Police Threaten Arrest If Citizens Speak Out Against the State-Sanctioned Death of Baby Alfie Evans

a reply to: notsure1

The UK, whether by accident or by design, just carried out its own Milgram Experiment.

They claim that the problem was that they stopped treatment, rather than that they prevented his parents from seeking alternative sources. They claim that the police was there because of the riots, and therefore that they did not guard Alfie's room to ensure that he's not taken out. (As if the two are mutually exclusive, or the former can't be a cover for the latter. Either way, the latter happened.)

Then, when all their excuses end, they go into damage control. First they blame Catholics, as if the father did not do anything except what a good father would do, and that you need to be a Catholic to consider this a travesty. Now they are arresting anyone for the thought crime of questioning state sanctioned death.

One child with a degenerative brain disease dies in a hospital after 18 months of life support and people scream that it is a tragedy.

Every 10 seconds worldwide, a child dies from hunger. Poor nutrition is responsible for nearly half of all deaths in children under the age of 5 — about 3 million children die each year and those same people only see a statistic.

a reply to: ArMaP

There was no real argument that a move would have been 'negative' for the patient.
Intensive care patients are moved between hospitals often. It is ridiculous to argue that the child would suffer any more or less from laying on a hospital bed plugged into machines than on a bed in an air ambulance plugged into the same machines.
The key word I took from the judges ruling was 'pointless', and pointless it may well have been, but fact remains, a judge decided to refuse another EU health service the opportunity to provide continuing care as they would to it's own citizens.
That denial of freedom of movement and access to legally approved care in another EU state is the principle to me.
It's like the judge is saying Italian doctors are wrong when British doctors decide to end life. I cannot reconcile that at all.

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: ArMaP

I am not sure if I agree with that. But none the less, I suppose it’s civil. I believe a parent should have the authority to choose to try and keep their child alive in the hopes he can be cured, never to give up hope until all options are exhausted. How it got to the courts is unknown to me.

In 99.9% of cases the parents do have the authority over there children. It got to the courts because all medical avenues, had been exhausted, there was no hope of a cure, so the medical opinion was turn off life support and the parents wanted to continue it. It then went to several different courts.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
One child with a degenerative brain disease dies in a hospital after 18 months of life support and people scream that it is a tragedy.

Every 10 seconds worldwide, a child dies from hunger. Poor nutrition is responsible for nearly half of all deaths in children under the age of 5 — about 3 million children die each year and those same people only see a statistic.

Yeah but nobody milk that into a right wing political agenda....

originally posted by: ScepticScot
It isn't about wanting to provide care, it's about if continuing with it was in the kids best interest.

Yes, and Italian doctors deemed it to be something they were prepared to provide.
So essentially it's an argument that British doctors are right and Italian doctors are wrong.
I say so long as a developed nation's health service was offering continuing care then freedom of movement should not have been denied.

I repeat, I have no problem with UK doctors deciding 'they' wished to stop life support, that is fair enough, but I disagree with a judge denying continuing care if another EU health service is offering it.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
There was no real argument that a move would have been 'negative' for the patient.

I just read this on page 15 of the court ruling.

It's a quote from the Italian experts from the Bambino Gesu hospital. Emphasis mine.

“It is therefore possible that a prolonged ventilator support, with surgical tracheostomy should be performed. Feeding and hydration are artificially provided through a nasogastric tube since several months, a clear indication for a gastrostomy is evident. Renal and liver functions seemed normal. Alfie appeared to be very well cared and despite eight months of ICU admission he did not present skin lesions due to posture

During clinical evaluation there were epileptic seizures induced by propreoseptiv stimuli and associated with neurovegetative symptoms as cardiac rhythm and blood pressure disfunctions. This finding might affect a possible commute. A hypothetical transfer might be done from the patients bed to ambulance, to airport and subsequent ambulance or helicopter to the final destination. It is possible that during the travel Alfie may present continuous seizures due to stimulations related to the transportation and flight; those seizures might induce further damage to brain, being the whole procedure of transportation at risk.”

a reply to: Konduit

Now they are arresting anyone for the thought crime of questioning state sanctioned death.

