Alfie's doctors made the decision that taking him from hospital for an experimental treatment in a different country had a strong chance of killing him, and that he was better off dying peacefully and not in pain in the UK. Alfie's parents fought to try and save his life at any cost even if it meant he went through tortuous pain first.
Frankly both sides of the argument are understandable. No one wants a child to suffer but no parent wants to give up on their baby. It's a tragic case.
It's also an exception. Using it as the basis of how you decide 99.999% of other medical cases is idiotic, and using Alfie's memory as a tool to promote a particular system of healthcare payment is obscene and shameful.
Just remember this - for every case like Alfie's where there genuinely are two sides to consider there are millions more where the doctors are simply right. Setting a precedent that parents wishes automatically overrule the doctors would cause so many children to suffer. This is why we let doctors and courts make decisions - to save children from stupid parents.
Clearly he can be sedated, and that isn't an argument for letting the state kill people without trial anyway.
Just to clarify, the state didn't kill him. He died of GABA-transaminase deficiency, which was only diagnosed after he died. The treatment that his parents wanted to try was a shot in the dark. No one knew what was wrong with Alfie.
You are arguing that taking a child from hospital, causing him more pain and suffering, putting him through a frightening and scary procedure, that has no basis in medicinal science (as there's no way to know if it'll cure an undiagnosed problem) is better than letting him die peacefully, safely and surrounded with love.
You can take a "life at any cost" point of view but the UK Court didn't. It took the view that a pain free and caring death was better than an agonising and highly unlikely long shot.
They removed his life support, against the wishes of his parents and then prevented them from accepting help. He survived ~5 days without it.
While it's a sad story I agree, it's not the point. Giving the state the power to decide who lives and dies without a trial and conviction for a crime is something many of us had hoped was settled long ago.
Ok, let's try a nice straightforward story. A child is bitten by a dog that definitely has rabies (this can be established by autopsy). The child's parents refuse any treatment (vaccination). It is about a 99% chance that the child will die of rabies without the vaccination. Do you believe the state (or any other actor) should have any power to intervene?
