'My gladiator lay down his shield': Toddler Alfie Evans dies in Britain

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

<snip>

If the parents were wanting to end the child's life there would be a court hearing to protect the rights of the child to live. But the parents wanted the child to live, they wanted to try and do what every single one of us would do ourselves, and that is save our child at all costs. It was the state that gave up on the child

 If you are going to comment, maybe you should acquaint yourself with the facts first.

 

There was not one, but four court cases; the High Court then the Appeal Court followed by the Supreme Court and finally the European Court of Human Rights.

 

The first three found in favour of Alder Hey and refused Alfie's parents permission to take him to Italy for the useless operations which, on the admission of the Italian doctors, would not have cured him or even improved his condition one jot. The ECtHR dismissed the case, opining that there had been no breech of Alfie's human rights.

 

The decision to stop life support was a medical one, taken for medical reasons. Your comment that this decision, and similar ones, was taken for financial reasons is not true, as proven in court not once but three times.

 

BTW, the 1989 Children's Act makes it clear that where a child is at risk of harm the state can and should intervene.

 

 

[7by7]

8 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

I am quite sure if this infant would have been able to communicate he would have been shouting , "no, I want to live, I want a life, there may be a chance I will survive, I want hugs and kisses and school and first dates and love and grandchildren, just please let me try, give me a chance"

 If he had been able to communicate we would not be having this discussion. 

 

But he wasn't; because his brain was already dead. He had no chance of surviving without being attached to machines to keep him alive.

 

That is, of course, no reason for turning those machines off when the patient has brain function; but poor Alfie had none.

[Grouse]

Right, I've left it a few days out of respect.

 

I want know how much this waste of time and money cost the state?

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

Right, I've left it a few days out of respect.

 

I want know how much this waste of time and money cost the state?

Thaiwrath, it is indeed a sad situation

 

Healthcare should be free at the point of delivery, no question

 

However, I think it is fair to ask what was the cost due to this matter dragging on for so long after the medical practitioners had given their opinion.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Grouse

[i claudius]

Could have been in the Vatican hospital in 2 hours but for uk idiots who are able to override parents wishes. Very sad, RIP.

And what keep the poor lad "alive"on a ventalator with no brain function ? What for .it must be terrible for the parents but think of the brain dead child .not them.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Bluespunk]

On 4/28/2018 at 3:49 PM, Expatthailover said:

Very very tragic story.

It always amazes me that such groups are willing to outlay millions to keep alive people who are in semi vegetative states or similar yet are happy to dismantle basic healthcare systems like obamacare that help ordinary people get on with their lives. 

Lets hope this bereaved family can get a semblance of a normal life back.

Very rare I agree with your posts, but well said.

[Tilacme]

12 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

All the medical experts, including the Italian doctors. have confirmed that the majority of Alfie's brain was dead. Only automatic functions remained, and they gradually failed once life support was switched of. There was no hope, merely the desire of his parents to prolong his life for their own desires. 

 

As I said previously; I fully sympathise with the parents; I cannot comprehend what it is like to lose a child. But at the end of the day, what is important is what was best for Alfie; prolong his life merely to satisfy his parents desire, or allow him to die and end his suffering?

 

Sometimes professionals who are experts in their field need to override the will of parents in the interests of the child.

 

I believe my comment about dogs is most apropos or I wouldn't have made it.

 

Poor Alfie had no human spirit left, only the gradually declining automatic functions of his body. Once his life support was switched off he did last for days. Totally unaware of his surroundings, totally incapable of any voluntary activity. Because his brain was dead. The brain is different to all other parts of the body. Brain cells cannot be healed, they cannot be replaced, new ones will not grow to replace dead ones.

 

Poor Alfie suffered regular fits with spasmodic movements: which his parents tried to convince themselves were voluntary movement. We do not know whether or not those fits caused him pain; but, speaking as an epileptic, I can assure that no fit is pleasant and the movements whilst fitting are far from voluntary!

 

The parents were not in the best position to make the final decision because that decision would, understandably, have been made with the heart and not with the head. Such a decision may have brought comfort to the parents, but would have done nothing for Alfie except prolong his life and suffering needlessly; maybe even increased his suffering due to the operations the Italians said they would perform on him.

I empathise with your view and thank you for a very well written post.  I would still have followed the parents wishes 100%. With life there is hope.

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, Tilacme said:

I empathise with your view and thank you for a very well written post.  

