In a rather mind-boggling decision, the United Kingdom has enacted a travel ban on 23-month-old Alfie Evans, who is suffering from an unknown degenerative brain disease. The boy has been offered treatment at the Vatican’s Bambino Gesu children’s hospital in Rome, but the UK is working to ensure that he never reaches Italy.
British courts have thus far refused to budge. The child’s life support has also been withdrawn, but for now he continues to breathe and live on. Owing to the seriousness of his condition, his time appears to be limited. The UK government had provided life support for over a year before pulling the plug.
Pope Francis has urged the United Kingdom to let the child travel:
Moved by the prayers and immense solidarity shown little Alfie Evans, I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted.
— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) April 23, 2018
To be honest, I believe that the government should play a large, central role in the provision of medical care. I dare say, some aspects of medicine should even be “socialized.” Regardless, British courts have overstepped their bounds. By all but sentencing Alfie Evans to death, the UK’s court system has erected a dreaded death tribunal. This term was previously pushed by right-wing critics of Obamacare, although I don’t believe that the USA ever enacted anything as heavy-handed as the UK government.
Will treatment in Italy help Alfie Evans? Honestly, I doubt it. His case has confounded the medical profession. Sadly, some diseases remain unknown and many simply cannot be treated. Regardless, the worst outcome of traveling to Italy is the same as the worst outcome for staying at home. Alfie Evans is unlikely to survive but if the Vatican is offering to care for him, what right does the UK government have to say no? Such a decision should be left up to the parents.
Perhaps ironically, I don’t disagree with the doctors and their assessment. Aflie Evans appears to be beyond treatment. I could even understand why the United Kingdom would withdraw expensive life support. It’s public money and one could argue that it’s being wasted.
Denying someone else from providing treatment is a Kafkaesque tragedy. To be quite honest, Alfie Evans should no longer be the concern of the courts. If his parents want to travel with him, and another party has agreed to treat him, what grounds outside of pettiness does the court have to say no?
This is coming from someone, by the way, who believes in the effectiveness of vaccines and even requiring them. I also believe in some “socialized” provision of medicine. People should not be denied access to healthcare simply because they lack the right job or bank account. I believe the government does have a right to withdraw treatment on the advice of doctors.
Yet setting up a literal death tribunal that can deny a child healthcare is a bridge too far. The only result of such an action is going to be more skepticism of government involvement in healthcare. Such heavy-handed actions are only going to decrease trust in the government and fuel critics to incite outrage.
I’d argue that the refusal to grant Alfie Evans the right to travel is both morally wrong and politically ignorant. Somehow, the British government figured out how to lose extra hard during an already “lose-lose” situation. Now, the UK’s generally well-regarded National Health Service will be dragged through the mud and thrown in a critical spotlight because courts decided to trample upon the rights of parents.
