ADVERTISEMENT

Why Won't the UK Let Little Alfie Go Home (or even to Italy)?

dandh

dandh

HR Legend
Nov 11, 2002
19,536
8,936
113
Twin Cities MN
So there's this little boy in England who has a medical condition that the British NHS says is uncurable. They don't want to treat him any more. Okay, I guess. They can't spend that much money when there is no realistic hope. But the government of Italy has offered to take on all the expense to fly him there and provide some experimental treatment. Mom and Dad would like that, but the UK government still says no. Why?

Also, now they are saying the little kid can't even go home to die. They plan to keep him in the hospital and withhold food until he dies, if I get it right. Can someone please explain to me why they are taking this approach?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nat Algren
alfie-evans.jpg


Pic of Mom holding Alfie. All night long for two nights, per the dad.
 
Last edited:
You might be able to find more detailed summaries of the judges rulings and appeal court rulings than this article, regarding your plea of why, hope they help!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...hreatened-private-murder-prosecution-against/

"Mr Justice Hayden decided at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in Manchester on Tuesday, that Alfie should not be allowed to leave Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool and travel to a hospital in Italy.

In his ruling Mr Justice Hayden criticised what he described as the "malign hand" of one of the family's advisers, law student Pavel Stroilov, who had been party to Mr Evans lodging a private prosecution of doctors at Alder Hey Hospital.

On Wednesday, Alfie's parents lost the latest round of their legal battle, when three Court of Appeal judges dismissed their appeal against the decision that the child should not be taken abroad for treatment."


"Mr Evans and his wife Kate James, from Liverpool, were appealing against Mr Justice Hayden’s ruling preventing their son being taken to Rome’s Bambino Gesu Hospital for continued treatment.

Mr Justice Hayden had said he accepted medical evidence which showed that further treatment was futile and that flying Alfie to a foreign hospital would be wrong and pointless."
 
"wrong and pointless.", or expensive and wrong and pointless? But even so, what are they protecting if it costs the British government and NHS absolutely nothing? I don't get it.

And I still don't get why they won't let them take their kid home to die.
 
I’m a liberal and support Medicare for all. But it if private money for treatment is possible and/
or letting the child go home do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dandh
dandh said:
"wrong and pointless.", or expensive and wrong and pointless? But even so, what are they protecting if it costs the British government and NHS absolutely nothing? I don't get it.

And I still don't get why they won't let them take their kid home to die.
Click to expand...

I don't how laws in the UK work, but my interpretation of the article/quotes is that the court's duty is to act in the best interest of the child. Rather than say the best interest of the parents, ironically, the court's decision now also is in the best interest of the American GOP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: What Would Jesus Do?, lucas80, Rudolph and 1 other person
ThorneStockton said:
I don't how laws in the UK work, but my interpretation of the article/quotes is that the court's duty is to act in the best interest of the child. Rather than say the best interest of the parents, ironically, the court's decision now also is in the best interest of the American GOP.
Click to expand...
They're trying to ensure the kid dies. I don't understand how it's in the kid's best interest. They are not going to intervene if the kid starts to die, so I don't understand what makes it better for him. Italy has also offered to provide palliative care for free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nolesincebirth
As long as his care is privately funded, go get it anywhere you can. It's the long-term government funded treatments for terminally ill (kids-adults) that needs to be adjusted.
 
I understand why the parents would want to exhaust all of their possibilities. It doesn't seem like anything positive will come of this no matter how it ends.

Just snagging some article quotes.

"The judge was careful not to attach blame to Tom Evans and Kate James, who cannot accept the settled view of their son’s doctors that his brain has been damaged catastrophically by an as yet undiagnosed condition, or that the intensive treatment required to keep him alive is no longer in his best interest and may be causing him suffering."

"Judges have heard that Alfie, born on May 9 2016, is in a ‘semi-vegetative state’ and has a degenerative neurological condition that doctors had not definitively diagnosed. Specialists say his brain has been ‘eroded’ and asked for permission to withdraw his life support."
 
Moral said:
I understand why the parents would want to exhaust all of their possibilities. It doesn't seem like anything positive will come of this no matter how it ends.

Just snagging some article quotes.

"The judge was careful not to attach blame to Tom Evans and Kate James, who cannot accept the settled view of their son’s doctors that his brain has been damaged catastrophically by an as yet undiagnosed condition, or that the intensive treatment required to keep him alive is no longer in his best interest and may be causing him suffering."

