This story is getting some traction

MikeAMikeA Senior MemberPosts: 3,632 Senior Member

How? How does a nation reach a point where it will essentially kidnap a child from a loving, functioning family, yank that same child off life support, deny him care as he unexpectedly fights to stay alive, and then block attempts by a foreign government to rescue him and provide him top-notch care free of charge? How does a great civilization sink to such barbarism and tyranny?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/alfie-evans-case-americas-future/

Replies

  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,190 Senior Member

    Judicial activism run amok.

  • EchoTestEchoTest Posts: 480 Senior Member

    Hmmmmm.....what would Bertrand Russel say?

  • EchoTestEchoTest Posts: 480 Senior Member

    Ooops...yes...I know its 'Russell'...mistype...or is that missed type?

  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,689 Senior Member

    As the saying goes, tough cases make bad law, and the British govt. acquitted itself shamefully in this instance, denying the parents even the right to take the boy home to die there.

    But it does not follow that what America needs is a theocracy of sorts. Mr French either is deliberately distorting the intent of the Founders, or else is ignorant of their beliefs. Many, perhaps most of them were deists, believing in a vague Creator who set in motion a clockwork universe, but did stick around to take a day to day interest in its fate. Certainly this was Jefferson's view. The phrase "Nature's law and Nature's God" would best be translated today as the "the Laws of Nature and Science". French's theocratic interpretation is simply wrong, absurd actually.

    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,297 Senior Member

    I have never read such a pile of scare mongering nonsense in all my life. How you and Sherb can read such sophomoric rantings is beyond me.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • EchoTestEchoTest Posts: 480 Senior Member

    It all falls apart when he says with no God over the state then the state becomes the definer of liberties instead of the defender of liberties; there are no longer any inherent rights; and a whole raft of evils results. You have to buy into that to be fed what he follows with. Unfortunately rational, reasonable, educated people know that all he says results and follows is not inescapably what will result, that certain dependencies don't actually exist, and can not only think of countless ways in which other entities, groups, forces, or thoughts other than a God can be the definer of liberties (such as the people in a democracy or theories or philosophy such as Taoism or that of Karl Marx) and all that he states follows a state without a God over it is sometimes the results that follow within Theocracies where certain disciples or Prophets or Church Leaders have 'received or translated' the word and wishes of God as his messenger to the people....in other words...when the church is the state...it often becomes the definer of liberties...and what rights are inherent or given by God....and a whole raft of the same, similar, or different evils often results...in other words...there are lots of ways either can go.....

  • creekyguycreekyguy Posts: 270 Senior Member
    edited April 2018 #8

    Well, there's this about that:
    "The Dionne quintuplets (French pronunciation:  [d͡zjɔn]; born May 28, 1934) are the first quintuplets known to have survived their infancy. The identical sisters were born just outside Callander, Ontario, near the village of Corbeil. All five survived to adulthood.
    The Dionne girls were born two months premature. After four months with their family, __they were made wards of the state for the next nine years under the Dionne Quintuplets' Guardianship Act, 1935.[1] The Ontario provincial government and those around them began to profit by making them a significant tourist attraction.
    Four months after the birth of the sisters, the Ontario government intervened and found the parents to be unfit for the quintuplets (although not for their previous children). Custody of the five babies was withdrawn from their parents by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, on the advice of Premier Mitchell Hepburn, in 1935."

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,557 Senior Member

    @fishingcomic said:
    I have never read such a pile of scare mongering nonsense in all my life. How you and Sherb can read such sophomoric rantings is beyond me.

    Well, French is an iconoclastic thinker and writer. Much of what he says you would agree with. That said, I think his piece missed the mark. The soaring Jeffersonian rhetoric that he refers to was an outgrowth of the glorious revolution in England. Hence the ANGLO-American legal tradition. The anglo refers to England. Here's a better take:

    _Parental Rights

    Whatever else you say about Britain these days, it no longer feels like a free country. I don’t just mean the hideous suffocation of free speech — although that’s shocking enough. That someone was actually fined over $1,000 for making a stupid joke video of their pug doing a **** salute would be hilarious if it weren’t also so preposterous. And if you want to see what the world would look like if the social-justice movement could truly get their way, and if the First Amendment did not exist, come to England.

    Here, a politically incorrect statement could have you hauled into court. A young woman was recently sentenced to an eight-week community service order and legal costs of nearly $7,000 for putting a quote from Snap Dogg on her Instagram account, the Spectator’s Brendan O’Neill reported. (The quote included the N-word and offended a cop from the local police hate crime unit.) A Christian preacher was put in jail for 19 hours because he told some gay teens that gay sex is a sin. Sick jokes — the kind that I heard every day as a teen — are now criminal offenses. The Times of London reported that more than 3,000 people were detained and questioned last year for trolling on the internet in ways that offended the designated victim groups. And this is under a Conservative government. No one but a few straggling right-wingers seem concerned.