 Thank you for that; it's good to see that people with opposing views can debate without the acrimony which features far to often on this forum.

 

8 minutes ago, Tilacme said:

I would still have followed the parents wishes 100%. With life there is hope.

With respect, sometimes facts have to be faced. Alfie's brain was dead. There was no cure, nor would there ever be. As said before, damaged brain cells cannot be repaired, dead ones cannot be replaced. The machines were keeping him alive until they were switched off, and then his body gradually ceased it's automatic functions. There was no hope.

 

I have to ask; are there any circumstances where you would accept that medical and/or legal opinion overrides the parent's wishes?

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, Tilacme said:

I empathise with your view and thank you for a very well written post.  I would still have followed the parents wishes 100%. With life there is hope.

With a dead brain there is no life.

[Tilacme]

36 minutes ago, stevenl said:

With a dead brain there is no life.

With a beating heart there is life.

[Tilacme]

47 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Thank you for that; it's good to see that people with opposing views can debate without the acrimony which features far to often on this forum.

 

With respect, sometimes facts have to be faced. Alfie's brain was dead. There was no cure, nor would there ever be. As said before, damaged brain cells cannot be repaired, dead ones cannot be replaced. The machines were keeping him alive until they were switched off, and then his body gradually ceased it's automatic functions. There was no hope.

 

I have to ask; are there any circumstances where you would accept that medical and/or legal opinion overrides the parent's wishes?

Thank you again for your comments.  I wholly respect your reliance on science  in making your case and you make it very well.  When was Alfie's brain dead? Obviously if they switched off live support brain death would occur quit quickly.  I dont know the time line which of course is all important in these cases. But i don't agree with switching off machines because that human is not deemed perfect in someone's institutional  imagination. And i maintain parents view should come first.

[7by7]

9 hours ago, Tilacme said:

<snip>

When was Alfie's brain dead? Obviously if they switched off live support brain death would occur quit quickly. 

From the OP

Quote

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

Also, from 1st Feb: Alfie Evans: Continuing life support 'futile'

Quote

Mr Mylonas said scans of Alfie had shown "catastrophic degradation of his brain tissue" which was getting worse.

He said that, at the request of the parents, three medical experts from the Vatican-linked Bambino Gesu Paediatric Hospital in Rome had visited Alfie in Alder Hey.

They had reached the same conclusions in terms of the "complete futility" of trying to find a cure or alleviating his seizures.

 

Alfie's brain was dead long before his life support was switched off. All the medical experts who have examined him agree on this.

 

His brain didn't die when the life support was switched off; it was already dead.

 

9 hours ago, Tilacme said:

With a beating heart there is life.

Not when the brain is dead and that heart is only beating due to stimulus from a life support machine.

 

I asked you before, and as you haven't answered ask you again: are there any circumstances where you would accept that medical and/or legal opinion overrides the parent's wishes?

 

How about the opposite of this case. Let's say a child needed certain medical treatment and would die without it but the parent's refused permission for it; for example Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Would you still "maintain parents view should come first" and so maintain that the child should be allowed to die when a simple, routine medical procedure would save their life?

Edited May 3, 2018 by 7by7

[baboon]

On 03/05/2018 at 12:59 AM, 7by7 said:

 

 

All the medical experts, including the Italian doctors. have confirmed that the majority of Alfie's brain was dead. Only automatic functions remained, and they gradually failed once life support was switched of. There was no hope, merely the desire of his parents to prolong his life for their own desires. 

 

As I said previously; I fully sympathise with the parents; I cannot comprehend what it is like to lose a child. But at the end of the day, what is important is what was best for Alfie; prolong his life merely to satisfy his parents desire, or allow him to die and end his suffering?

 

Sometimes professionals who are experts in their field need to override the will of parents in the interests of the child.

 

I believe my comment about dogs is most apropos or I wouldn't have made it.

 

Poor Alfie had no human spirit left, only the gradually declining automatic functions of his body. Once his life support was switched off he did last for days. Totally unaware of his surroundings, totally incapable of any voluntary activity. Because his brain was dead. The brain is different to all other parts of the body. Brain cells cannot be healed, they cannot be replaced, new ones will not grow to replace dead ones.

 

Poor Alfie suffered regular fits with spasmodic movements: which his parents tried to convince themselves were voluntary movement. We do not know whether or not those fits caused him pain; but, speaking as an epileptic, I can assure that no fit is pleasant and the movements whilst fitting are far from voluntary!

