Science and Culture Today Discovering Design in Nature
Alder_Hey_Children's_Health_Park_2
Photo: Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, by Rodhullandemu (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
Latest

This Is What Medical Authoritarianism Looks Like

Categories
Bioethics
Medicine
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Alfie Evans saga continues to roil the U.K., and it is increasingly looking like the Terri Schiavo case.

One huge difference: Instead of an abandoning husband embroiled in a life-or-death struggle with a blood family — as in Terri’s situation — in Alfie’s case, the family is united in wanting Alfie’s life maintained so they can transfer him to an Italian hospital which, they claim, has agreed to offer continued care and a PEG feeding tube that allows for more comfortable and effective long-term care.

But they are being thwarted by the doctors and the courts, both of which refuse to continue life support and are preventing the family from removing Alfie to a different hospital — even though the cause of his cognitive collapse has not been diagnosed. The technocracy has decided Alfie should die, and so die he will!

Alfie’s parents, Tom Evans and Kate James, are continuing to fight — supported by a large protest at the hospital entrance demanding justice. A lawyer wrote a letter to Tom and Kate opining that they had the legal right to remove their son from the hospital. (Me: They should have that right, but I doubt they do because of previous court orders.) When they tried to do so, they were stopped by police. From the Daily Mail story:

Police were called last night as Mr Evans brought their passports and declared they were going to take ‘his flight out to Italy’ but claims six officers were then brought in to guard his room to stop it.

Mr Evans said a jet was waiting at John Lennon airport and it is understood he plans to take his son to the Vatican-linked Bambino Gesu Paediatric Hospital in Rome for diagnosis and possible treatment after they received backing from Pope Francis.

A press release supportive of Tom and Kate — the full contents of which has not been publicly reported, so I can’t verify its accuracy — states that a judge has now stripped them of their parental rights, ordering that Alfie become a ward of the court to further thwart the parents’ efforts to seek treatment and care for their son. If true, that order could conceivably become a pretext to prevent Tom and Kate from visiting their son.

This is what medical authoritarianism looks like.

A few thoughts about this tragedy:

  • “Futile care” impositions are not medical decisions, but value judgments about the benefit of continued care that is working, e.g., keeping the patient alive. The doctors and courts believe Alfie should die sooner rather than later. The parents want to keep trying to find what is causing their son’s cognitive collapse and to maintain his life regardless of whether a cure can be found.
  • The judge ruled essentially that as a matter of law, Alfie is better off dead than in his current deeply troubling circumstances which include being in a “semi-vegetative state” (whatever that means) accompanied by seizures and a degenerating condition. The parents disagree. Surely, in such cases they, not strangers, should have the final say.
  • Coercion destroys people’s trust in the health-care system. This problem will grow more pronounced as the cost containment paradigm is increasingly backed by an iron fist.
  • Health care is a major battle front in the culture wars that are roiling the West.
  • Finally, isn’t it wonderful that so many people care so much about the life of a helpless little boy. The sanctity-of-life ethic isn’t dead yet!

We have had similar cases in this country — with the important exception that I don’t know of any cases in which doctors thwarted a patient’s transfer to alternative care (although in the Baby Terry case in Michigan, the parents lost their parental rights in court solely because they refused to permit life-support to be withdrawn).

I find it bitterly ironic that some of the same bioethicists who believe doctors should be able to impose futile care treatment terminations based on their conscientious objections to continued care, also opine that doctors who don’t want to participate in abortion, assisted suicide, or other morally contentious elective acts in the medical context should be forced legally to do so upon threat of professional discipline.

It is a topsy-turvy world. Expect more such controversies and for them to grow increasingly bitter.

Cross-posted at The Corner.

Wesley J. Smith

Chair and Senior Fellow, Center on Human Exceptionalism
Wesley J. Smith is Chair and Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. Wesley is a contributor to National Review and is the author of 14 books, in recent years focusing on human dignity, liberty, and equality. Wesley has been recognized as one of America’s premier public intellectuals on bioethics by National Journal and has been honored by the Human Life Foundation as a “Great Defender of Life” for his work against suicide and euthanasia. Wesley’s most recent book is Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine, a warning about the dangers to patients of the modern bioethics movement.
Benefiting from Science & Culture Today?
Support the Center for Science and Culture and ensure that we can continue to publish counter-cultural commentary and original reporting and analysis on scientific research, evolution, neuroscience, bioethics, and intelligent design.

© Discovery Institute