No one has been arrested for thought crimes!! People were making death threats to Hospital workers and the Hospital staff and threatening to storm the hospital which is a hospital for sick children, would you really allow a crowd to go rampage through hospital wards??

a reply to: Kurokage

I suppose I can see that point, but if the parents did not want to give up, why not let them go to the Vatican? If it were my child I be damned if someone told me no. Having some background in healthcare through my wife, it’s difficult for me to understand the ethical nature, in taking that right from the parents, those parents have to be and feel gutted it’s a very sad story, with controversial actions made in the final decision of the child. With that being said, since guys and gals sadly this can be debated for a very long time, I will leave it with that.

RIP ALFIE. peace to the parents.

Sad story. Truly heart wrenching.

a reply to: ArMaP

'Possible' and 'may', they were at least being honest, but in their opinion they were still prepared to offer that continuing care if the parents wished it.
This was essentially a difference of opinion between UK and Italian doctors, but the child was going to die anyway so I disagree with the judges decision to deny continuing care in another EU state.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Bicent

An independent entity, not his parents or the doctors, so I agree that a court decision would be the best way of independently assessing the situation, after hearing both sides.

You don't think the parent should have a say in the fate of their own child?

a reply to: Bicent


It's very sad that this had to happen to Alfie, and sad that the parents had to go through this ordeal all the while under the public spotlight
and a media frenzy. It is truly a dreadful ethical dilemma for all concerned.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Bicent

An independent entity, not his parents or the doctors, so I agree that a court decision would be the best way of independently assessing the situation, after hearing both sides.

You don't think the parent should have a say in the fate of their own child?

If your neighbour is severally beating their children, broken bones, internal injuries, would you not want someone to step in and have a say in the "fate" of that child?

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Bicent

An independent entity, not his parents or the doctors, so I agree that a court decision would be the best way of independently assessing the situation, after hearing both sides.

You don't think the parent should have a say in the fate of their own child?

If your neighbour is severally beating their children, broken bones, internal injuries, would you not want someone to step in and have a say in the "fate" of that child?

So you conflate child abuse to seeking alternative treatment.

Uh, yeah, no.

a reply to: Kurokage

Playing Devil's advocate here but the parents went public. Nobody would have known about it otherwise.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Kurokage

Playing Devil's advocate here but the parents went public. Nobody would have known about it otherwise.

It goes back to an earlier question I had.

How many stories aren't we hearing about government assuming authority over parental rights?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
This was essentially a difference of opinion between UK and Italian doctors, but the child was going to die anyway so I disagree with the judges decision to deny continuing care in another EU state.

I just finished reading the whole ruling and I couldn't find in it anything that prevented the moving to another hospital.

On the final page the judge wrote:

The plans to take him to Italy have to be evaluated against this analysis of his needs. There are obvious challenges. Away from the intensive care provided by Alder Hey PICU, Alfie is inevitably more vulnerable, not least to infection. The maintenance of his anticonvulsant regime, which is, in itself, of limited effect, risks being compromised in travel. The journey, self-evidently will be burdensome. Nobody would wish Alfie to die in transit.

Edited to add that the ruling was about "a declaration that continued ventilatory support is not in Alfie’s best interests".

originally posted by: DBCowboy
You don't think the parent should have a say in the fate of their own child?

Sure they have, but we are talking about a medical situation, and in those cases what did the parents did? They asked for medical advice and care, and they got it.

Only when the medical staff thought it wasn't on the child's best interest to stop keeping him alive did they asked the court for an opinion.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
So you conflate child abuse to seeking alternative treatment.

No alternative treatment was proposed.

a reply to: ArMaP

There have been a few court statements so apologies I cannot provide a link, but the parents wanted him to receive continuing care in Italy but were refused. That is absolute fact because had permission been granted the child would have left that hospital

It is an emotive subject for sure, and I've shared my opinion enough so to continue would just be a case of me repeating myself.
The ethical question will always remain, and that will always be subjective, just a pity so many posters on ATS assert their ethical interpretation as the only correct one. At least I'm honest and say it it is my honest personal interpretation, nothing more, nothing less.