 

The parents were not in the best position to make the final decision because that decision would, understandably, have been made with the heart and not with the head. Such a decision may have brought comfort to the parents, but would have done nothing for Alfie except prolong his life and suffering needlessly; maybe even increased his suffering due to the operations the Italians said they would perform on him.

Jesus Christ, your post brings back many memories of the time we lost our baby. F### me, it was the worst episode of my life, even though I was never that keen on having kids in the first place. However when such a horror comes to pass... Sorry, I would rather not continue.

I just want to say that I agree with what you have to say. Other parents in a similar situation might not, but I do.

[Damrongsak]

20 minutes ago, baboon said:

Jesus Christ, your post brings back many memories of the time we lost our baby. F### me, it was the worst episode of my life, even though I was never that keen on having kids in the first place. However when such a horror comes to pass... Sorry, I would rather not continue.

I just want to say that I agree with what you have to say. Other parents in a similar situation might not, but I do.

I get you.  We lost our 19 year old son in combat In Iraq 13 years ago. I was the one who informed my wife that her precious first-born was no longer.  As you say, "F### me, it was the worst episode of my life".  Her screams ...

 

He was aware of the risks and did not fancy becoming an invalid for the rest of his life.  The rocket propelled grenade solved that.

 

Her local Thai friends in Virginia (USA) responded immediately and were very supportive, 24 x 7.

[baboon]

5 hours ago, Damrongsak said:

I get you.  We lost our 19 year old son in combat In Iraq 13 years ago. I was the one who informed my wife that her precious first-born was no longer.  As you say, "F### me, it was the worst episode of my life".  Her screams ...

 

He was aware of the risks and did not fancy becoming an invalid for the rest of his life.  The rocket propelled grenade solved that.

 

Her local Thai friends in Virginia (USA) responded immediately and were very supportive, 24 x 7.

Chilling reading. 19 and just setting out on life... My heart goes out to you.

I suppose the only comfort is the knowledge that one has reached the lowest point in life and that nothing can be any worse. I remember the moment of my cancer diagnosis and the trapdoors opening under me - awful but nothing by comparison. Hell, if it had happened at the time I would have welcomed it and hoped for the worst.

I am just glad you and your wife managed to pick up the pieces of your shattered lives and carry on as best as you could. More power to you.

[geriatrickid]

He was no gladiator. The parents dragged this out for their own emotional reasons. The child was gone long ago. There was no need to waste millions of pounds on this exercise and campaign of hate that targeted the health care providers. The money wasted on keeping a brain dead organic mass could have been used to care for children with a chance of living.

[Tilacme]

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

From the OP

Also, from 1st Feb: Alfie Evans: Continuing life support 'futile'

 

Alfie's brain was dead long before his life support was switched off. All the medical experts who have examined him agree on this.

 

His brain didn't die when the life support was switched off; it was already dead.

 

Not when the brain is dead and that heart is only beating due to stimulus from a life support machine.

 

I asked you before, and as you haven't answered ask you again: are there any circumstances where you would accept that medical and/or legal opinion overrides the parent's wishes?

 

How about the opposite of this case. Let's say a child needed certain medical treatment and would die without it but the parent's refused permission for it; for example Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Would you still "maintain parents view should come first" and so maintain that the child should be allowed to die when a simple, routine medical procedure would save their life?

The aspect of this case which troubles me is that whilst the nhs professionals had concluded there was no hope, they were determined to block his transfer to the Vatican hospital. To answer your question, if the nhs had given up but their was an alternative hope abroad then i believe the parents should have the right to say we are packing bags and going elsewhere.

 

The case in your opposite scenario would be that the parents are clearly not acting in the best interests of the child so they have lost their right to decide procedures.  People like that should be treated as the exception to the rule.

 

There are some very good posts here giving some sad personal experiences.  My first born was in ic for the  first months of life and it affects be deeply, even 25 years on.  But i recall that i was consulted and my wishing respected throughout.  I don't know what has happened between then and now that the State should have the only word.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Tilacme

[stevenl]

Quote

if the nhs had given up but their was an alternative hope abroad

But there was no hope abroad, the Italian doctors had declared the same as the British. The difference is they were willing to prolong the situation.

