by Joshua Gill
A
U.K. court upheld an earlier ruling Tuesday ordering a toddler to be
taken off life support despite his parents’ desire to continue treating
him.
London’s Court of Appeal denied the parents’ request to
transfer their son, 21-month-old Alfie Evans, to the Vatican’s Bambino
Gesu Pediatric Hospital. The appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling
that sided with doctors at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool,
who say that continued treatment is “futile,” according to Crux Now.
Evans
suffers from an unknown neurological degenerative condition that has
reduced him to what the hospital has called a “semi-vegetable state,”
but his parents argue that he is still responsive and say they will
continue to fight for him to be treated.
“At this
moment, Alfie’s not ready so we’re not ready to let go,” Tom Evans, the
boy’s father, told the BBC. Tom said that he would challenge the ruling
before the U.K.’s Supreme Court.
The case bears similarities to the 2017 legal battle over treatment for Charlie Gard, who died
at 11 months old after U.K. courts continually deliberated and denied
him the option to receive treatment. Then as now, the hospital officials
overseeing the treatment of the child have argued that attempting to
treat him would be against the child’s best interest — a conclusion that
Alfie’s parents contest.
“Our aim is always to try and reach
an agreement with parents about the most appropriate care plan for their
child. Unfortunately there are sometimes rare situations such as this
where agreement cannot be reached and the treating team believe that
continued active treatment is not in a child’s best interests,” Alder
Hey Children’s Hospital said in a statement, according to Crux.
Justice
Anthony Hayden of the U.K.’s High Court agreed in his Feb. 20 ruling
with the hospital’s assessment that continuing to treat the Alfie was
“unkind, unfair, and inhumane.” Hayden praised the efforts of Alfie’s
parents but ultimately denied them the chance to medically fight for
their son’s life. He said that Tom’s urging to “fight on with Alfie’s
army” was commendable but that the parents’ had no clear plan for their
son’s betterment. Tom, incensed by the ruling, denounced it and vowed
that he would continue the fight.
“My son has been sentenced to
the death penalty. The system has worked against us. I’m not crying
because I know how wrong they are, I know how strong my boy is doing. He
is strong, he is comfortable. This isn’t the end. This is just the
start. I’m going to take this NHS down. I’m not giving up, my son isn’t
giving up. No-one, I repeat, no-one in this country, is taking my boy
away from me. They are not violating his rights and they are violating
my rights,” Tom said after Hayden’s ruling, according to the U.K. Daily Mail.
The
three judges of the appeals court, however, echoed Hayden’s reasoning
Tuesday and said that the hospital had given due consideration to the
parents’ wishes.
They ruled
hospital staff’s decision to remove Alfie from life support and deny his
transfer to another hospital was justified since Alfie is, according to
their assessment, comatose and unaware of his surroundings.
The
parents argue that Alfie is still aware and can still respond to them,
but hospital staff say that what the parents interpret as responses are
actually seizures, according to the Daily Mail.
Barrister
Stephen Knafler QC, who represents Alfie’s parents against the state,
argued that, regardless of the hospital’s assessment, the courts’
rulings overstep their boundaries and interfere with “parental choice,”
according to Crux.
Please like and share this story on Facebook if you think this court’s ruling is sickening.