Recently people across the globe have been moved and outraged by the story of little Alfie Evans, whose life hung in the balance in a British hospital and whose fate was taken from the hands of his parents by the National Health Service (NHS) and the courts.
Evans, who suffered from a rare brain condition, died five days after he was taken off life support, following a legal battle where his parents fought to take him to the Vatican children's hospital for treatment.
Yes, the Italian government and the Vatican tried to intervene to treat the child at no cost to either the family or the British government. The courts denied the parents the right to leave the country.
You read that right, not ALLOWED to leave, and this is allegedly a free country!
Let’s ponder that for just one moment.
Great Britain is a nation with a proud history of freedom and democracy. Most other nations around the world and Britons themselves would describe it as a “free country,” and yet here is a case where its free citizens are not allowed to leave its borders.
However, their leaving for treatment would be an abject embarrassment to a government that holds up their socialist healthcare as one of the wonders of the Western world. Not only would they be forced to admit that their own doctors and bureaucrats were wrong for denying this baby life-saving measures, but they would then have to deal with hundreds, maybe thousands of other citizens fleeing the bondage of NHS algorithms for a slim chance at prolonging life.
It is unconscionable for a toddler to die just to make a point or just to rigidly enforce policy for its own sake, not to benefit anyone—once again because no one- even the British taxpayers would have suffered had the family traveled to Italy for his care.
Here's how socialized medicine works.
The utilitarian approach says that we can help more people with our tax money instead of having this one life be valuable. This is unconscionable. We are human- individuals, we want to say, but then we realize it is not true. We are numbers. The State operates by ensuring that enough of us are behaving in certain ways to keep the system afloat.
There are two big problems with this: 1) his continued treatment wouldn’t have cost the British government a thing, and 2) This is a human life dammit!
In this instance, the government has asserted its right to define what lives are worth living and is also determined its authority cannot be questioned.
In a world of limited medical resources, babies with rare medical conditions-very expensive to treat become expendable “for the greater good.”
There is no “common or greater good” in this story.
This isn’t about abstractions or cold numbers, it’s about people.
When Obamacare was initially debated, those on the right who brought up the issue of “death panels,” were dismissed, even lampooned by the left and their sycophant media, but what do you call this court but a death panel?
It is an unelected body who gets to decide who lives based its vision of a common good. Once again, you are incompetent to make your own decision; your progressive betters know what best for you.
Froma Harrop, writing in the Seattle Times, speaks for the supposed compassion of government-run health care by characterizing this sordid episode as an “inspiring” example of government-run care. She sides with little Alfie’s doctors and the court, declaring “leaving the baby tied to wires and tubes with no hope of improvement would have been unkind and inhumane.”
Harrop admits though, for many in the UK and here the issue was the overruling of the parents’ wishes. Under British law, parents can be overruled when their preference on care risks harm to the child. Now I ask, what possible harm could have come to Alfie by transporting him to Rome for one last chance at life?
I join Harrop in recognizing the heroic efforts of British health care for almost two years, but that’s doesn’t answer the key philosophical and practical question, who gets to decide what lives are worth living?
Newt Gingrich noticed the coincident timing in Alfie Evans’ and eminent scientist Stephen Hawking’s deaths. Hawking had been given two years to live by the same system 55 years ago.
Alfie Evans may indeed have never really had a chance to survive his illness, but if there were a chance – one that would not cost the taxpayers of Great Britain – shouldn’t his parents be allowed to seek it out? Shouldn’t they, as citizens of a “free country” be allowed to leave its borders whenever they please and for whatever reason they please?
Sadly, Alfie was doomed to be the sacrificial lamb at the altars of pride and socialism.
You will never convince me that this is right in any way. Never.
The state cannot be all-powerful; it exists for benefit of its people, and must admitting when it’s wrong or at least insufficient.
As Clint Eastwood once opined: “A man’s got to know his limitations.”
In socialism, you will surrender your rights as an individual for the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in exchange for the promises made by Big Brother.
The rationalization made by the British Health system officials reminds me of a famous quote.
Ben Franklin declared, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” The ramming of this “sacrifice for the common good” argument down the throats of British subjects is a lot more Marx-Lenin than Ben Franklin.
I know many in this country advocate “free” healthcare for all: a human right they claim. I counter to you socialism advocates, you don’t get anything for free in this life, it comes with a catch. You agree to put your life in the hands of a bureaucracy. I just hope no court ever decides to end yours or your child’s life is in your own best interest or for the common good.