[7by7]

@Tilacme,

 

In the UK, the courts  are independent of the state. The decision was not made by the state. The state, i.e. British government, was not involved at all. The only state involvement being the hospital's responsibilities to act in the best interests of the child under the 1989 Children's Act.

 

The decision was made by medical professionals in the UK in the best interests of the child. That the decision was in Alfie's best interests was confirmed by the courts three times, that confirmation being based upon the medical evidence; which included evidence from the Italian doctors that there was no hope of Alfie's condition ever improving.

 

As has been stated many times, the Italian doctors admitted that transferring Alfie to them and allowing them to operate on him would not have had any effect on his condition. They admitted that they, too, had concluded the complete futility of trying to find a cure or alleviating his seizures. Which makes me wonder what they hoped to achieve by prolonging his life and submitting him to numerous, on their own admission futile, operations.

 

A child who, like yours, is in intensive care who is alive and improving is a totally different case. In such a case the best interests of the child are to continue treatment. Remember, though, that Alfie had been in intensive care for over a year and his parents consulted throughout that period before his doctors' concluded that there was no further hope for him. 

 

The best interests of the child must always come first; whether that means providing or continuing treatment against the parents' wishes, or allowing a child to die when their time has come.

 

But I can see you will never be convinced of my view, and I know I will never agree with yours, on this issue: so let's leave it there.

[Tilacme]

10 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

@Tilacme,

 

In the UK, the courts  are independent of the state. The decision was not made by the state. The state, i.e. British government, was not involved at all. The only state involvement being the hospital's responsibilities to act in the best interests of the child under the 1989 Children's Act.

 

The decision was made by medical professionals in the UK in the best interests of the child. That the decision was in Alfie's best interests was confirmed by the courts three times, that confirmation being based upon the medical evidence; which included evidence from the Italian doctors that there was no hope of Alfie's condition ever improving.

 

As has been stated many times, the Italian doctors admitted that transferring Alfie to them and allowing them to operate on him would not have had any effect on his condition. They admitted that they, too, had concluded the complete futility of trying to find a cure or alleviating his seizures. Which makes me wonder what they hoped to achieve by prolonging his life and submitting him to numerous, on their own admission futile, operations.

 

A child who, like yours, is in intensive care who is alive and improving is a totally different case. In such a case the best interests of the child are to continue treatment. Remember, though, that Alfie had been in intensive care for over a year and his parents consulted throughout that period before his doctors' concluded that there was no further hope for him. 

 

The best interests of the child must always come first; whether that means providing or continuing treatment against the parents' wishes, or allowing a child to die when their time has come.

 

But I can see you will never be convinced of my view, and I know I will never agree with yours, on this issue: so let's leave it there.

I disagree with your definition of "the state".  The state comprises the 3 separations of power, ie government, courts and bureaucracy .  As you are quoting Acts of legislation used against the parents wishes,  you should at least concede that it was the state who took over Alfie's life.

[i claudius]

With a beating heart there is life.

Yes but one that is not worth living. Would you want to keep on living basically as a vegatable.just let the poor soul go.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[7by7]

10 hours ago, Tilacme said:

I disagree with your definition of "the state".  The state comprises the 3 separations of power, ie government, courts and bureaucracy .  As you are quoting Acts of legislation used against the parents wishes,  you should at least concede that it was the state who took over Alfie's life.

 

I did suggest that we leave it, but apparently you do not wish to do so.

 

In the UK, there are three arms of government:

• the legislature, Parliament comprising the Monarch, Lords and Commons;
• the executive, the Prime Minister, Cabinet and civil service;
• the judiciary, the courts.

Plus, of course, Alder Hey is a NHS hospital, therefore the doctors there are employed by the state; even if they also work in the private sector.

 

So, if you wish to be really pedantic then you can argue that the decision to switch off Alfie's life support and not allow his parents to take him to Italy for futile (the Italian doctor's word, not mine) surgery was made by the state; NHS doctors being state employees and the judiciary being one of the arms of government.

 

But such pedantry forgets two things.

1. Doctors in the UK make their decisions for medical and clinical reasons, not to please their employer, the government.
2. The judiciary in the UK is independent of the executive and legislature; as shown by the many times the courts find against the government of the day.

You have consistently stated throughout this topic that you believe the parent's views are the most important, that they should have the final say.

