Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

The dangerous precedent of Alfie Evans

Vamsi Aribindi, MD
Policy
May 24, 2018
78 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share

The tragic case of Alfie Evans has roiled Great Britain and the world. Alfie was a two-year-old child in the United Kingdom with an unknown degenerative brain disease who eventually deteriorated to the point that he required life support. His brain had become mostly liquid, and he could not see, speak, or hear. Alder Hey Hospital decided his condition was terminal and irreversible and wanted to stop further treatment. His parents disagreed and wanted to transfer care to another hospital in Italy that was willing to accept him. Alder Hey went to court arguing that it was better that the child be allowed to die because keeping him alive was cruel and harmful. They ultimately won, and Alfie Evans passed away. This has sparked a great outcry, particularly among the pro-life movement in the U.S. And, indeed, the idea that the state can literally declare that death is better than life for anyone should be horrifying to everyone.

But the decision to take Alfie off life support was a reasonable and ethical one — if it was justified as being fair to all patients. It is even a reasonable one for individual doctors to conclude that further treating a patient in front of them is harmful and not ethical? But when court decided it had the right to decide that the child should die rather than live, it became an abomination.

To explain: the NHS provides medical care for the population of the United Kingdom from cradle to grave. Like all health systems, it does not have infinite resources, but instead has chronic financial issues. Caring for Alfie Evans indefinitely with no hope of recovery would have cost the NHS millions that it does not have. How then to balance caring for Alfie Evans against the 50-year-old man who can’t work because of a hernia (cost of surgery to repair: $5000), or against the 75-year-old woman considering a fourth round of chemotherapy that may extend her life by one month (cost of drug: $200,000)? In the U.K., these decisions are made largely by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE, which uses the Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY). Through surveys, a year with a certain condition is compared against a year in “perfect health”. In this manner, a year bedridden and sick from illness may have a utility value of .5. Thus, if a treatment would prolong someone’s life by two years, but leave them bedridden and sick, it may have a value of 1 QALY. And in 2010, the policy was this: treatments that cost less than 20,000 pounds per QALY were generally approved, treatments that cost more than 30,000 pounds per QALY were generally denied, and there was a grey area in between — but with many exceptions and other sources of funding.

In the 2008 election and 2010 health care debate, this was decried as rationing and death panels. But the U.S. had no ground to stand on — we have more rationing than in the U.K., just hidden. Our individual insurance policies had lifetime limits. Insurance through one’s employer meant expensive drugs and treatments were at the discretion of a usually for-profit corporation. Medicare had no similar strong controls — hence why it is heading straight for bankruptcy.

But in the U.K., this policy gave the government an ethical way to resolve the issue of Alfie Evans: further care for him would be unfair to the millions of other patients of the NHS, and, therefore, could not be justified. The QALYs gained would be too low, and the cost far too high to keep him on a ventilator in the ICU.

Is this rationale discriminatory against the poor? Yes, undoubtedly so. But the reality of a two-tier medical system is already here — the U.K. has a private medical system that the rich can access to get significantly faster hernia repairs and knee operations but not notably emergency surgeries. This is capitalism: we don’t restrict the rich from buying more books, sports lessons or toys for their children, even though it creates profound advantages for those children later in life.

But instead of saying this and allowing the child to go to Italy for care if paid for by private means, the NHS committed a grievous sin — it argued that the court had the right to decide that it is better for the child to die than live, justifying it on the same legal grounds used to take children away from abusive parents. This is state overreach and medical arrogance of the worst kind. It is just a small step away from a government claiming that a downs syndrome or otherwise disabled child (or adult) has a life that is not worth living. Those determinations may be acceptable for families who love them to make — families who see their loved ones suffer may well decide that the best course of action is to let them go, but it should never be a decision that a government should make.

To be clear, I support the right of a nation to decide where it’s health care dollars are best spent and decide that paying for further treatment for any one individual will take away from everyone else. I even support an individual doctor’s right to decide that any further treatment of the patient in front of them would be futile and harmful to that individual — in which case, they had a duty to transfer that patient to another doctor willing to take over care if available. But the last government that claimed the right to decide what lives are worth living ended up killing millions in death camps — and the mass killings started with the disabled and handicapped.

This case ultimately reveals negatives about both our countries. We in the U.S. need a frank national conversation about how to decide what price for a treatment is too much for too little benefit. And the precedent set by the United Kingdom’s courts — that it is OK for the state to decide that someone’s life is not worth living — is a very dangerous one that must be re-examined.

Vamsi Aribindi is a surgery resident who blogs at the Medical Intellectual.

Image credit: Shutterstock.com

Prev

The good, bad, and the ugly of being a medical expert witness

May 24, 2018 Kevin 1
…
Next

Cushioning the fall of bad news

May 24, 2018 Kevin 0
…

Tagged as: Hospital-Based Medicine, Palliative Care

Post navigation

< Previous Post
The good, bad, and the ugly of being a medical expert witness
Next Post >
Cushioning the fall of bad news

More by Vamsi Aribindi, MD

  • The breakdown of the rule of law in medicine

    Vamsi Aribindi, MD
  • The conflict between pharmacists and their corporate superiors

    Vamsi Aribindi, MD
  • Does the public shaming of Carmen Puliafito go too far?

    Vamsi Aribindi, MD

Related Posts

  • Why health care replaced physician care

    Michael Weiss, MD
  • Care is no longer personal. Care is political.

