If you have been following the horrifying tragic case of Alfie Evans — sick U.K. toddler who has been denied additional treatment or release to seek treatment elsewhere — then prepare to be disgusted by the matter even further.
After the Pope attempted to intercede on the child’s behalf — Italy granted the boy citizenship and provided a military medical helicopter to transport him to a waiting Italian hospital for treatment — the National Health Service and U.K. courts nevertheless denied Evans’ release and literally sentenced him to death.
According to National Review, that involved removing the sick toddler from the life support apparatus that assisted his troubled breathing on Tuesday, a move that doctors expected would result in a fairly quick death for the boy.
Yet, more than 60 hours after that occurred, the child was still alive and breathing on his own.
Roughly one day after life support for Alfie had been removed, his father took to social media to lament that his precious boy had been “starved from nutrition for 23 hours” and asked how such treatment could be considered “humane” or dignified, according to LifeNews.
The fact Alder Hey Hospital was essentially attempting to hasten the death of the child through starvation or dehydration was far too much to bear for the boy’s parents and his legion of international supporters.
The fact Alfie was capable of surviving without the life support equipment gave new hope to his parents and compelled them to seek a new legal path to save him via appeals to the court.
Unfortunately, according to the series of running updates provided by the U.K. Mirror, the courts dashed that hope and ruled once more that the boy wasn’t to be released, again condemning him to die a slow death within a hospital that is purportedly supposed to be saving lives.
After their latest legal challenge was dismissed, and after little Alfie had survived for a third night without life support, the parents dropped their legal battle and sat down with doctors and hospital administrators to try and reach an agreeable solution, namely to at least let them take the boy home.
It is unclear exactly what would be discussed in that meeting or how it would go, but it is worth noting that Alfie’s father released a statement that many perceived as a “stand down” request to the hundreds of protesters who had gathered on behalf of the boy outside the hospital and elsewhere.
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) April 26, 2018
In a related note, the U.K. Mirror reported on an effort by a Member of European Parliament from North West England named Steven Woolfe to introduce what is known as “Alfie’s Law,” which would grant more end-of-life decision-making abilities to the parents of terminally-ill children.
“The cases of Charlie Gard, Aysha King, and now Alfie Evans, show a dangerous trend of public bodies depriving parents and families of the right to make decisions they believe are in the best interests of their children,” Woolfe said.
“Parents’ rights should neither be ignored nor dismissed as irrelevant by hospitals and courts, who believe they know best and have the power, money and resources to overwhelm families who simply want to save their child,” he continued as he demanded that laws be changed and parents provided with independent advocates on par with those of the hospitals and courts.
“Now is the time to act,” Woolfe added. “We cannot have another baby, another family, have to go through the struggle and torment the Evans family have. It’s time for Alfie’s Law.”
Indeed, it is time to act, not just to provide adequate legal representation and decision-making abilities to the parents of children sentenced to death, but to rid the world of the scourge of socialized medicine.
Recall the savage mockery and condescension former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin received after she warned years ago about “death panels” that would decide the fate of sick individuals based on cost analysis in a socialized health care system. Well, the Alfie Evans case is exactly what she was warning everybody about.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.