The Sad Case of Alfie Evans

[gallsman]

Another sad case in the news at the minute, very similar to that of Charlie Gard last year. Terminally ill baby boy on life support, parents want to take him to Italy for treatment but courts have ruled that any further treatment would not be in the child's interest and police have blocked any attempt to remove the child from the hospital, according to the father. He has a degenerative neurological condition that doctors have been unable to diagnose. Ended up last night with a protest, instigated via a Facebook video from the father, in the vicinity of the hospital that disrupted traffic. The parents claim they have a legal right to remove the child from the hospital and are taking advice from some crowd called the "Christian Legal Centre".

Thoughts?

My own view would be as I felt in the Charlie Gard case - the parents are, understandingly, incapable of agreeing with the medics that there is no hope for respite and that sustaining his life would not be in his best interests. The father has claimed that Alfie is a "healthy, healthy young boy, who id not diagnosed and certainly not dying". This is clearly not the case. Also as in the CG case, anyone disrupting the operating of a hospital, and a children's one at that, should take a long, hard look at themselves.

Suggest that anyone who is going to get involved in the thread reads the basic facts of the case first rather than posting nonsense such as "why has the judge ordered the hospital to kill the baby" like came up in the Charlie Gard case.

[Asal Mor]

His father claimed to have an air ambulance on standby ready to take him to Italy. While I wouldn't hold out any hope for the lad, I think it should be a parent's right to try everything. I also know from my own medical experiences thst doctors are far from infallible. The state seem to be putting a lot of resources into ensuring he's not brought away for this last-ditch treatment. It doesn't seem like there's anything to lose by letting them try. His parents are very young and do come across as brainwashed by religion but I think  it should be their decision. It should be treated differently to a case where a parent's unusual beliefs endanger their child's health.
The protests at the hospital are unfair on other patients and their families and the protesters should be able to kick up a fuss without blocking access to the hospital.

[Asal Mor]

There's an episode of Louis Theroux LA stories where there's a man in a coma and the doctors say there's absolutely no hope of any recovery. Most of the episode is focused on the docs trying to convince the family to switch off life support. They were religious fanatics too and wouldn't hear of it. Like most people I was getting angry watching the episode "f**king nutcase American bible bashers, let the poor fecker go and let the doctors get on with helping people who have a chance you selfish pricks etc.". Anyway the guy made a full recovery.

Not saying there's any chance of that here but doctors aren't always right.

[macdanger2]

His father claimed to have an air ambulance on standby ready to take him to Italy. While I wouldn't hold out any hope for the lad, I think it should be a parent's right to try everything. I also know from my own medical experiences thst doctors are far from infallible. The state seem to be putting a lot of resources into ensuring he's not brought away for this last-ditch treatment. It doesn't seem like there's anything to lose by letting them try. His parents are very young and do come across as brainwashed by religion but I think  it should be their decision. It should be treated differently to a case where a parent's unusual beliefs endanger their child's health.
The protests at the hospital are unfair on other patients and their families and the protesters should be able to kick up a fuss without blocking access to the hospital.

Would largely agree with that, if the parents have a (partially) reasonable belief that moving him to Italy will help, they should be allowed to do so

[gallsman]

Even if deemed against the best interests of the child?

[Asal Mor]

Even if deemed against the best interests of the child?

Unless the doctors at Alder Hey can prove that moving Alfie would cause him serious pain and discomfort,  then the term "best interests" feels a bit Nurse Ratchett in this case.

[Asal Mor]

Might be an impossible thing to "prove" in the circumstances actually. "Establish a likelihood" would have been a better way of wording that.

[gallsman]

He's on life support with a degenerative brain condition. The father's protestations about securing an air ambulance aren't sufficient in my view - they're the ones who want to move him, the onus should be on them to prove (as terrible as that sounds) that moving him would NOT cause any issue.

[macdanger2]

Even if deemed against the best interests of the child?

My main reason for being somewhat supportive of the parents (without having read all the details of the case) is that they have to live with whatever happens for the rest of their lives; for everyone else, it's just another sad story that they'll quickly move on from

[gallsman]

Even if deemed against the best interests of the child?

My main reason for being somewhat supportive of the parents (without having read all the details of the case) is that they have to live with whatever happens for the rest of their lives; for everyone else, it's just another sad story that they'll quickly move on from

But that, as tragic as it is, is putting the parents wishes and desires ahead of what's deemed best for the child, no?

[macdanger2]

The doctors in Italy presumably think there's some sort of hope although I guess they haven't seen him in the flesh. As I said, I haven't read up on the case so I'm probably not too well placed to comment