 

Then I asked you about the situation where parents refuse life saving treatment for their child, citing the example of Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. To which you responded

11 hours ago, Tilacme said:

The case in your opposite scenario would be that the parents are clearly not acting in the best interests of the child so they have lost their right to decide procedures.  People like that should be treated as the exception to the rule

So it seems you believe that the parents should always have the final say, except when you disagree with them! Using the 'best interests of the child' as your reason.

 

Alfie's doctor's had decided, for clinical reasons, that Alfie's best interests would be served in switching off his life support and allowing him to die. The courts, based upon all the evidence presented to them by both sides, agreed. The Italian doctors didn't, they wanted to take him to Italy and subject him to an untold number of surgeries, even though they had stated that such treatment would be futile!

 

I ask you, who was considering Alfie's best interests; his doctors at Alder Hay and the UK courts who agreed with them, or the Italian doctors who wanted to prolong his life, not for his benefit but for their own unknown purpose?

 

Were Alfie's parents acting in his interests, or their own? I have always said that I understand their stance. I have never lost a child, but know a couple who have. I saw the devastation it caused. I understand that parents in such a situation will grasp at any faint hope; but there comes a time when there is no hope. 

 

Even the Italians agreed that in Alfie's case there was no hope; his brain was dead, Alfie was gone. All their surgeries would accomplish is prolong the life of his body for a bit longer. This may have brought a crumb of comfort to his parents, but can you really say in all conscience that it would have been in Alfie's best interests?

 

It's not like keeping someone alive in the hope of a cure; there is no cure for brain death and never will be; brain cells do not regrow, cannot be replaced.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by 7by7
Correct typo

[Tilacme]

16 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

I did suggest that we leave it, but apparently you do not wish to do so.

 

In the UK, there are three arms of government:

• the legislature, Parliament comprising the Monarch, Lords and Commons;
• the executive, the Prime Minister, Cabinet and civil service;
• the judiciary, the courts.

Plus, of course, Alder Hey is a NHS hospital, therefore the doctors there are employed by the state; even if they also work in the private sector.

 

So, if you wish to be really pedantic then you can argue that the decision to switch off Alfie's life support and not allow his parents to take him to Italy for futile (the Italian doctor's word, not mine) surgery was made by the state; NHS doctors being state employees and the judiciary being one of the arms of government.

 

But such pedantry forgets two things.

1. Doctors in the UK make their decisions for medical and clinical reasons, not to please their employer, the government.
2. The judiciary in the UK is independent of the executive and legislature; as shown by the many times the courts find against the government of the day.

You have consistently stated throughout this topic that you believe the parent's views are the most important, that they should have the final say.

 

Then I asked you about the situation where parents refuse life saving treatment for their child, citing the example of Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. To which you responded

So it seems you believe that the parents should always have the final say, except when you disagree with them! Using the 'best interests of the child' as your reason.

 

Alfie's doctor's had decided, for clinical reasons, that Alfie's best interests would be served in switching off his life support and allowing him to die. The courts, based upon all the evidence presented to them by both sides, agreed. The Italian doctors didn't, they wanted to take him to Italy and subject him to an untold number of surgeries, even though they had stated that such treatment would be futile!

 

I ask you, who was considering Alfie's best interests; his doctors at Alder Hay and the UK courts who agreed with them, or the Italian doctors who wanted to prolong his life, not for his benefit but for their own unknown purpose?

 

Were Alfie's parents acting in his interests, or their own? I have always said that I understand their stance. I have never lost a child, but know a couple who have. I saw the devastation it caused. I understand that parents in such a situation will grasp at any faint hope; but there comes a time when there is no hope. 

 

Even the Italians agreed that in Alfie's case there was no hope; his brain was dead, Alfie was gone. All their surgeries would accomplish is prolong the life of his body for a bit longer. This may have brought a crumb of comfort to his parents, but can you really say in all conscience that it would have been in Alfie's best interests?

 

It's not like keeping someone alive in the hope of a cure; there is no cure for brain death and never will be; brain cells do not regrow, cannot be replaced.

 

 

Thank you for your comments and i pleased to note that you have got up to speed on the separation of powers and are able to confirm that the state was responsible for switching off life support, and not solely a doctors decision.  Had Alfie been given the Courts permission to be moved Italy then he would be alive now, Italian doctors have said they could keep him alive without suffering so i say again, where there is life there is hope. 

 

Where you say "Alfie's best interests would be served by switching off his life support and allowing him to die", you need to think about that.