"Judges have heard that Alfie, born on May 9 2016, is in a ‘semi-vegetative state’ and has a degenerative neurological condition that doctors had not definitively diagnosed. Specialists say his brain has been ‘eroded’ and asked for permission to withdraw his life support."
Click to expand...

Those are older articles. They have removed the life support, and the little sucker keeps breathing. Two or three days now. His mom held him the entire night for two nights in a row (see pic above), and the dad thinks that helped. They originally tried withholding water for six hours and that didn't kill him so they finally gave him some water. I think they're withholding food now. I don't get it.
 
dandh said:
They're trying to ensure the kid dies. I don't understand how it's in the kid's best interest. They are not going to intervene if the kid starts to die, so I don't understand what makes it better for him. Italy has also offered to provide palliative care for free.
Click to expand...

I suspect it's the concept of dying with dignity. He's a vegetable with no chance of recovery or life. Now he's being used as a prop to raise money and make murder accusations. Now he's also a political vegetable here.

I can understand disagreements with that explanation, I'd recommend trying to find the actual UK judges ruling if you're still curious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JWolf74, Rudolph and FlickShagwell
ThorneStockton said:
I suspect it's the concept of dying with dignity. He's a vegetable with no chance of recovery or life. Now he's being used as a prop to raise money and make murder accusations. Now he's also a political vegetable here.

I can understand disagreements with that explanation, I'd recommend trying to find the actual UK judges ruling if you're still curious.
Click to expand...


I have looked - only seen what's been listed. No reasonable explanation yet, in my opinion.

How's it more dignified to die in a hospital instead of at home?

The government and hospital act like they own the kid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09
dandh said:
I have looked - only seen what's been listed. No reasonable explanation yet, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Being able to die without being used as prop when the future is zero anyhow isn't reasonable?

I suspect a reasonable explanation by your definition won't exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudolph
ThorneStockton said:
Being able to die without being used as prop when the future is zero anyhow isn't reasonable?

I suspect a reasonable explanation by your definition won't exist.
Click to expand...

Whose prop - the government's for its health system?

Why is the government making that decision instead of a loving mom and dad?

Link to judge's decision saying the parents are trying to make the kid a prop?
 
dandh said:
Whose prop - the government's for its health system?

Why is the government making that decision instead of a loving mom and dad?

Link to judge's decision saying the parents are trying to make the kid a prop?
Click to expand...

The parents prop, to raise money, their lawyer's prop to earn fees. Now the GOP's prop.

I don't know why the government makes the decision, you should study their laws and report back. I suspect the government has some established duty to look out for the best interest of the child when there's a dispute between the parents and the hospital.

I have no link to the judge's decision, this is what I've been recommending you to find.

As I said, it appears you will find no reasonable explanation. I think it's completely legitimate to disagree with the outcome but laughable that you "don't get it".

Time for happy hour, good luck with your research!
 
  • Like
Reactions: What Would Jesus Do?
ThorneStockton said:
The parents prop, to raise money, their lawyer's prop to earn fees. Now the GOP's prop.

I don't know why the government makes the decision, you should study their laws and report back. I suspect the government has some established duty to look out for the best interest of the child when there's a dispute between the parents and the hospital.

I have no link to the judge's decision, this is what I've been recommending you to find.

As I said, it appears you will find no reasonable explanation. I think it's completely legitimate to disagree with the outcome but laughable that you "don't get it".

Time for happy hour, good luck with your research!
Click to expand...

So you think this mom and dad are exploiting this kid to get money for themselves? That's crazy, never heard that anywhere before this.

You have a lot of faith in bureaucrats. I do not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rocketclone
dandh said:
So you think this mom and dad are exploiting this kid to get money for themselves? That's crazy, never heard that anywhere before this.

You have a lot of faith in bureaucrats. I do not.
Click to expand...

My friend isn't here yet, but keep reading the judge seems to be alluding that their counsel is the one pushing them to keep up the pointless fight. They're likely emotionally heart broken, but they have raised over a $150k, and have filed or tried to file murder charges.

The money will likely start flying in from our shores as the religious right start to use it effectively.
 
ThorneStockton said:
My friend isn't here yet, but keep reading the judge seems to be alluding that their counsel is the one pushing them to keep up the pointless fight. They're likely emotionally heart broken, but they have raised over a $150k, and have filed or tried to file murder charges.

