Alternative view This particular case is not helped by the hyperbole delivered by this broadcaster, who clearly has a personal axe to grind regarding increasing government 'interference' in the lives of people. Then again, that's the nature of government - to make laws, about which people often object to, sometimes rightly, sometimes not.
The boy, Alfie, had an incurable brain disease, a disease which had largely destroyed that brain. The boy was being kept alive by a ventilator, which the doctors decided should be switched off because, in their professional view, it was pointless and cruel to keep the boy alive by that means. The Law, in Britain, supports the doctors who are presumed to be acting in the best interests of the patient, in this case, the boy, Alfie. The Law, in acting for the best interests of the child, decided death was preferable to keeping the child alive with no hope of recovery. The parents disagreed, as many parents would, but that would not, necessarily, be in the best interests of their child. In fact, their love could get in the way of doing what's best for Alfie, even to let him die.
Of course, there was no valid reason, in my view, for the judge to rule that the parents wouldn't be allowed to take the boy to Italy for further treatment but that is another issue |