4 ms·
The Alfie Evans case had nothing to do with cost. It was entirely about what was in his best interest. He had a catastrophic and untreatable, progressive, neuro
by DanBC 6y ago
The Alfie Evans case had nothing to do with cost. It was entirely about what was in his best interest. He had a catastrophic and untreatable, progressive, neurodegenerative condition. Death was the only outcome. The argument was whether he'd have a painless death in hospital, or if he'd be made to suffer by transferring him to different hospitals or outside the UK.
Some of the court documents are freely available online.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/308.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/308.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/550.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/550.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/805.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/805.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/818.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/818.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/953.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2018/953.html
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/984.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/984.html
- 0xfaded 6y agoI'm glad you posted this. I was curious at what point the NHS would decide that a newborn was beyond saving. I know there are cost vs years-of-life calculations at the other end of life, but this case sets an extremely high bar for extraordinary efforts expended to a baby.
- SamReidHughes 6y agoNo, the argument was whether his parents would be in charge of his treatment, or if the state health system could confiscate their kid.
- DanBC 6y agoMaybe read the court documents before commenting further. "Confiscate"? He was human. He had human rights. He wasn't the property of his parents. He wasn't an object that they could control.