    Eva Kittay, PhD
  • Why private equity is a dangerous employer

    Kara Grant
  • Health care workers need policy changes, not just applause

    Yuemei (Amy) Zhang, MD
  • Health care is not a service commodity

    Peter Spence, MD, MBA
  • Kratom: harmless herbal supplement or dangerous drug?

    Dennis Wichern

More in Policy

  • The realities of immigrant health care served hot from America’s melting pot

    Stella Cho
  • Healing the damaged nurse-physician dynamic

    Angel J. Mena, MD and Ali Morin, MSN, RN
  • Deaths of despair: an urgent call for a collective response to the crisis in U.S. life expectancy

    Mohammed Umer Waris, MD
  • Breaking down the barriers to effective bar-code medication administration

    Amy Dang Craft
  • The locums industry has a beef problem

    Aaron Morgenstein, MD
  • Canada’s health workers are sounding the alarm. We must act, now.

    Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, PhD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • The real cause of America’s opioid crisis: Doctors are not to blame

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
    • Healing the damaged nurse-physician dynamic

      Angel J. Mena, MD and Ali Morin, MSN, RN | Policy
    • The struggle to fill emergency medicine residency spots: Exploring the factors behind the unfilled match

      Katrina Gipson, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Breaking the stigma: Addressing the struggles of physicians

      Jean Antonucci, MD | Physician
    • Beyond the disease: the power of empathy in health care

      Nana Dadzie Ghansah, MD | Physician
    • Deaths of despair: an urgent call for a collective response to the crisis in U.S. life expectancy

      Mohammed Umer Waris, MD | Policy
  • Past 6 Months

    • The hidden dangers of the Nebraska Heartbeat Act

      Meghan Sheehan, MD | Policy
    • The real cause of America’s opioid crisis: Doctors are not to blame

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
    • Nobody wants this job. Should physicians stick around?

      Katie Klingberg, MD | Physician
    • The fight for reproductive health: Why medication abortion matters

      Catherine Hennessey, MD | Physician
    • The vital importance of climate change education in medical schools

      Helen Kim, MD | Policy
    • Resetting the doctor-patient relationship: Navigating the challenges of modern primary care

      Jeffrey H. Millstein, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • Dr. Glaucomflecken for president!

      Aaron Morgenstein, MD & Amy Bissada, MD & Corinne Sundar Rao, MD | Physician
    • What is driving physicians to the edge of despair?

      Edward T. Creagan, MD | Physician
    • Do residents deserve the title of physician?

      Anonymous | Physician
    • A new era of collaboration between AI and health care professionals

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Tech
    • When an MBA degree meets medicine: an eye-opening experience

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Physician
    • Why it’s time to question medical traditions [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 11 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

CME Spotlights

From MedPage Today

Latest News

  • Coffee and Heart Function; Ionizing Radiation and CVD
  • Health Inequity Should Be Labeled as a 'Never Event'
  • Healing the Damaged Nurse-Physician Dynamic
  • Doc Moms, Mind the Gap -- $3M Earning Difference by Sex
  • Clinical Note Writing App Powered by GPT-4 Set to Debut This Year

Meeting Coverage

  • Switch to IL-23 Blocker Yields Deep Responses in Recalcitrant Plaque Psoriasis
  • Biomarkers of Response With Enfortumab Vedotin in Advanced Urothelial Cancer
  • At-Home Topical Therapy for Molluscum Contagiosum Gets High Marks
  • Outlook for Itchy Prurigo Nodularis Continues to Improve With IL-31 Antagonist
  • AAAAI President Shares Highlights From the 2023 Meeting
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • The real cause of America’s opioid crisis: Doctors are not to blame

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
    • Healing the damaged nurse-physician dynamic

      Angel J. Mena, MD and Ali Morin, MSN, RN | Policy
    • The struggle to fill emergency medicine residency spots: Exploring the factors behind the unfilled match

      Katrina Gipson, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Breaking the stigma: Addressing the struggles of physicians

      Jean Antonucci, MD | Physician
    • Beyond the disease: the power of empathy in health care

      Nana Dadzie Ghansah, MD | Physician
    • Deaths of despair: an urgent call for a collective response to the crisis in U.S. life expectancy

      Mohammed Umer Waris, MD | Policy
  • Past 6 Months

    • The hidden dangers of the Nebraska Heartbeat Act

      Meghan Sheehan, MD | Policy
    • The real cause of America’s opioid crisis: Doctors are not to blame

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
    • Nobody wants this job. Should physicians stick around?

      Katie Klingberg, MD | Physician
    • The fight for reproductive health: Why medication abortion matters

      Catherine Hennessey, MD | Physician
    • The vital importance of climate change education in medical schools

      Helen Kim, MD | Policy
    • Resetting the doctor-patient relationship: Navigating the challenges of modern primary care

      Jeffrey H. Millstein, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • Dr. Glaucomflecken for president!

      Aaron Morgenstein, MD & Amy Bissada, MD & Corinne Sundar Rao, MD | Physician
    • What is driving physicians to the edge of despair?

      Edward T. Creagan, MD | Physician
    • Do residents deserve the title of physician?

      Anonymous | Physician
    • A new era of collaboration between AI and health care professionals

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Tech
    • When an MBA degree meets medicine: an eye-opening experience

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Physician
    • Why it’s time to question medical traditions [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today iMedicalApps
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

The dangerous precedent of Alfie Evans
11 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...