Father of gravely ill UK child Alfie Evans seeks hospital truce

 

FILE PHOTO: Thomas Evans, father of terminally-ill child Alfie, attends Pope Francis' Wednesday general audience in Saint Peter's square at the Vatican, April 18, 2018. REUTERS/Max Rossi/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - The father of gravely ill Alfie Evans, the 23-month-old boy whose plight has drawn international attention, said on Thursday he wanted to build bridges with staff at the British hospital he has been battling in the courts over his son's treatment.

 

Evans has a rare, degenerative disease and has been in a semi-vegetative state for more than a year.

 

On Monday, Alfie's life-support equipment was switched off after a court ruling. He confounded expectations by continuing to breathe unaided.

 

Medical experts in Britain had agreed that more treatment would be futile, but his parents wanted to take him to Rome, where the Vatican's Bambino Gesu hospital had offered to care for him.

 

A British court rejected an appeal by the boy's parents, Tom Evans and Kate James, on Wednesday to take their son to Italy.

 

The case has provoked strong feelings over whether judges, doctors or parents have the right to decide on a child's life. Alfie's parents have been backed by Pope Francis and Poland's President Andrzej Duda.

 

Speaking outside Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool on Thursday, Tom Evans said he and Alfie's mother were grateful for all the support they had received from around the world, including from Italy and Poland.  

 

"We would now ask you to return back to your everyday lives and allow myself, Kate and Alder Hey to form a relationship, build a bridge and let's walk across it," he said.  

 

"We also wish to thank Alder Hey staff at every level for their dignity and professionalism during what must be an incredibly difficult time for them, too."

 

Staff at the hospital, which has been treating Alfie since December 2016, have been targeted by protesters, both outside the building and on social media.

 

"Together we recognise the strains that recent events have put upon us all and we now wish for privacy for everyone concerned," Evans said.  

 

"In Alfie's interests, we will work with his treating team on a plan that provides our boy with the dignity and comfort that he needs."  

 

(Reporting by Paul Sandle, editing by Larry King)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-04-27

Disgusting the way this sad case has been exploited by the right, particularly in the U.S.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

The British judge who blocked Italy's offer to transport and treat Alfie must either not have any children of his own, or else be an insensitive monster unsuitable to sit on the bench. Would that Alfie's parents urgently ask the EU court to intervene in this pathetic, inhumane Brit judge's clouded judgement.

12 minutes ago, meinphuket said:

The British judge who blocked Italy's offer to transport and treat Alfie must either not have any children of his own, or else be an insensitive monster unsuitable to sit on the bench. Would that Alfie's parents urgently ask the EU court to intervene in this pathetic, inhumane Brit judge's clouded judgement.

He was acting on the basis of the medical advice he received, the law and his legal duty to act in the best interests of the child. 

 

Read the statement from the child's father in the OP and drop the outrage that has been manufactured for you.

First: "On Monday, Alfie's life-support equipment was switched off after a court ruling."

this means the court ruled that it was in the child's best interest to die.

 

Second: "A British court rejected an appeal by the boy's parents on Wednesday to take their son to Italy."

this means the court ruled that it was in the child's best interest to stay in the UK, where the previous ruling was that it was in the child's best interest to die.

 

or did I misunderstand this?

2 minutes ago, klauskunkel said:

First: "On Monday, Alfie's life-support equipment was switched off after a court ruling."

this means the court ruled that it was in the child's best interest to die.

 

Second: "A British court rejected an appeal by the boy's parents on Wednesday to take their son to Italy."

this means the court ruled that it was in the child's best interest to stay in the UK, where the previous ruling was that it was in the child's best interest to die.

 

or did I misunderstand this?

I think the court's ruling is, based on medical advice, it is in the best interest of the child that he is not kept alive by medical intervention. 

 

The second ruling is, an affirmation of the first. 

 

The court is not choosing to let the child die, authorising removal of medical intervention, it is a subtle but very important distinction.

I'd let him be taken to Italy;  the Vatican can pay the bills and save the UK taxpayer who has been picking up for the last year or so.

12 minutes ago, Belzybob said:

I'd let him be taken to Italy;  the Vatican can pay the bills and save the UK taxpayer who has been picking up for the last year or so.

You do understand that the Vatican state is not Italy?

 

32 minutes ago, klauskunkel said:

First: "On Monday, Alfie's life-support equipment was switched off after a court ruling."

this means the court ruled that it was in the child's best interest to die.

 

Second: "A British court rejected an appeal by the boy's parents on Wednesday to take their son to Italy."

this means the court ruled that it was in the child's best interest to stay in the UK, where the previous ruling was that it was in the child's best interest to die.

 

or did I misunderstand this?

 

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think the court's ruling is, based on medical advice, it is in the best interest of the child that he is not kept alive by medical intervention. 

 

The second ruling is, an affirmation of the first. 

 

The court is not choosing to let the child die, authorising removal of medical intervention, it is a subtle but very important distinction.

However, the child is alive and thus defying the court's ruling "it is in the best interest of the child that he is not kept alive by medical intervention"

 

Nevertheless, I would like to amend my previous interpretation: "Both courts' ruling say it is in the best interest of the child to die in the UK."

 

Personally, I am neither opposed to nor supportive of those rulings. I just like to question anyone, institution or person, who has been given or taken authority over other people's lives. Especially when they dress up their decision in claims that they can never substantiate or proof: it is in the best interest of...

4 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

Personally, I am neither opposed to nor supportive of those rulings. I just like to question anyone, institution or person, who has been given or taken authority over other people's lives. Especially when they dress up their decision in claims that they can never substantiate or proof: it is in the best interest of...

The court case itself was an examination of the decisions being made by health professionals and the hospital's own board of ethics. 

 

It was an open examination of authority, not some shady back room coverup deal.

5 hours ago, meinphuket said:

The British judge who blocked Italy's offer to transport and treat Alfie must either not have any children of his own, or else be an insensitive monster unsuitable to sit on the bench. Would that Alfie's parents urgently ask the EU court to intervene in this pathetic, inhumane Brit judge's clouded judgement.

 

 

Way off track.

 

Another one duped by sensationalism.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It was an open examination of authority, not some shady back room coverup deal.

I wasn't questioning the way they arrived at their decision.

All too late.......Alfie has left the building.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

The topic about the child's death is running here:

 

 

 

 

//CLOSED//