Precedence

Once in a while there are occurrences in life and society that happen, which trigger monumental change or represent a major shift in traditional ideology. Sometimes, these are positive occurrences such as Martin Luther King Jr's civil rights movement in the 1950's and 60's or William Wilberforce's political battle in the English parliament to abolish slave trade in England which led to the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Then there are negative occurrences such as World Wars I and II, 9/11 and the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. These are all groundbreaking, revolutionary and global events that have affected the entire globe, if not the vast majority of it. But in these instances, the perspective on the moral precedence of these events are easily determined by most human minds. They lie, relatively, on the extreme ends of the moral spectrum in most human societies in the world today. But then there are occurrences and events that change the world, but equally divide the populace on how to morally perceive the event. One such ongoing event that comes to mind would be the Israeli-Palestinian war. Now, I am not suggesting here that war is condoned in any way outside of self defense and absolute necessity for survival (you can determine such cases on your own) but in this particular case of the war in the West Bank we see a great divide over which party is morally in the wrong. Israel is the political legal owner over the West Bank according to the United Nations, and yet the Palestinians continue to occupy this territory. One could view the Israeli government as a "bully" that is using its military strength and Western allies to push the Palestinians out, while committing war crimes and treason en route. Another could look at the exact same situation and see a violent Palestinian occupancy within the legal territory of Israel that is forcing the Israelis to act in defense of their own land. Without going into more detail over that particular situation, it is a globe affecting occurrence, with global attention and a globe dividing topic of discussion. There are numerous other stories in the world today that divide us based on how we view certain things, Dr. Jordan Peterson comes to mind. However, coming across and following the story of Alfie Evans has caused me to question the need for moral rationale in a world that has clearly lost its moral compass.

Let me quickly break down key events in Alfie's fight for survival.

May 9, 2016: Alfie Evans is born to Tom Evans and Kate James

December 2016: Alfie is sent to Alder Hey Hospital after displaying odd movements and falling into a coma.

June 2017: Alfie's Army begins online petition to raise awareness and seek assistance for the dying child.

December 2017: Alder Hey seeks legal permission to turn off Alfie's life support after determining that the child would not survive this mysterious condition.

February 1-April 23 of 2018: Back and forth legal battles between Alfie's parents and the British courts, Supreme court and the European Human Rights Council occur, with Tom Evans and his wife losing every case.

April 23. 2018: Alfie is granted Italian citizenship in hopes to move him to the Pope's hospital for ongoing treatment.

April 28: Alfie dies.

Now here's the interesting part of this whole story, the judges and doctors involved in this narrative that seem like the clear moral antagonists are in fact acting within legal parameters that "make sense" in very isolated situations. The laws they were appealing to were put in place for a reason that at times, would "make sense." They are not moral monsters by any means. What is interesting however is the public reaction of disgust and horror that the lack of "common sense" to try and save this child. Perhaps it is the "human" in us that drives us to fight for the life of such a child. My attention and question is not drawn from the moral issue of trying to save this child or not, but whose right it is to determine the course of action in helping or not helping a child in Aflie's situation. It is clear that the child on his own is helpless, and so the obvious legal responsibility falls on the parents. But what is being stripped away from the parents, is their moral and parental obligation to decide the course of action in response to Alfie's condition. What the British courts have done in this situation is take away that right from the parents. Now I agree that not all parents are great, so when it can be determined that a parent is not acting in the best interest of their child or is incapable of doing so, they should not maintain that right. But in this case, it was obvious that the parents were indeed out for the best interest of their child. The anger that this story has caused stems not from the doctor's making a diagnosis or a judge handing down a ruling, but the precedence they set by stating that they know better than Alfie's parents, and so they will act in the best interest of the family and Alfie by not following their desires. This is a moral precedence by a Western government that is captivating. Think this through, the government can one day say to you, that they know what is better for you and your child more than you do. Scared much?

A government with that kind of authority and lack of moral rationale, is a frightening thought. But what did we really expect? Is this a surprising outcome by any means? We live in a world that is "progressing" away from binding laws and conservative thinking that takes away the freedom to choose what we want. This progressive line of thinking has helped us all to re-imagine our world today. But at what cost? Morality. Morality is unfortunately for the progressives, a relative term when choice is given higher priority and so when you remove an objective standard of morality, you also remove your right to the morality that you follow. Because if your moral standard differs from your governing authority, then just as Tom Evans experienced, you can do nothing about it. One could say, "The child was going to die anyways, life support would have drained resources and time from doctors, the condition was incurable and there was no hope." But taking this child off life support just seemed wrong to many of us didn't it? didn't it just not "make sense?" There is something I fear in this world and that is a government that can determine its own morality by its own subjective standards rather than a government that determines its morality from an objective standard that upholds key moral values. That is a frightful thought to me because it will lead to situations where we know that something is just wrong, and yet nothing can be done about it if that is not the governmental consensus even though there is a lack of reasoning. What would have greatly satisfied me in this story is if any official was able to provide a logical, moral, rational reason for their decisions. I think it was ever more clear to the people involved, that this was not a decision they could defend with reason. And even if they laid down the law on the young couple, why would they deny their right to move the child or receive outside care? Something just seemed outlandish here.

Alfie's parents were denied the right to be a father and a mother to their child, to do everything that they could do to help him. They were given an ultimatum because no solution could be fathomed by outside parties. Tough pill to swallow. I am eager to see future cases such as the Evans' to see what kind of precedence has been set in this landmark event. I hope and pray that the affect of Aflie's death would be that of positive change for a world where parenthood and the right to parent a child to protection will be upheld in a modern court.