The Corner


Another U.K. Shut-Off-the-Baby’s-Life-Support Case

Supporters of Charlie Gard’s parents react outside the High Court during a hearing on the baby’s future, in London, July 24, 2017. (Peter Nicholls/Reuters)

Readers may remember the Charlie Gard gross injustice, in which U.K. courts both ordered a terminally ill baby’s life support discontinued and refused to allow his parents to take the baby to a U.S. doctor who hoped he might be able to extend the boy’s life. Eventually, the U.S. doctor said it was too late, and the parents permitted the life support to be withdrawn.

Now, in the Baby Alfie case — about which I have written here before — the same travesty is unfolding: Only this time, the hospital demands the baby’s death despite there being no diagnosis as to the cause of his neurological malady. From the BBC story:

A hospital trust prevented a 19-month-old with a mystery illness being transferred to Italy in a row over life-support treatment, a court heard.

Doctors at Liverpool’s Alder Hey Children’s Hospital believe it is in Alfie Evans’ best interests to stop “mechanical ventilation”.

His parents, Tom Evans and Kate James, disagree and want him to be moved to a hospital in Rome.

Mr Justice Hayden said no decisions would be made until the New Year.

The hospital described Alfie as being in a “semi-vegetative state”.

I guess that means minimally conscious. But whether conscious or unconscious, it is unconscionable that a hospital would both want to terminate efficacious-life extending treatment and prevent the parents from transferring the baby to a hospital willing to continue care.

Realize, the hospital wants the treatment terminated, including tube-supplied food and water, because it works, — e.g., it is keeping the baby alive — rather than because it is ineffective.

This is an example of a bioethics meme called “futile care,” in which doctors are allowed to refuse wanted treatment if they believe the quality of the patient’s life isn’t worth living.

Such coercion happens in the U.S. too. But I know of no cases here in which a family is both banned from requiring care to continue and from transferring their loved one to a different facility willing to provide continued care.

Let us hope the court in Alfie’s case both requires life-support to continue and/or allows the transfer. Forcing this baby to die when there is no diagnosis would be an act of naked medical authoritarianism.

Wesley J. Smith — Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism.

Most Popular


Holy Week with Saint Paul

Just the other day, I ordered a replacement copy of The Passion of the Christ -- it can be so impactful for Holy Week meditation. In the years since its release, it’s become something of required Lenten viewing for me. But this year, there is a new movie to help with prayer, Paul, Apostle of Christ, released ... Read More

Friday Links

UPS Trucks (Mostly) Don't Turn Left, Saving Them 10 Million Gallons of Gas Per Year. Scientists provide comprehensive breakdown of how much people poo in their lifetime. Famed archaeologist forged murals, inscriptions for decades. How Do You Make Beer in Space? Astronauts return to earth ... Read More

Heckuva Job, Paul and Mitch

As Thursday's editorial makes clear, the omnibus spending bill is a disgrace. That may be why about 40 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Democrats) voted against it. Apart from the absence of a DACA/Dream amnesty, the immigration portions represent a comprehensive victory by the anti-enforcement crowd. ... Read More
Politics & Policy

California’s Pro-Nuclear Renegade

If California’s upcoming gubernatorial race gets decided solely by money, Michael Shellenberger doesn’t have a chance. The latest campaign filings show that Shellenberger, an environmentalist from Berkeley, has about $37,000 in cash on hand. The frontrunner in the June 5 California primary, Lieutenant ... Read More