Here's the 'Legal' Reason Why the UK Can Force Alfie Evans to Die

Here’s the ‘Legal’ Reason Why the UK Can Force Alfie Evans to Die



Related Articles


  1. In the US they can only direct his care if they have enough money to do so. As it is being paid for by someone else the hospital, provided it is being paid, will just carry on. So these freedoms are only available if you have the money.

  2. If the public knew about the cruelty and systemic abuse of process in UK family courts by pathological liars in what they claim to be the legal profession the public would be appalled at their Queen and those under her non-democratic system of control. Always ask yourself what would the Queen do if it were her child and only heir

  3. Honest question… What would have been the result had taxpayers not been paying for the child's expensive health care costs for the past two years? Wasn't the universal health care/single payer system what kept the child alive for 2 years already? Without the government taking the child into custody and paying his bills, the child would have died much earlier once the parents couldn't afford it, correct? Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe the parents paid no money for their child's health care, the government/citizens did, which is what conservatives are against. Either conservatives are supposed to be against tax payers paying for other people's health care or against it. Stop being for it just because it is some disabled child.

  4. the ''rights of the child'' is just a polite way of saying you the parent forfeit your parental rights to the state. the state is the parent of your child, not you. youre just a guardian. even though that child came from your body, mom, we have the last say over the child. they shouldnt have ever consulted the courts. they shouldve flown over to Italy and tried to save the child without telling anybody. i cannot understand why the courts refused to allow outside sources to try and save the child. if this doesnt wake europeans up, i really dont know what will. how can you stand by and allow your GOVERNMENT to have control over your childs well being???? stand up europe!! do something about this!! here in the states our government understands that the parents know best and to stay out of it. why anyone would want to take away a parents say in whether their child lives or dies is beyond my comprehension. im sure none of those officials ever have to worry about their children dying like this. their children would die on the operating table before death panels would deny them healthcare.

  5. is there a possibility the hospital has been negligent and doesnt want another hospital to uncover this…….it seems extreme to not allow a child a chance .it was there waiting for him that chance .any chance should be taken ……its clear the government own our children and we have no rights .some democracy !!!!!

  6. This is nonsense. Lyne Marie Colme is wrong. When there is a disagreement, as in the case of Alfie his End of Life Care, The case is taken to independent Courts. They have no connection with the hospital or the State. It is here the parent and the doctors put their case. The decision is made in the interests of the patient. Alfie's parent took their case up the court system, and eventually to the European Court of Human Rights. They lost every single one. The staff at alder Hay Hospital had been caring for Alfie for a long time. To suggest they wanted to kill him is a massive insult to them.
    He was not to be sent to Italy for treatment. The medical staff would have been contacting people from around the world, sending them scanner and test results. He got the best care planet earth could give. His brain was steadily turning to liquid, and we have no way to reverse that. His own life support systems were shutting down. All Italy offered was palliative care.
    Your title is misleading. Nobody was forcing Alfie to die, he was dying. It is like saying Laura Bush went home to commit suicide. There comes a time when nothing can be done, and to do so will simply extend the suffering.
    It is a shame Alfie's parents could not recognise the reality of the situation, and brought in the Christian Legal Centre that have caused all this misinformation and media circus.
    It was outrageous to see people with these placards claiming the hospital was murdering children outside the hospital when you would have had very sick children going in. Utter morons.
    Can you please correct this item to represent the correct facts, instead of using Alfie to push your own agenda.

