Last week, much of the world was captivated by the birth of the newest royal baby, Louis Arthur Charles. But it was the fate of another British baby that demonstrated how precarious life has become for those deemed unworthy of living.
Alfie Evans was a terminally ill infant who became embroiled in a tragic court battle shortly after being diagnosed with a rare neurological condition. British medical experts argued that Alfie’s condition had deteriorated so much that the only humane thing to do was to take him off a ventilator and let him die.
Every court ruled against Alfie’s parents, who desperately wished to pursue every possible course to save their son. After several appeals, the British Court of Appeal approved the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration for Alfie.
Incredibly, it also prohibited Alfie’s parents from seeking care elsewhere. Italy had granted Alfie citizenship and a Catholic hospital in Rome offered to pay for his care and take all possible steps to save him. The judge argued that it would be against Alfie’s best interests to move him. So doctors stopped feeding Alfie, expecting him to die in a matter of hours.
But Alfie did not die. In fact, he lived several more days, breathing on his own until he finally expired on Saturday. Alfie’s will to live inspired millions of people and prompted a debate in England and around the world over who should ultimately decide whether a person lives or dies.
England has a socialized healthcare system called the National Health Service. This case highlights the dangers of government making the most important healthcare decisions. What is happening in England is essentially what American conservatives argued would take place under Obamacare’s so-called death panels. Government bureaucrats would become the ultimate arbiters of who lives and who dies, while the wishes of the patient and those closest to the patient are ignored.
It’s hard to miss the profound irony here. Many Western governments have enshrined the right of women to determine the fate of their unborn children, even if it results in the baby’s death. But in this case the government did the opposite, telling Alfie’s mother that she had no say in her baby’s fate. So much for women’s rights.
Alfie’s predicament may seem unique. But it is eerily familiar to anyone who remembers Terry Schiavo or, more recently in England, Charlie Gard. In fact, there have been at least 20 similar cases in England, according to legal experts there.
Alfie’s government-ordered death underscores why trust in government remains at historic lows. This case happened in Britain, but it very well could have occurred in America under a legal system that’s increasingly unmoored from our Founders’ recognition that the right to life is unalienable and derives not from man but from thecreator.
Even liberals who support single-payer healthcare and generally trust government must acknowledge that something’s gone terribly wrong when government can take a child away from his loving family and then prevent them from seeking care elsewhere at no cost to the government.
All of this leaves me with a sad conclusion. What the British authorities were really worried about was not the costs associated with saving Alfie Evans. Again, Italy agreed to care for him, mitigating the cost issue.
I don’t even think the government was much concerned that Alfie would die, an outcome they no doubt see as unfortunate but inevitable. I believe their real fear was that Alfie would be taken to Italy and live, thus exposing them as the moral cowards they are.
Gary Bauer is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is president of American Values and chairman of Campaign for Working Families. He ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.
