Alfie Evans got 16 months of world class health care.
When he got to the point where treating him was futile and doctors wanted to turn off life-support they needed to get the agreement of the parents. Because the parents didn't agree the hospital needed to go to court. The hospital was not allowed to go ahead without a court order giving them permission. This is unlike California and Virginia, where the doctors announce the plan and then the parents have to sue to stop it happening.
For the court process the parents had excellent legal representation paid for by the state. The parents went through seven firms of solicitors and a counsel team of top class silk plus two juniors, because they disagreed with the legal advice each firm gave them. They eventually wound up being represented by the CLC - someone who isn't a solicitor gave them terrible legal advice.
On top of that Alfie had his own, independent, legal representation. This is because Alfie was a human, and humans have rights, and we protect human rights that are enshrined in our law and in international law.
The courts had the power to get independent medical advice, which they did. Every single doctor agreed - treatment was futile; Alfie had no brain; he was going to die and die soon.
The courts decided that it wasn't possible to say that further treatment would not cause more pain and suffering to Alfie, and they ordered that it was in his best interests to remove life support. It's important to note that no hospital was offering anything other than end-of-life care.
The parents disagreed, and took the case up through appeal, then supreme court, then Europe, and back again. This is many different judges, and the all agreed: it was in Alfie's best interests to let him die. (Europe agreed that Alfie's best interests had been kept in mind.
The court cases are available online, and you should read them, because they are short and easy to read and the principles are clear: everything has to be done in Alfie's best interest; the parent's views are important but they don't own Alfie.
So, you seem to say that we did it wrong, and that the US would do it better.
In the UK the hospital had to go to court.
In eg California that is reversed. The doctors tell the family they're going to stop treatment, and the family have to go to court to stop the hospital. Who pays the legal bills for the family? Who pays the legal bills for the child?
It's short. It's simple to understand. It's clear about the legal principles.
Also, you should probably read something about the terrible legal advice provided by CLC.
https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-qu...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/28/call-from-go...
Alfie Evans got 16 months of world class health care.
When he got to the point where treating him was futile and doctors wanted to turn off life-support they needed to get the agreement of the parents. Because the parents didn't agree the hospital needed to go to court. The hospital was not allowed to go ahead without a court order giving them permission. This is unlike California and Virginia, where the doctors announce the plan and then the parents have to sue to stop it happening.
For the court process the parents had excellent legal representation paid for by the state. The parents went through seven firms of solicitors and a counsel team of top class silk plus two juniors, because they disagreed with the legal advice each firm gave them. They eventually wound up being represented by the CLC - someone who isn't a solicitor gave them terrible legal advice.
On top of that Alfie had his own, independent, legal representation. This is because Alfie was a human, and humans have rights, and we protect human rights that are enshrined in our law and in international law.
The courts had the power to get independent medical advice, which they did. Every single doctor agreed - treatment was futile; Alfie had no brain; he was going to die and die soon.
The courts decided that it wasn't possible to say that further treatment would not cause more pain and suffering to Alfie, and they ordered that it was in his best interests to remove life support. It's important to note that no hospital was offering anything other than end-of-life care.
The parents disagreed, and took the case up through appeal, then supreme court, then Europe, and back again. This is many different judges, and the all agreed: it was in Alfie's best interests to let him die. (Europe agreed that Alfie's best interests had been kept in mind.
The court cases are available online, and you should read them, because they are short and easy to read and the principles are clear: everything has to be done in Alfie's best interest; the parent's views are important but they don't own Alfie.
So, you seem to say that we did it wrong, and that the US would do it better.
In the UK the hospital had to go to court.
In eg California that is reversed. The doctors tell the family they're going to stop treatment, and the family have to go to court to stop the hospital. Who pays the legal bills for the family? Who pays the legal bills for the child?
http://medicalfutility.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/medical-futili...