 

I don't see any good reason for preventing Alfie going to Italy in accordance with the parent wishes apart from some uk loss of face future precedent being set.

Edited May 5, 2018 by Tilacme

[Expatthailover]

I tbink I will take more notice of the mother of this poor child.

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Tilacme said:

Thank you for your comments and i pleased to note that you have got up to speed on the separation of powers and are able to confirm that the state was responsible for switching off life support, and not solely a doctors decision. 

That is not what I said, no matter how you want to spin it.

 

3 hours ago, Tilacme said:

Had Alfie been given the Courts permission to be moved Italy then he would be alive now, Italian doctors have said they could keep him alive without suffering so i say again, where there is life there is hope. 

His body would be being kept alive by a machine, and then only because the Italian doctors had operated on him to enable this. But Alfie would be dead because his brain had died.

 

What is it you fail to understand about brain death; about the fact that once dead, brain cells are dead and cannot regrow or be replaced? 

 

3 hours ago, Tilacme said:

Where you say "Alfie's best interests would be served by switching off his life support and allowing him to die", you need to think about that.

 

I don't see any good reason for preventing Alfie going to Italy in accordance with the parent wishes apart from some uk loss of face future precedent being set.

 

Even the Italian doctors had said in court that any attempt by them to cure Alfie would be futile. All they would be doing is keeping the empty shell of his body alive because his brain was dead.

 

I asked you before, but you didn't answer; so I'll ask again. How can you possibly say in all conscience doing that would have been in Alfie's best interests? The poor mite's brain was dead, he would never recover. To be blunt he would simply be a piece of meat being kept alive by machines. OK, being brain dead he would be unaware of this; but even so, is that a life you would inflict on anyone, let alone your child who you loved?

 

[Tilacme]

 

 

So the only thing to be taken from this is the sad fact that the State has now assumed the power to terminate a child's very life should they deem it correct and, the parents don't have any say in the matter whatsoever.

 

My decorated grandfather is turning in his grave as to what has become of the uk.

 

 

 

[7by7]

14 minutes ago, Tilacme said:

So the only thing to be taken from this is the sad fact that the State has now assumed the power to terminate a child's very life should they deem it correct and, the parents don't have any say in the matter whatsoever.

 

On ‎04‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 7:33 PM, 7by7 said:

if you wish to be really pedantic then you can argue that the decision to switch off Alfie's life support and not allow his parents to take him to Italy for futile (the Italian doctor's word, not mine) surgery was made by the state; NHS doctors being state employees and the judiciary being one of the arms of government.

It seems that, having exhausted all other rational arguments, you are now relying purely on irrational pedantry!

 

You are also yet again confirming that you believe the parents should only have a say when you agree with them, but not when you don't!

 

Of course, Alfie's parents did have a say, and their views were considered by the courts; otherwise the High Court hearing would have been the end of the matter and they would not have been able to take the case first to the Appeal Court, then the Supreme Court and finally to the ECtHR!

 

20 minutes ago, Tilacme said:

My decorated grandfather is turning in his grave as to what has become of the uk

Both my grandfathers fought in the first world war, and my father fought in the second. My mother also served in the women's army (called the ATS at the time) from 1939 until she fell pregnant with my brother in 1944 (she always said my brother could thank the 48 hour passes she and my father had in Feb 1944 for his existence!)

 

Although they are all now dead, knowing them as I did I have no doubt that they would agree that the child's best interests override the parents wishes in all cases.

[Tilacme]

37 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

It seems that, having exhausted all other rational arguments, you are now relying purely on irrational pedantry!

 

You are also yet again confirming that you believe the parents should only have a say when you agree with them, but not when you don't!

 

Of course, Alfie's parents did have a say, and their views were considered by the courts; otherwise the High Court hearing would have been the end of the matter and they would not have been able to take the case first to the Appeal Court, then the Supreme Court and finally to the ECtHR!

 

Both my grandfathers fought in the first world war, and my father fought in the second. My mother also served in the women's army (called the ATS at the time) from 1939 until she fell pregnant with my brother in 1944 (she always said my brother could thank the 48 hour passes she and my father had in Feb 1944 for his existence!)

 

Although they are all now dead, knowing them as I did I have no doubt that they would agree that the child's best interests override the parents wishes in all cases.

Thank you for your comments.

 

Like you a few posts ago, i have now had my say on this matter and am willing to leave it at that. 

 

So with respect i am signing off on this topic.