The life of young Alfie Evans is expected to soon come to an end.
Alfie is 23 months old and suffers from an undiagnosed degenerative neurological condition. He was being treated at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, England, but after a legal battle, the boy’s fight for life will come to an end.
Young Alfie was ordered by the courts in the United Kingdom to be taken off of life support against the wishes of his parents. His parents were instructed they would neither be able to transport their son to another hospital for continued treatment, nor be able to agree to experimental treatment as a possible cure for his condition.
As Breitbart reports, Alfie’s father is now working with the hospital “on a plan that provides our boy with the dignity and comfort he needs.” His father thanked supporters, from Great Britain to the United States and other places, for their dedication and help, but said they should resume their normal lives.
Per the report:
Parents Tom Evans and Kate James want to exert their parental rights to take Alfie to the Vatican-owned Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome, Italy – a care option backed by Pope Francis.
Though the doctors at the Vatican hospital said they could not cure Alfie, they had offered to take him to Rome for operations to help him breathe and eat, which would have allowed him to survive for an “undefined period”.
Tom and Kate battled the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights for two months after the hospital made the decision to stop treating the child, with a High Court judge ruling on the 11th of April that Alfie must be removed from life support.
However, when life support was removed two weeks later on the 23rd, Alfie continued to breath unaided, only receiving help from oxygen and water after six hours off ventilation – against the alleged expectation of doctors.
It was on Thursday night that the Evanses signalled that their fight was over and said they would be working with the hospital on a care plan, asked supporters to cease their vigils, and said they would be making no more statements in order to focus on their son.
Gov. Palin responded to the shocking and tragic incident:
And yet you’d mock the warning of “death panels.”
It’s inhumane that this beautiful Special Needs child is a slave to socialized, rationed “healthcare” that some in our country are determined to inflict on all of us. Determining a precious child’s life is not worth their care, it’s inexplicable how the diabolical actors in this can sleep at night.
A system like this will affect everyone – not only a family of a Special Needs child like Alfie. From those with beloved elderly parents to every compassionate American who realizes the slippery slope we’re still on with Obamacare, all are affected when government controls healthcare. All will be at the mercy of rule-making politicians’ definition of worthiness.
Accepting a system where bureaucrats sit in the seat of judgement subjectively determining who’s life is productive enough to meet their nebulous standards, thus being worthy of care, will destroy a civilized society.
THIS is what I mean when reminding lackadaisical voters they must pay attention when politicians tout government-controlled healthcare. Of course the care will be rationed. Of course faceless bureaucrats will make decisions on who lives, who dies. Hence, the “death panel.”
– Sarah Palin
— Kevin Scholla (@kevinscholla) April 27, 2018
The emotional story has touched the hearts and minds of many people across the globe.
“This government and their hospital lackeys have sanctioned the poisoning, starving and organ harvesting of children under their care. There are many human rights violations here. This is no government. It is a criminal enterprise,” one person who commented said.
One person replied with her own story:
With the speed of medical advances, there is the possibility that there could be a cure and that is what every parent hopes for.
I look back at the case of my younger daughter who was born with a heart defect and was operated on when she was about nine months old. She was one of the first to have this operation where we were told she had only a low chance of survival. Fortunately she did and the operation is now commonplace.
But what if it had been 3 years earlier, no operation available so let her die. But a child born 3 years earlier who was given on life support for a couple of years would have had a chance, and that is what all parents pray for.
“In the case of Charlie Gard the parents had raised the money to have the child treated but the hospital would not release the child to the parents. In effect kidnapping the child and keeping it from possibly life saving treatment. If the parents have the means they should NEVER be kept from trying to find the best care for their child,” replied another person.
“But of course this is the kind of socialized medicine the Dems want to force on everybody so they can control who lives and dies. Do you really want your health care and the lives of you and your family under the supervision of a bunch of Libtard Demorats in charge? NO WAY!!!!!”
“But Obama’s democrats said there would be no death panels. Would they lie to the people?”
“He also said I could keep my doctor. Obama said many other things that he couldn’t keep.”
“BHO never had intention of Obamacare succeeding. It was designed to fail so that HRC could ride to the rescue with Single Payer. Once you surrender control of your health to the state FREEDOM ends”
The story of young Alfie follows a tragic pattern of these hospitals and courts devaluing the inviolability of life.
Recently, the family of one-year-old Isaiah Haastrup was put through a similar situation:
Within a month of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rejecting the Evanses plea to overturn Alder Hey’s decision for the first time, on March 6th, Lanre Haastrup and Takesha Thomas lost their battle at the Strasbourg court to stop King’s College Hospital doctors from removing life support from their son Isaiah.
Isaiah suffered brain damage during his mother’s complicated labour — which King’s College Hospital admitted it was partly responsible for, due to “specific issues in monitoring” during his birth.
At one point, the hospital was denying Mr. Haastrup visitation of his son when he was near death, administrators claiming the father had ‘verbally abused’ hospital staff in an argument over the withdrawal of baby Isaiah’s life support.
One-year-old Isaiah died March 7th, in the presence of both his parents.
Perhaps more well known was the story of terminally-ill Charlie Gard:
The high-profile case of Charlie Gard brought parental rights versus doctors’ decisions to the fore in the summer of 2017.
The pleas of the parents of Charlie Gard to doctors, UK courts, and the EU court were denied as they fought to have baby Charlie removed from the care of Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital, London, to seek experimental treatment overseas for his mitochondrial condition.
The courts ordered the hospital take the child off life support, despite the Gards fundraising over one million pounds for Charlie’s transportation and private hospital care, and numerous figures pledging their help and support including Pope Francis and U.S. President Donald Trump. Baby Charlie died on July 28th, 2017.
During one of the Gards’ many court cases, the family spokesman addressed media to say that Charlie had “effectively being taken prisoner by the NHS and by the State”, asking: “Whose child is he? Is he the state’s child? Is he the NHS’s child? Or does this child belong to the parents?”
Several other families were similarly refused by hospitals, including two-year-old American boy Israel Stinson who died in California, three-year-old Dylan Askin who miraculously survived after being taken off of life support, and British boy Ashya King whose parents were arrested after they took their son from a hospital (which refused to honor their wishes for their son’s treatment). Ashya later survived after receiving proton beam radiotherapy in another country.
Read more from each of their stories by clicking here.Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.