What's being argued here with this shallow analogy is that because the state has the power in some obvious situations where the parent's choice would endanger a child's life, the state should always get to impose its preferences over that of the parents.https://twitter.com/GeorgePeretzQC/status/989864390819278850 …
I think that the parents were right in the Supreme Court appeal that it was illogical to not require the significant harm threshold for this decision, not just the best interest threshold. In the case of blood transfusions withheld by Jehovah's Witness parents, a clear case can
-
-
be made that it causes significant harm to a child to withhold a blood transfusion. In the Alfie Evans case, it's simply not clear because the Alder Hey course of action would have caused the child to die immediately.
-
I don't think there can be a single one size fits all "legally workable test" for all such cases, but the Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard cases seem to be establishing a very bad precedent in favor of state paternalism.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.