Let Alfie Evans go to Rome

To defend their intransigence, which they have repeated in several decisions handed down since December, British judges have merely gestured at the notion that they must supply an argument. For months, they have reiterated that further medical treatment for Alfie would not be in his “best interest.” But if the rest of his life will be as short as they and his Liverpool doctors say, he has little of it to lose even if heroic medical measures went awry. And given the severity of his brain damage, which his parents acknowledge, official pronouncements about his “autonomy” are a non sequitur, as they would be for any two-year-old child in need of medical attention, for that matter. Justice Anthony Hayden of the High Court wrote that artificial ventilation was an assault on Alfie’s “dignity,” as if modern intensive-care units themselves were a barbarity. That doctors in Rome can prolong Alfie’s life and even improve his medical condition may be a long shot, but the assumption that their trying would somehow put him at risk makes little sense at this juncture. Risk of what?

The medical disagreement between Alfie’s doctors and his parents became a legal dispute. It’s now a political debate because the stakes are high and the medical and legal authorities have not answered the question why the parents in concert with a reputable Italian pediatric hospital should be prevented from pursuing treatment for their child. The stakes are high for Alfie and his parents, obviously, but for all of Britain insofar as their case establishes a precedent or reinforces earlier ones. So far, the similarities to the Charlie Gard ordeal in London last year have been glaring: Charlie suffered brain damage; his doctors withheld treatment; his parents objected; two hospitals, including Bambino Gesù, offered to take him. The British courts said no.