    And then there’s the Alfie Evans case. The idea that the parents of a severely handicapped 2-year-old are not the ultimate deciders of what happens to their own child is, for me, a deeply chilling one. In the case of Alfie, afflicted with a degenerative neurological disorder, the doctors essentially decided it was time to pull the plug. It’s a horrible decision to have to make, and I’m not going to diagnose what was medically possible, although medical bias does exist. I understand that, at some point, extraordinary measures to sustain a human life are no longer valid. When resources are limited, and a person really has no chance of survival, the use of simple ordinary measures to protect life — food, water, shelter, care — is what is morally required.

    But what if the parents of the child disagree? What if they still hold out hope that some treatment might still be possible — and another hospital is able and willing to try? That’s what happened in the case of Alfie. The doctors at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital had every right to tell Alfie’s parents that it was “unkind, unfair and inhumane” to continue treatment. But to deny the parents the option of another hospital in Italy, prepared to take over the case, and to legally prevent Alfie from being transported there, is hard to comprehend. If parents do not have the right to take their child to another hospital, what rights do they have at all?

    The BBC has a useful account of the law in question:

    The concept of parental responsibility is set out in law - in the Children Act 1989 - conferring on parents this right broadly to decide what happens to their child, including the right to consent to medical treatment. But this right is not absolute … If a public body considers that a parent’s choices risk significant harm to their child, it can challenge these choices — but it must go to court in order to override the legal state of parental responsibility.

    And that’s what happened. The parents and the hospital are regarded as equals by the justice system and the court decided in favor of the hospital. It’s not the first time this has happened, as the tortuous case of little Charlie Gard in 2017 proves. In that instance, Charlie was prevented from traveling for experimental treatment in the U.S.

    These are horrible cases, and their complexity and agony need to be understood. But the ultimate right of a parent to do all they can for their child is not child abuse — if there is a legitimate alternative offered by other doctors. I’m not supportive of the barrage of abuse the hospital has been subjected to, or the threatening crowd outside, or the use of this case for political purposes. But I do believe that no one should overrule parents in a case like this. Alfie was born as an apparently healthy child, until seizures and infections took hold of him. His condition remains undiagnosed. He apparently breathed freely for hours without assistance after the hospital removed his life support last Monday night, and, as I write this Thursday night, he is still struggling to live. The father, meanwhile, has asked his supporters to stand down, and said he wants to restore his relationship with the hospital in order for the parents and the doctors to “build a bridge and walk across it.” It is too late for Alfie now.

    _

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,297 Senior Member

    The scare mongering is in suggesting that this is where we are headed and unless we embrace god we will be murdering children in the street.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,297 Senior Member
    edited April 2018 #11

    The doctors at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital had every right to tell Alfie’s parents that it was **“unkind, unfair and inhumane” **to continue treatment.

    What if what the child's situation was indeed torturous and was causing unneeded suffering with zero hope of survival? Does not the state have the right to intercede on behalf of that child's rights? Do parents always assume the right to be the final arbiters in a child's life? What if those parents decide that their child's diagnosis is wrong and refuse to render life saving treatment?

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • EchoTestEchoTest Posts: 480 Senior Member

    Slippery slope. I understand that parents (or loved ones) are emotional and can prolong suffering and/or waste resources/time/money/etc by not removing care when no hope remains...but I've also seen hospitals do the same 'because your sister isn't ready to let go yet' and in the meantime they went ahead with and ran all the usual hundreds of thousands of dollars of around the clock care and tests and CT scans and MRIs and every billable amount of care and procedures the insurance paid for anyway....so its also possible that hospitals (doctors or other medical professionals) can and probably often 'decide' to do things in their best interests over that of the patient and/or loved ones as well. Injustice, waste, prolonged suffering, etc ad infinitum can and does exist no matter who is the final arbiter of when to cut off care. Happens on both sides all the time. So does pulling the plug before its a foregone conclusion! Care providers are as human as loved one's and are just as susceptible to letting their own personal values and opinions enter the equasion, especially since most of them also have emotional investments too. Their paychecks and careers are often determined by decisions they make, they've got hopes and dreams and needs and loved ones too! So do 'hospitals' as well since a hospital is actually people on a board or executive level staff, 'hospitals' have needs to, operating budgets, taking care of and providing for all of its employees, capital investments to expand or bring in new technologies or services in order to remain competitive against other hospitals, etc. Who should be the final arbiter? Slippery slope.

  • EchoTestEchoTest Posts: 480 Senior Member

    Well....I know the article linked seemed more like a vehicle to launch in the writer's oinions regarding government and government in the United States.....

    But if it hasn't been said already....regarding the hospital in another country that offered to care for him....apparently the doctors from that Roman hospital had earlier traveled to the hospital in England, assessed Alfie, and concluded that his condition was irreversible and untreatable...and further concluded that in his condition transportation could trigger seizures that could further damage the brain and put the transportation process at risk.....ergo..thus...Alfie wasn't ever going to get any better than his semi-vegetative state...was only going to progress to eventual death...and he couldn't even be transported anywhere else....