The money will likely start flying in from our shores as the religious right start to use it effectively.
Click to expand...

That's highly cynical and doesn't make a lot of sense. The kid will die regardless. But it sounds like the judge is thinking he will die sooner in the hospital, so that would be a good thing as it's better for him? How is it better for the kid to die sooner than later? There is no pain involved, the kid is not suffering, but apparently he just can't die soon enough for the government/hospital. And why is the judge making the decision instead of his family?

Maybe the judge is more concerned about the political implications than the kid himself.
 
dandh said:
Those are older articles. They have removed the life support, and the little sucker keeps breathing. Two or three days now. His mom held him the entire night for two nights in a row (see pic above), and the dad thinks that helped. They originally tried withholding water for six hours and that didn't kill him so they finally gave him some water. I think they're withholding food now. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

I’ve heard all the reasoning and I’m with you, I will never understand why you would ever withhold medical treatment from a child.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09 and dandh
I can’t imagine the worldview that a bunch of professionals who have dedicated their lives to medicine are somehow out to get this kid.

Physicians believe that the care would not be effective and would cause needless suffering. The best interest of the child trumps the interest of the parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole, JWolf74 and Rudolph
dgordo said:
I’ve heard all the reasoning and I’m with you, I will never understand why you would ever withhold medical treatment from a child.
Click to expand...
How much experience do you have dealing with kids with severe brain injuries? In my experience Drs are unlikely to recommend withdrawal of care in a young child unless 2 conditions are met. 1 there is no hope for improvement. 2 there is significant suffering.
We have limited information in this case. It's clear that the 1st condition is met. The 2nd condition is up for debate, but I suspect the perception of the Drs is that the patient is suffering. It's common for patients like this to seize, have increased tone and spasticity, and neurostorming. Withholding life prolonging treatment is ethical and humane if that treatment only prolongs suffering. It's not clear to me why an at homes palliative approach is not possible. I assume they have hospice support in the UK.
 
dandh said:
Those are older articles. They have removed the life support, and the little sucker keeps breathing. Two or three days now. His mom held him the entire night for two nights in a row (see pic above), and the dad thinks that helped. They originally tried withholding water for six hours and that didn't kill him so they finally gave him some water. I think they're withholding food now. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

You can keep breathing if the correct portion of your brain is still functional. That portion of the brain is smaller than your thumb in an adult. I have no idea how large it would be in a Toddler. Even with the experimental treatment the kid will not recover. The Italian hospital is affiliated with the Vatican which is why they are willing to take him. Essentially Alfie will have the capacity of my son's pet lizard.
 
Last edited:
dandh said:
So you think this mom and dad are exploiting this kid to get money for themselves? That's crazy, never heard that anywhere before this.

You have a lot of faith in bureaucrats. I do not.
Click to expand...

His mom and dad aren't exploiting him. They are irrational and grieving. As a father I can't imagine the terrible pain I would feel over this. It's exactly what you said about your daughter in a later post. I think there are some people that would hold themselves accountable and feel guilty about any other alternative. I don't agree with it but I get it.

This is more a general comment not necessarily directed at you. Be careful about doctors. We aren't bureaucrats. We actually get paid a ton more money to keep this kid alive an keep doing things. If our soul motive was money we wouldn't withdraw care. So then the question is why would doctors say to stop. May be it's because we have seen the other side of the coin and seen people do too much and suffer through too much.

I'll continue this conversation with anyone else who has ever had to tell someone that they, or their family was going to die. It's one of the worst things I've ever had to do..... the rest of you have no clue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3boysmom, BelemNole, JWolf74 and 2 others
Urohawk said:
His mom and dad aren't exploiting him. They are irrational and grieving.
Click to expand...

A good friend of my father’s had a series of strokes. My dad and my mother (a doctor) went to visit him and said he was in a bad way and not coming back. His wife sent out emails every day until the day he died saying he was getting better and everyone knew he would pull through. She’s a lovely person and honestly believed it.

I can’t imagine having to confront someone so hopeful with an honest medical assessment. Seriously, thank you for doing the hard stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3boysmom and Rudolph
Urohawk said:
His mom and dad aren't exploiting him. They are irrational and grieving. As a father I can't imagine the terrible pain I would feel over this. It's exactly what you said about your daughter in a later post. I think there are some people that would hold themselves accountable and feel guilty about any other alternative. I don't agree with it but I get it.