  7. read the judgment
    In the matter of Alfie Evans
    Permission to appeal determination
    Tuesday 20 March 2018
    Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson.
    Having considered submissions from the parties 'on paper', in the usual way, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has refused permission for the parents to appeal.
    Explanation of the Court's decision
    Mr Thomas Evans and Ms Kate James ("the parents") seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of the Court of Appeal dated 6 March 2018.
    Under this court's Practice Direction 3.3.3 the court will give permission for an appeal to be brought only if it would raise an arguable point of law of general public importance.
    On 20 February 2018 Mr Justice Hayden determined Alder Hey's application by reference to his assessment of Alfie's best interests. He declared that it was no longer in his best interests for ventilation to be provided to him. It followed that it was not lawful for ventilation to continue to be provided to him, whether at Alder Hey or anywhere else. So the judge proceeded to declare that it was lawful and in his best interests that Alfie be extubated, that ventilatory support be withdrawn from him and that he receive only palliative care.
    The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the parents against the declarations made by Mr Justice Hayden and in doing so held that he had been correct to make them by reference to his assessment, which the Court of Appeal endorsed, of where Alfie's best interests lay.
    The parents accept that they cannot bring to this court a challenge to the conclusion that it is in Alfie's best interests for his ventilation to be withdrawn. That would not have raised any point of law. Anyway, in this profoundly tragic and painful case, there was a mass of evidence, including from experts instructed on behalf of the parents, which justified the judge's conclusion.
    But the parents do raise a point of law which the Court of Appeal rejected and which they wish to put before this court. The question for us at this stage is whether the point is arguable.
    The point is developed on behalf of the parents by Mr Knafler QC and his two juniors in lengthy sections of the Notice of Appeal; and we pay tribute to their industry and to the clarity of their exposition.
    It is wrong (say the parents) for an issue such as the present to be determined by reference only to a child's best interests. The law of England and Wales is (they say) illogical and the Supreme Court must set it right. The first question should (according to them) be whether their proposals for Alfie's future care would cause him to be likely to suffer "significant harm". And they cast these arguments within a complaint that, in the enjoyment of their right to respect for their family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the courts have discriminated against them contrary to article 14.
    We should add here that the parents' proposals for Alfie's future care are that, with continued ventilation, he should be transported by air ambulance to a hospital in Rome and later, perhaps, from there to a hospital in Munich, for further treatment; that in one or other of the hospitals he should undergo a tracheostomy and a gastrostomy in order perhaps to enable ventilation to be given in a home environment; that consideration should therefore be given to his living with them in one or other of those countries, close to hospital support; but that if, after about six months, there remained no prospect of improvement in his condition, they would, with whatever degree of difficulty, accept withdrawal of his life support. It follows from what we have already said that the judge found the parents' proposals not to be in Alfie's best interests. He found, with obvious sadness, that they would achieve nothing. But he was not asked to consider whether they would cause Alfie "significant harm" and so he made no finding to that effect. So the parents are entitled to say that it has never been established that their proposals would be likely to cause significant harm to Alfie, particularly in circumstances in which, on the evidence, it is unlikely, albeit possible, that he has an awareness of pain.
    So on what basis do the parents say that it is wrong and illogical for the present issue not to be decided by reference, in the first instance, to a concept of significant harm?
    If a child was in the care of a local authority under a care order and in hospital with a condition such as that of Alfie and if the parents disputed the course proposed by the local authority (and presumably by the hospital), section 100 (3) and (4) of the Children Act 1989 would disable the local authority from applying to the court for a declaration unless there was reasonable cause to believe that otherwise the child would be likely to suffer significant harm. One difficulty with this scenario is that it is highly unlikely that the local authority would be the applicant. It is much more likely that the application would be made by the hospital, to which section 100 would not apply.
    But the parents suggest a wider analogy, in particular with proceedings for a care order but also with adoption proceedings. Section 31 of the Children Act disables a court from granting a care order to a local authority unless the child has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm, attributable to care below a level which it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. Here, in the panel's view, one reaches the nub of the parents' argument. If significant harm (or its likelihood) has to be established before a child can be removed – perhaps only temporarily – from the home of his parents under a care order, why does it not need to be established before he can be removed, permanently, from them and from everything in this world, by death?
    A child, unlike most adults, lacks the capacity to make a decision in relation to future arrangements for him. Where there is an issue in relation to them, the court is there to take the decision for him as it is for an adult who lacks that capacity.
    The gold standard, by which most of these decisions are reached, is an assessment of his best interests. The first provision in the Children Act is that the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration. Parliament's provision reflects international instruments, particularly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. And in the Human Rights Convention, the rights of a child under article 8 will, if inconsistent with the rights of his parents, prevail over them.
    But Parliament has provided that in care proceedings there should be an initial hurdle, namely the establishment of significant harm or its likelihood, attributable to the parents, before an assessment of the child's best interests can be reached. For in such proceedings a powerful extra objective is in play, namely to avoid social engineering. These are proceedings by the state to remove a child from his parents. Families need protection from too ready a removal of him. It might be arguable that a child growing up in many households today would be better off elsewhere. But Parliament has provided that that should not be a strong enough reason for removing him. Significant harm must be established.
    The present proceedings are quite different; and the gold standard needs to apply to them without qualification. Doctors need to know what the law requires of them. The founding rule is that it is not lawful for them (or any other medical team) to give treatment to Alfie which is not in his interests. A decision that, although not in his best interests, Alfie's continued ventilation can lawfully continue because (perhaps) it is not causing him significant harm would be inconsistent with the founding rule.
    We are satisfied that the current law of England and Wales is that decisions about the medical treatment of children, like those about the medical treatment of adults, are governed by what is in their best interests. We are also satisfied that this does not discriminate against the parents of children such as Alfie in the enjoyment of their right to respect for their family life because their situation is not comparable with that of the parents of children who are taken away from them by the state to be brought up elsewhere.
    The proposed appeal is unarguable so, notwithstanding our profound sympathy for the agonising situation in which they find themselves, we refuse permission for the parents to appeal.
    Useful links
    Reasons for the determination in the matter of Alfie Evans – 20 March 2018
    Court order in the matter of Alfie Evans – 20 March 2018


