There was never going to be a happy ending in the Alfie Evans case, but perhaps there's still a lesson learned
Sometimes suffering is inevitable, but exploitation of that suffering is not
Their baby spent most of his life dependent on mechanical ventilation, in a neonatal intensive care unit in a Liverpool hospital in England. He suffered from a progressive neurodegenerative disorder, one so rare that it hasn't yet been labelled, and may even be referred to by Alfie Evans's name in the future. It decayed his brain to such an extent that he was in a semi-vegetative state. He also became, tragically, a figure of world debate and discussion.
After months of care and intervention, and with evident sorrow and regret, the hospital finally decided to withdraw treatment, thus allowing Alfie to die. Doctors argued that further medical intervention would be pointless and cruel. This is, alas, far from unique; there comes a time when babies, children and adults in such wretched conditions simply have no future.
High court challenge
Alfie's parents, however, wanted to take their baby out of the country for further treatment and so, they took their case to the courts.
The family division of the high court rejected multiple legal challenges, and so on Monday, Alfie was detached from his ventilator with a palliative care team ready to ensure his comfort.
There were two equally compelling narratives here: that of the parents of baby Alfie, who were of course desperate not to let go of their child, and that of the doctors and nurses, who cared for the boy for so long, and who spend every moment of their working lives giving aid and comfort to the sick and dying. Put simply, there were no bad guys among those directly involved.
Alfie yesterday doing a big stretch,, lets get this shared everywhere,, <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/savealfieevans?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#savealfieevans</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/alfieschance?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#alfieschance</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/istandwithalfieevans?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#istandwithalfieevans</a> <a href="https://t.co/GU1qC5fUbN">pic.twitter.com/GU1qC5fUbN</a>
—@Alfiesarmy16Where genuine love and commitment may perhaps be questioned is in the wider discussion and activism around the case. The Roman Catholic Church, in Britain and internationally, had made this their latest cause célèbre. Alfie had been given Italian citizenship, and a request had been made to fly him to Bambino Gesù, a pediatric hospital in the Vatican. The Pope even put a military helicopter on standby to bring the boy to Rome.
It was a campaign that had not gone unnoticed by the Church's critics. While the Church has been largely consistent in its defence of individual vulnerable life in such cases, it appears highly selective when it comes to human suffering. When the Catholic Church in England, Scotland, and Ireland was asked to admit and apologize for its generations of sexual and physical abuse, for example, it took years of campaigning and countless legal cases for contrition and compensation to be offered. Now, however, the Church moves with lightning speed.
American commentators
Beyond organized conservative Christianity, the reaction of many on the political right has been equally disturbing. Commentators who have shown no support for — or even opposed — public medicine were suddenly crying out for state support for the life of a dying baby.
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who, for example, opposes insurance for people with pre-existing conditions, commented that, "Brits have decided some kids just aren't worth that much and are disposable." Former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, once described so wonderfully as a "sad vampire," and who campaigned to raise the age of Medicare eligibility so as to save money, explained that, "It is a grim reminder that systems of socialized medicine like the National Health Service (NHS) vest the state with power over human lives, transforming citizens into subjects." Truth cries out to be heard.
Actually, the NHS spent a fortune to make sure that Alfie remained alive for as long as he did and received the best and most modern care available. All of this through the type of socialized medical service that many of this child's recent advocates so oppose. In the United States, a family such as Alfie's would never have had the financial resources or insurance coverage necessary to receive such exemplary care.
The reality, in Britain, Canada and elsewhere, is that parents and doctors do usually concur in such dreadful situations, and their pain is mutual and shared. It's incredibly unusual for the courts to be used, and when that happens, judges hear expert opinions from all concerned and come to informed decisions. That is what has happened here, with numerous doctors from many countries agreeing that the child's illness was terminal.
It was no longer about trying to prolong life, but making sure that death is as gentle and painless as possible. Those who argue that the parents should have the final say in all this forget that without hospital facilities, what remained of this child's short life could have been extremely unpleasant, and his death terrible. Parents have a duty to provide care, even in such challenging circumstances, and in Alfie's situation could not do so alone.
We saw something similar with another baby in England, Charlie Gard, and with the Terri Schiavo case in the United States in 2005. But in many cases involving their most vocal defenders, it was less concern for a vulnerable and suffering human being than religious and political extremism, and an attempt to appear noble by seeing callousness in others.
There was never going to be a happy ending to all this, but perhaps there is a lesson to be learned. Sometimes suffering is inevitable, but exploitation of that suffering is not. Shame on those who fail to see it.
This column is part of CBC's Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read this editor's blog and our FAQ.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
