Has anybody else been keeping up ?
Alfie was born in May 2016 to teenage parents - their first child. He was admitted to a children's hospital after a seizure. At six months old, he was functioning in a range appropriate to a six- to eight-week-old baby. In November 2016, he was given a MRI scan and results shown "abnormalities, including, the possible diagnosis of a mitochondrial disorder". He was put in an Intensive Care Unit in December after his conditions worsened. He had become unwell with "bilateral pneumonia" which he recovered from in January 2017. Court documents say "he showed no response to tactile, visual, auditory or sensory stimulation" and described his EEG and clinical presentation as "grim".
One judge believes that Alfie's recovery from pneumonia is viewed by his father as potential for further recovery.
A third MRI scan was taken in August 2017 revealed that "70% of Alfie's brain had been destroyed".
He had remained on a ventilator since December 2016. The hospital sought to have it turned off after a year but were denied permission from the family and so had to get permission from the courts.
A fourth MRI scan taken in February 2018 "scan showed the almost total destruction of Alfie's brain, with fluid identical to water or CSF now present where brain matter should be."
Alfie wasn't reacting to anticonvulsant treatment and an independent London-based specialist said his brain was beyond recovery. She also said "even if Alfie is able to sustain respiration in the short term, on discontinuing ventilation his respiratory effect will not sustain life."
The high court ruled that the ventilator could be switched off, it was done so this week after several failed appeals from the family.
Rome
Alfie's father wants to take Alfie to the Bambino Gesù Hospital in Rome. Three doctors from the hospital in Rome flown to Liverpool and assessed the child. The judge wrote 'They too agreed that Alfie had a neurodegenerative disease and fitting disorder which was untreatable. They agreed that even if further testing were carried out, it would not provide a cure or, "bring a different treatment plan." Nowhere in their report was it suggested that it would be in Alfie's best interests for ventilation to be continued."
Their report stated:
"It is possible that during travel Alfie may present continuous seizures due to stimulations related to the transportation and flight: these seizures might induce further damage to (the) brain, being the whole procedure of transportation at risk."
For his part, the father is clinging to the use of the word "may" and wants to take his son to Italy.
Best Interests
The family's representative put forward their case during appeal. It included words:
(iii) Alfie's best interests are irrelevant to the arguments now being advanced on behalf of the parents. The parents views and wishes "trump" Alfie's best interests because, as his parents, they are entitled to make decisions for him even if, as we have said, what is proposed is inimical to his best interests;
and
(iv) Alfie is being unlawfully detained in hospital. This is in breach both of common law rights and under Article 5 of the ECHR. The legal action available to remedy this wrong, as of right, is a writ of habeas corpus. Alfie is being detained because he is not being permitted to "self-discharge" and/or because his parents are not being permitted to remove him from the hospital. This is unlawful because nobody, not even the courts, are entitled to stop the parents acting as they wish in respect of Alfie.
Air Ambulance
A German doctor snuck in to the hospital posing as a family member to assess the child. He provided a "fit to fly" certificate. It later emerged that he hadn't been fully informed of the circumstances.
"Dr Hubner's statement began with an assertion that he had seen all of Alfie's files, whereas in reality he had seen very little. As the judge put it, "most alarmingly" Dr Hubner's travel plan for Alfie suggested the use of anticonvulsant medication which, on the basis of Alder Hey's experience with Alfie, would have been both ineffective and inappropriate."
Christian Legal Centre
The Christian Legal Centre wrote to the family urging them to remove Alfie from the hospital and told them they had the legal right to do so.
A distressed father then called for people to turn up at the hospital in support.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0JbYKNSJDg
It wasn't accurate and was later found to be prepared by someone without a legal qualification.
The same group also releases press releases which contain legally sensitive information (specifically, the time at which the ventilation machine would be switched off) to American Catholic media organisations.
Somewhere along the way, they also managed to get the father an audience with the Pope.
Private prosecution
The father threatened to bring a private prosecution against three doctors and a hospital ward manager where he was being treated for "conspirary to murder". In a video on Facebook, he said he had "filed" it.
The Times (of London) say it was co-prepared by a London-based Russian historian, law student and The Spectator contributor, Pavel Stroilov.
A High Court judge said it was "littered with vituperation and bile".
Italian citizenship
Two Italian politicians managed to get Alfie Italian citizenship. They hoped that it would help Alfie access Rome.
Hospital supporters
Supporters protested outside of the hospital after a failed appeal. They brought a bouncy castle, scrambler bikes where people would do tricks. Others would refuse to let people pass on the nearby dual carriageway unless they beeped their vehicle in support of Alfie.
Supporters of the family attempted to storm the hospital where he was being treated but were prevented from doing so by police. This happened after the European Court of Human Rights did not find any instance where humans right had been breached.
The family have distanced themselves from this behaviour
Pro-life activists
Mary Holmes, their [previous(?)] lawyer, accused "pro-life" activists of exploiting the couple: "These people I don't believe are in it because they love Alfie. When this case is over they'll move on to the next. Or they'll find some other cause they can ride on the back of. I just think they pick on the vulnerable and they are easy prey."
The lawyer claimed that the activists were intending to "keep this child alive at any cost and not for the right reasons". She added: "It's getting them in the public eye — it's like, we've got involved, look what we've done, we've got an audience with the Pope."
Ms Holmes said Mr Evans was just a "desperate young man, and Kate's this desperate young woman" who were willing to turn to anyone who purported to offer hope. Ms Holmes does not believe that Christian Concern's views on abortion and homosexuality represent the views of the couple.
-----------------
Last night, representatives once more wanted to take Alfie to Italy, their case was rejected. There's apparently going to be another appeal at the Court of Appeal.