  9. "As long as they don't harm him" that is the key…..U.S. or hospitals in the U.S. CAN do this too.  Because if the hospital feels taking the child out of the hospital be harmful, well there you go.  They will take over and you can't do anything.

  10. This ditz doesn't understand that the UK also has private heath care. The court ruling applies equally to the public and private hospitals. It's all about the way the UK courts have interpreted the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  11. That is not an argument, becuase the state did not let the parents of Alfie take care of Alfie, the state did not let the Roman Hospital of Bambino Gesú take care of Alfie. So learn what you are talkgin about before going public in the fake news media 😉

  12. This is utter nonsense. It was decided that Alfie received palliative care, agreed with his parents so that he could pass away with dignity. He was not "starved" to death or "murdered". He was examined by 7 doctors from around the world who all agreed that any treatment would be futile and that he could never recover from, and I quote from the High Court hearing "on the consensus of every doctor from every country who had ever evaluated Alfie's condition, to the inevitable conclusion (following 7 days of evidence) that Alfie's brain had been so corroded by his Neurodegenerative Brain Disorder that there was simply no prospect of recovery". He had the best care from Alder Hey Children's Hospital who looked after him for 13 months. Does that sound like a hospital who would not do everything in their power to save seriously ill children? What upsets me the most is a small minority of America using a deceased child to further their political/religious agenda to not have socialised medicine. What you're forgetting is that it was socialised medicine that kept Alfie alive for 13 months. The UK's NHS is not your problem, your own healthcare insurance is who determines who lives or dies. Because the NHS never turns away anyone, no matter how rich or poor, young or old and we're all far better off with them than without them.

  13. In other words she saying he was legally murdered by the staye and government and hospital of the uk wow that sad and these parents had no rights over their own child i feel for these parents. Just sad for alfie and his parents

  14. She has no idea what she's talking about. In the UK as a parent you do totally have a say over what medical care or education your child receives. These kind of stories are so sensational because state intervention is so rare. And it wasn't involving the government. It was the hospital against the parents decided by various courts of law. Nor does it being state funded = state controlling what care they receive. They'll even pay for people to have medical treatment/surgery at private hospitals (even in other countries) if thats whats needed. Also, just because the state will provide healthcare & education for your child from state funds does not mean you need to use them. Everyone still has the option of choosing whatever private supplier they wish.

    The issue here is that alfie had no prospect of having any quality of life even with treatment. My heart goes out to his parents and their family and friends but I wouldn't want to live like that and they probably wouldn't either. I don't think they can be blamed because who wouldn't want to go to the ends of the earth to save any of their kids but I definitely think the courts were right to order that his life support could be turned off. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. I hope in time his parents can find some solace from the fact it was taken out of their hands and that they didn't have to live asking themselves if they made the right choice.

  15. How dare they decide that a child's life is not viable, that he is not worth saving, why? Is it more the fact they see him as a burden on society, and a cost to their government? It's not about what is best for the child. If he were my child, like his parent's I'd want to give him the best chance possible, they can't just take that right to live away from him.
    Nothing but bureaucratic BS if you ask me. For goodness sake give the poor child a chance, and don't make this family have to suffer any more than they already have to. I've heard stories about kid's with the odds stacked against them pulling through and beating odds, and where quality of live was not expected, and they proved them wrong, there is always hope, and no matter what you love them just the same . my heart goes out to them. I wish the family well.

  16. If the child would have been in America they would have turned the machine off much quicker. The childs parents are working class, poor and uneducated – they dont have a penny. If theyd lived in the USA the child would have died much quicker.

  17. USA does have it because their medical care is not free. Parents have the right to keep treatment as long as they have medical insurance and their insurance is willing to pay for the treatment.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button