The Implications of The Alfie Evans Case

Tom Evans, Alfie Evans’ father, protesting for his son’s life. (Photo source: thescottishsun.co.uk)

Alfie Evans and his story have been told time and time again, and the crime of holding him prisoner from his parents and letting him die has come to pass. But I do not believe this is said and done with. It cannot be until the perpetrators are held accountable.

The point of this article is not to tell the story of what has been told in many ways and by many people but to look at the deeper implications of this court ordered action.

I know Alfie Evans was already and most definitely on his way out of this world but the fact that the court would not let the parents take him to Italy where doctors that were willing to treat him could do so, is a crime.

The Evans family had raised enough money to pay for the treatment themselves and had already found doctors that were willing to treat him. This is not a case of burden on the UK tax payer, this is not an issue of refusal for care. The Evans had the money to treat and doctors who were willing to do so. This is an issue with implications that go deep. This is an issue of the medical doctrine of “best interest”.

“Best interest” is a “child’s rights” policy implemented by the UN Convention on The Rights of The Child. The doctors at Adler Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, that refused to care for Alfie Evans, used this principal saying that it was in the best interest of the child to let him die.

The doctors could not pinpoint the diagnosis clearly but saw that it was hopeless. The doctors then began to do what is commonly done, which is to start nudging the family to withdrawal care. The parents refused and sought other opinions. After a few months they found that second opinion that confirmed the severity of the disease. The doctor giving the second opinion also backed up the opinion that to withdrawal care was best. The parents thought it was suspicious that the doctors would say it is in the best interest of the child to let him die.

This is when the doctors implemented the actual doctrine of best interest which eventually was ruled in favor of by the English Supreme Court It is important to understand why they do this. One argument is that treatment is too damaging to continue, that it would do more damage than help. This argument was irrelevant because, as everyone agreed, the child was in a coma and was unable to feel pain. Some would argue that the state has a right to step in at a certain point when treatment is akin to torture. But once again, no one knew if Alfie had any sensation of feeling so this is also inapplicable.

The English Supreme Court ( Photo source: opendemocracy.net)

Even so the UKIP court referenced a document written by the Royal College of Pediatricians and Children’s Health(RCPCH) stating that “even in the absence of demonstrable pain or suffering, continuation of life sustaining therapy may not be in the best interests of the children because it cannot offer overall benefit to them.” This is the stunning logic used by the court when deciding to end or continue life sustaining care. This is definitively stating that it is in the best interest of the child to die. The judgement states that it’s not a matter of suffering that it is a matter of “best interest”. This is extremely dangerous because this means “best interest murder” can be implemented anytime, and on anyone.

What a bright and colorful logo for such an organization who have committed such a dark act. (Photo source: choosing wisely.co.uk)

The parents sought treatment outside of the UK once the court decided to withdrawal life supporting care. Two hospitals agreed to treat Alfie. One at the Vatican and one in Munich who were willing to transport the child to Bambin Gesù and continue the treatment or provide the child with the ability to survive for a longer period of time. This is what the parents wanted to do and the medical authorities said they did not think this was in the best interest of the child and the Court of Appeal’s Mr. Justice Haydens then backed the decision with a ruling. They then pulled the plug and Alfie passed three days later.

Mr. Justice Haydens. (Photo source: howldb.com)

There were doctors and hospitals willing to help, the parents wanted this, not to the detriment of the child’s already failing health, and the state decided that it had more authority of Alfie’s future more so than the parents. The implications run deep my friends.

This is no different than when the State in the U.S. steals a child and forces the child to take chemo against the parent’s and child’s will. When we do not have control over our own and our children’s bodies we have control of absolutely nothing. I’ve said this before but it is so so important that it is states time and time again.

This “best interest” is a perversionof the hypocritical oath. The oath states:

• “help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free.”

• “Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I break it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.”
  Not, to not hurt as long as the persons health is not hopeless and if I do it in the “best interest” and it’s all good. No, quite clearly it says the exact opposite.

This allows the medical authorities to be free to decide when anyone lives or dies. There is nothing within “best interest” that specifies what health a person has to be in to pull treatment. Just simply whether or not the medical and court authorities decide if its best to stop life sustaining treatment. This applies to both children and adults.

This is not an argument of humanity, like putting down a rabid dog. Do not let yourself be fooled into thinking this was an act of kindness. The State is very interested in our children and wants to show us that ultimately they own them and control the outcomes of their lives. This is an argument that someone is better off dead than fighting for their life. This is an argument that ultimately you have no real say over the outcome of what kind of care your child gets if any at all. There is a much deeper agenda behind this. Please do not be fooled. And the fact that the State now has the authority to decide this, not just for us, but for our children, is a very scary thought.