    Either really really shoddy reporting in the linked piece or like I said....the writer used the case to support his opinons/views regarding government and government in the United States...and spun the 'facts' in the Alfie Evans case the way he needed in order to do so....

  • EchoTestEchoTest Posts: 480 Senior Member

    I hardly ever read something new to me and go with it....I might or not research it further....but unless I do....well....I don't generally take it as truth unless its from a source that can be trusted or credible...like maybe...Nasa talking about something in space or something like that....for example...

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,557 Senior Member

    @fishingcomic said:
    The doctors at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital had every right to tell Alfie’s parents that it was **“unkind, unfair and inhumane” **to continue treatment.

    What if what the child's situation was indeed torturous and was causing unneeded suffering with zero hope of survival? Does not the state have the right to intercede on behalf of that child's rights? Do parents always assume the right to be the final arbiters in a child's life? What if those parents decide that their child's diagnosis is wrong and refuse to render life saving treatment?

    I have no doubt it was all of those. I'll even go so far as to say that if Britain had been footing the bill, they would have been entitled to pull the plug. As Steven says, everything, but everything, is rationed. In socialized medicine, that rationing happens with palliative care. Almost by definition it has to.

    But there was treatment available at no cost to the NHS. The parents just wanted to take their child. I am having a hard time understanding why that was not allowed.

    RIP Alfie.

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,297 Senior Member

    Again what if it was determined that it would be torturous with no hope for success? Who gets to decide? Who protects the child from the parents?

    Care is rationed in our system as well. Try and get your insurance company to pay for experimental care when you reach a certain age.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 3,632 Senior Member
    edited April 2018 #17

    Are you seriously asking if the parents or the hospital staff should get to decide whether their child gets to live? I guess you don't have kids. I'd can't promise that the hospital staff would be safe from me in that case.

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,297 Senior Member
    edited April 2018 #18

    I may not have kids, but I have known some awfully stupid parents that make some horrible decisions for those kids.

    So are you saying that if a parent wants to, they can subject their kids to unnecessary pain and suffering?

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 3,632 Senior Member

    @fishingcomic said:
    I may not have kids, but I have known some awfully stupid parents that make some horrible decisions for those kids.

    So are you saying that if a parent wants to, they can subject their kids to unnecessary pain and suffering?

    I'm saying the final decision of when to pull the plug is up to the parents.

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,297 Senior Member
    edited April 2018 #20

    Even if it means the child suffers needlessly?

    I would not want to be involved in this in anyway shape or form. But the argument that the government made its decision without the child in mind and is just simply being cruel and calculating is not fair. Those people are parents as well.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,557 Senior Member

    The child lived for FIVE DAYS after NHS pulled the plug. Who exactly allowed him to suffer needlessly? It wasn't his parents.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/28/opinion/sunday/alfie-evans-and-the-experts.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 3,632 Senior Member

    @fishingcomic said:
    Even if it means the child suffers needlessly?

    I would not want to be involved in this in anyway shape or form. But the argument that the government made its decision without the child in mind and is just simply being cruel and calculating is not fair. Those people are parents as well.

    Yes. IT'S MY CHILD!

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,297 Senior Member

    It is a child, not a possession.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,297 Senior Member
    edited April 2018 #24

    @sherb said:
    The child lived for FIVE DAYS after NHS pulled the plug. Who exactly allowed him to suffer needlessly? It wasn't his parents.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/28/opinion/sunday/alfie-evans-and-the-experts.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    How long would that treatment last and what were the odds the result would not be the same?

    Perhaps the decision was wrong, that does not mean the motivation was evil.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • CO NativeCO Native Senior Member Posts: 1,433 Senior Member

    The toughest decision I've ever had to make was when to put my old dog down. I can't imagine making these sort of decisions when my child is involved.

  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 3,632 Senior Member

    Right> @fishingcomic said:

    It is a child, not a possession.

    @fishingcomic said:
    It is a child, not a possession.

    You just try telling a loving mother that. You try to take a child away from that mother. I’ve seen a lot of stuff in my 48 years, and one thing that constantly amazes me is the bond between a loving mother and her children. If she says it’s ok to let a child go, then it’s ok. Otherwise it’s her and the fathers decision. I’d never override paternal instinct in matter like this. This was wrong , period.

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,557 Senior Member

    @fishingcomic said:

    @sherb said:
    The child lived for FIVE DAYS after NHS pulled the plug. Who exactly allowed him to suffer needlessly? It wasn't his parents.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/28/opinion/sunday/alfie-evans-and-the-experts.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    How long would that treatment last and what were the odds the result would not be the same?

    Perhaps the decision was wrong, that does not mean the motivation was evil.

    I never said the motivation was evil. In fact, the court order is more or less a straighforward interpretation of British law. I think the problem is with the best interest standard used by British Courts. In most places in America, the best interest of the child is a determination made by the parents, so long as there is no allegation of abuse or neglect. And as far as I can tell, there was none of that here.

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,297 Senior Member

    I'm just glad it was not up to me to decide.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.