care plan was to let Alfie die on the hospitals terms because the hospital did not believe his life was worth living anymore.
Alfie was only a toddler, unable to express his wishes about what level of care to continue to receive, so instead his parents were responsible for determining his care. They decided it was in Alfies best interest to stay alive. They made a decision for Alfie that many adults legitimately make for themselves. Alfies case appeared to be terminal, but that doesnt make it morally wrong or abusive to live out as much life as possible in his parents care. Medical miracles happen and doctors can be wrong about a diagnosis.
How a patient views their health is important, but its a very subjective value. Unfortunately many doctors, hospitals, academics, and government officials have come to believe that many forms of disability are so insufferable that a person is objectively better off dead. I wouldnt want those tubes hooked up to me is quickly turning into, You shouldnt have those tubes hooked up to you. Even subtle bias in treatment decisions can have deadly effects.
Many terminal patients decide to forgo exceptional treatments, and thats their right to do so. Many do not, but more and more of those choices are being frowned upon, or quietly or actively blocked. Its one thing to have a broad discussion about good end-of-life decision-making on the frontier of new medical advances, but its an entirely separate thing to legally coerce someone into dying.
You may have decided on a different care plan for Alfie based on the medical facts. But you are not Alfie, nor are you his parents. Neither were his doctors, or the UK courts.
Theoretically there could have been good reasons to remove Alfie from his parents care. Alfie could have been older and communicated that he didnt want to remain on a ventilator. His parents could have been abusive or been keeping him alive for financial interest. Alfies medical care could have been actually futile. Alfie could have been suffering. None of those were true. The courts simply decided they knew better about what Alfie needed than his parents, and that need was death.
This was not a case where Alfies medical care was futile. Alfie was still able to digest food and fluids. Alfie was not brain dead, obviously proven when he continued breathing on his own for days after the ventilator was removed. The hospital took away his efficacious care so that he would die quickly, and they were clearly shocked when Alfie refused to die. It took the hospital nearly a day to begin feeding Alfie again, and his parents had to beg to have him allowed oxygen. Either the hospital was hoping to speed along his death, or they were shockingly incompetent in delaying proper care.
Alfies case is an another dangerous precedent, like the recent Charlie Gard case. Alfie and Charlie are not alone. There was a bone-chilling case where authorities started a manhunt for parents who sought care for their critically-ill son, Ashya. The child survived, proving doctors and authorities heinously wrong. Theres been other cases as well. Its encouraging, however, that Charlies parents are helping to revise laws in the UK so that quality of life values are not just imposed on children.
One huge obstacle, however, is the unshakeable faith of those who believe that imposing quality of life views on patients is a good thing, even if the patient expresses their will to live. In commenting on Alfie, Prime Minister Teresa May said it was a great tragedy, but ultimately said medical experts should decide on patient care, not patients or their parents: Its important that decisions about medical support that are given to children and to others are made by clinicians, by those who are expert in that matter
Were the experts who launched an international manhunt to nab Ashyas parents humbled after radiation treatment abroad left him cancer-free?
The people who took away Alfie are likely utterly convinced they did the right thing. The sinister nature of a quality of life ethic is that those who believe people are better off dead feel completely morally justified in the death of human beings. They are blind to the dangers of their beliefs. Removing care or giving people lethal doses of drugs is cheap, whereas caring for the sick and disabled can be very difficult.
People have a habit of taking the easy route, sometimes even if it harms other people. Now the easy route has a worldview justifying even causing death as compassionate.
Restoring a belief in the fundamental value of human life is what the prolife movement is all about. Well continue to fight for it, in memory of Alfie, Charlie, and others like them.
Alfies aunt, Sarah, left this final tribute to her nephew on the Alfies Army Facebook page:
Our beautiful soldier, your stubbornness will carry on through your beautiful Mum Kate, your strength you found from your hero your Dad: Both sides of the family are shattered. Never has there been a boy so beautiful special and precious as you are. Hearts are broken all over the world. Your cousins miss you so much. The tears that are shed are for the love we all have for you. Its never goodbye, its until we all meet again. We love you Alfie we do, we love you Alfie we do, we love you Alfie we doooooo oh Alfie we love you.
This is even more tragic than the Lavoy Finicum story. Both were turning points and should have raised hue and cry around the world. Damn these evil liberals in govt!
“The impact of Alfie Evans”
A metaphor for the general morbidity and death throes of a once great country.
“People have a habit of taking the easy route, sometimes even if it harms other people. Now the easy route has a worldview justifying even causing death as compassionate.
Restoring a belief in the fundamental value of human life is what the prolife movement is all about. Well continue to fight for it, in memory of Alfie, Charlie, and others like them.”
And all the aborted babies.
2 nd amendment. When citizens has guns, bureaucrats are more likely to behave, and know their place.
This is what Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party wants for America’s citizens! This demonstrated that the UK considers citizens their property. In other words slaves of the state. This is one of the reasons the Demonrats want to take away our weapons.
The left is opposed to humanity.
Does NHS stand for Nazi Homicide Society?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.