This is more a general comment not necessarily directed at you. Be careful about doctors. We aren't bureaucrats. We actually get paid a ton more money to keep this kid alive an keep doing things. If our soul motive was money we wouldn't withdraw care. So then the question is why would doctors say to stop. May be it's because we have seen the other side of the coin and seen people do too much and suffer through too much.

I'll continue this conversation with anyone else who has ever had to tell someone that they, or their family was going to die. It's one of the worst things I've ever had to do..... the rest of you have no clue.
Click to expand...

I don't distrust doctors (my brother was an md) but that's not what this is about. It's about the government telling the parents they can't take the child elsewhere for treatment (at no cost to the government) and the government-run hospital telling the parents they can't take the child home to die. The government won't allow the (good) parents to make decisions about the child, fo no apparent reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nolesincebirth and LuciousBDragon
dandh said:
I don't distrust doctors (my brother was an md) but that's not what this is about. It's about the government telling the parents they can't take the child elsewhere for treatment (at no cost to the government) and the government-run hospital telling the parents they can't take the child home to die. The government won't allow the (good) parents to make decisions about the child, fo no apparent reason.
Click to expand...

Our government intervenes on behalf of children in medical cases all the time. It’s never about cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudolph
Urohawk said:
You can keep breathing if the correct portion of your brain is still functional. That portion of the brain is smaller than your thumb in an adult. I have no idea how large it would be in a Toddler. Even with the experimental treatment the kid will not recover. The Italian hospital is affiliated with the Vatican which is why they are willing to take him. Essentially Alfie will have the capacity of my son's pet lizard.
Click to expand...

So it's better to starve him to death?

And the government should make that decision, not the parent?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LuciousBDragon
Urohawk said:
Said by a guy who hasn't seen someones life destroyed by terrible bankruptcy. Health care costs cause people to lose their car, their home, and that means they usually can't even keep their job.
Click to expand...

You know that meme has been fairly well disproved, right?
 
bdcolt45er said:
How much experience do you have dealing with kids with severe brain injuries? In my experience Drs are unlikely to recommend withdrawal of care in a young child unless 2 conditions are met. 1 there is no hope for improvement. 2 there is significant suffering.
We have limited information in this case. It's clear that the 1st condition is met. The 2nd condition is up for debate, but I suspect the perception of the Drs is that the patient is suffering. It's common for patients like this to seize, have increased tone and spasticity, and neurostorming. Withholding life prolonging treatment is ethical and humane if that treatment only prolongs suffering. It's not clear to me why an at homes palliative approach is not possible. I assume they have hospice support in the UK.
Click to expand...

Nothing about the kid suffering has been reported. There is no evidence to support that assertion.
 
mnole03 said:
So a mitochondrial disorder (possibly extremely painful) with uncontrollable seizures.
Click to expand...
ThorneStockton said:
I found the court rulings if you're still curious.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/in-the-matter-of-alfie-evans-court-order.pdf

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks. Provides better detail about the removal of treatment, although mostly seems to come down to their belief that he's not going to improve with treatment so it should be withheld. The interesting part to me is that the experts/doctors the judge quotes say that Alfie should be sent homrto die, but it's not being allowed.

I don't think this could happen here, and hope we never have a system where it can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton
dandh said:
Thanks. Provides better detail about the removal of treatment, although mostly seems to come down to their belief that he's not going to improve with treatment so it should be withheld. The interesting part to me is that the experts/doctors the judge quotes say that Alfie should be sent homrto die, but it's not being allowed.

I don't think this could happen here, and hope we never have a system where it can.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we have any similar laws that their judges reference in terms of acting in the child's best interest. I would then wonder if our judicial system has seen anything similar to establish a precedent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B

It was just a little software glitch that ruined thousands of lives in the UK…

Replies
2
Views
135
Off Topic
mthawkeyes
mthawkeyes
HROT

Little Rock Airport Exec dies for his right to illegally sell guns…

Replies
78
Views
1K
Off Topic
Joes Place
Joes Place
cigaretteman

Why is Caitlin Clark’s shot so pure? Engineers explain the mechanics

Replies
0
Views
260
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
alaskanseminole

'You just feel lied to': This struggling Texas woman asks why she got a college degree

Replies
174
Views
2K
Off Topic
Joes Place
Joes Place
cigaretteman

Why March Madness belongs to the women: Star players, big ratings make it tourney to watch

Replies
4
Views
384
Off Topic
sober_teacher
S
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back