Talk:Alfie Evans case

note

The following two quotes which are allegedly from "A High Court judgment of 20 February 2018" are not in the judgment.

"70% of Alfie's brain had been destroyed" "almost total destruction of Alfie's brain, with fluid identical to water or Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) now present where brain matter should be"

The document in question is publicly available on the internet, posted on a UK Government department website. It is extremely easy to verify that these quotes are false.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf

Can somebody please rework the paragraph in the article removing these false quotes, as I lack the English and wiki-markup skills required to do so coherently.

Just looked into that and replaced the quotes with actual quotes from the report. Thanks for noticing! --DonCamillo (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

They aren't 'fake quotes' but they were misattributed, they were from a judgment at the Court of Appeal dated 6 March 2018. "70% of Alfie's brain had been destroyed" is found in paragraph 12, and "almost total destruction of Alfie's brain, with fluid identical to water or Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) now present where brain matter should be" is from paragraph 13 of [1] TheBigJagielka (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Restructuring

I carried out a reshuffle of the article and put it in a more style guide compliant format. I've also substituted all references to "Evans" with "Alfie" as that is the widely accepted way to refer to the child and because the sentence structure can be quite confusing when alternating between "Mr Evans" and "Evans". I've mostly arranged things into an initial hearing, appeals and post-appeal set of phases, but if people have more information and the protest movement in support of Alfie Evans then I would support that content being spun off into a new section. A creative commons photo of protesters or of Alder Hey Hospital might be good to illustrate the article. I've cut down the lead to be quite a short summary, and I don't think detailed information on legal judgements should be there - just need to run through the background to the case, the medical info, the ultimate legal outcome, and Alfie Evans' current status. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Agree that "Alfie" is a better descriptor of the subject. XavierItzm (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The Pope

Sure enough, we have tweets by THE POPE. added here. Yep. Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Do you want us to make a specific edit or are you just passing comment? I've put all the stuff about the Pope and Italian support into a specific section as it doesn't form part of the legal case. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course you don't. Citing tweets is abysmal editing. WP articles should be driven by secondary, independent sources. People citing tweets are not writing an encyclopedia article. I had this discussion with someone at a very similar article and they said. OF COURSE THIS IS IMPORTANT ITS THE POPE. Facepalm Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that secondary sources would be much preferred as they demonstrate notability. Ideally they would provide those exact quotes but I think they should probably be easy to find. Isn't the relevant policy WP:SELFSOURCE? That says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..." If Pope Francis is using Twitter only to express his own personal hopes, prayers and appeals, how is that not permitted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with citing tweets either. How is citing a Twitter account different than citing a personal blog, or a personal faculty home page for that matter? Sure, a primary source is inherently dubious and weak and is only ever a source of last resort. But if we categorically refused any and all primary-sourced material, half our articles on living social scientists and humanities professors would go up in smoke. Kramler (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It isn't different from citing a blog. That is shitty editing too. WP is not a blog, not newspaper, not a place to cite tweets, even if they are BY THE POPE. Tweets are ephemeral social media. They are turds that get flushed down the social media drain. The pope does not speak ex catweetra. I will not be replying here further. I just checked to see if this page was going to down the usual shitty path that things like this go down here in WP, and indeed it is. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, "Are bears Catholic? Does the Pope tweet in the woods?", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Past tense

As per Charlie Gard case I changed "is a case" to "was a case". The noble move of the father to come to some agreement with the hospital strongly suggests that he will not now bring any further legal action and so the case may reasonably be considered to be closed? I don't think any legal precedents were established in this case. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think "was" is appropriate. They haven't announced any further legal action since Mr Evans was given a talking to in court about his attempt to bring a private prosecution. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it seems Mr Evans was very ill-advised in that attempt. His eventual call on the 'Alfie's Army' supporters to stand down and his praises for the beleaguered hospital staff, also suggest that: [2] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Euthanasia or Eugenics??

The Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases are clearly euthanasia, possibly eugenics, and should be categorised accordingly, regardless of whether or not that offends the sensibilities of some. Quis separabit? 20:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Neither case meets the criteria for euthanasia, as withdrawal of life support from a brain dead patient isn't classified as euthanasia under British law. Some people refer to the removal of a ventilator as "passive euthanasia", but this is not widely accepted. Classifying it as a "medical controversy" and an "end-of-life case" is sufficient. I recognise that many people do not support the withdrawal of life support from a patient under any circumstances, but we would be unfairly presenting the views of the pro-life side of the argument if we uncritically described this case as "euthanasia". Maswimelleu (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Evans may have had the misfortune of being born a working-class child in a predatory British state, but he was an Italian dual citizen at the time of his state-assisted death by the English legal system, so what the creepy heirs of Dr. Malthus think isn't the only game in town here. Given that the British state sponsored media love to cook up far fetched stories about Assad in Syria gassing babies or Irish nuns killing kids for fun, the attempt to white-wash the fact that the English legal system is actually, in broad daylight, issuing death warrants to "not worth it" children and blocking international assistance, is very poor taste. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to see a much bigger picture of malevolent conspiracy here. Or else perhaps a UK National Health Service that has limitless resources? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Whilst you are entitled to your views this talk page is here to discuss the article's content, not to share opinions on the case. How would you go about presenting the pro-life perspective on Alfie Evans' case according to a neutral point of view? Sourced content in which someone describes this case as an example of "euthanasia" would be a relevant inclusion provided that Wikipedia does not present that claim as absolute fact. Maswimelleu (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Maswimellu. Withdrawing medical support from a patient for whom no hope of improvement exists in addition to not being euthanasia legally, really is not what comes to mind when people use the term. I'm baffled at how eugenics would fit into this at all. ThirdDolphin (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The suggestion of Eugenics seems utterly bizarre to me and, yes, quite offensive. Why not throw in Ritual human sacrifice while we're at it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Euthenasia, not applicable. Not an example of Euthenasing a terminal patient, but the palliative care provided to a patient already dying. Eugenics, not even sure how this would be linked. Koncorde (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Not quite my line of thinking, although I agree with your conclusion. The evidence that the hospital put forward established that Alfie was already "dead" in a mental and metaphysical sense. They also established that his condition was terminal and irreversible, which served to reinforce their claim that continuing artificial ventilation would be futile and cruel. This case is based on the definition of death in the modern world - the parents contended that Alfie was not dead until all life function ended, whereas the hospital's opinion is that someone with no higher brain activity is not alive. Clearly many editors with deeply held religious convictions will be coming to this talk page to have their say, but we cannot simply assign incorrect categories and misleading statements to this page due to a difference in opinion. I would suggest opening a wider "religious views" or "moral issues" section based on properly referenced statements made either way. "Mr Evans alleged that the treatment of his son constituted an example of "child euthanasia"" would be an acceptable statement, but stating is uncritically as "The Alfie Evans case was a child euthansia case in the United Kingdom..." would not be. Maswimelleu (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr Evans may have made such a statement, but I've not seen it reported anywhere. It also seems that he had radically moved away from such a view before his son died. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Mr Evans did not make that exact statement, I included it as a potential example. I think it'd be best to separate the timeline of the case from the moral issues of the case, so that the debate can be set out more clearly. If there's a notable person making a citable and relevant claim about this case being "murder", "child euthanasia" or something like that, it'd warrant inclusion as part of a discussion of the pro-life case. The important thing is that this article presents the opinions of these people in an objective manner so that readers can readily understand how views of the NHS trust and Alfie's supporters differ. Maswimelleu (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. That seems perfectly reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Child euthanasia

The article for child euthanasia needs to be linked in the see also section. Evans was granted Italian citizenship and offered medical treatment by a more humane state, but the English bourgeois legal system intervened to stop this from happening. That intervention, by very definion, is assisting in the death of the child (in this case a more creepy and extreme, and very British - ala Dr. Malthus, keeping the number of proles down - "assisted" death, as the parents wanted their child to attend aforementioned medical facilities in Italy). Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

No. Per exact same argument being made above. Koncorde (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. This is clearly not a case of euthanasia as Evans was not euthanized according to any reasonable definition of the word. Also, while you're welcome to your opinion, voicing it in such loaded terms is not constructive. ThirdDolphin (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Alfie was clearly euthanized. Not because of the respirator that was retired, but because he was starved to death during the subsequent week. Event adults will die after a week without water. So I think child euthanasia ought to be linked in the see also section. XavierItzm (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

How much more dunce can you act Xavier? Alfie was in a terminal and irreversible condition; he was left in a futile situation with permanent degradation of his brain tissue and depended entirely on a machine to keep himself "alive" in a vegetative state. Under British law, withdrawing life support (which includes palliative care like food and water) from a brain dead patient, is not euthanasia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Under the law of the Third Reich, killing off Slavs, Gypsies and Jews wasn't considered murder. Just because the courts of England and Wales claims that withdrawing medical treatment and then blocking international aid from a child isn't euthanasia, doesn't mean we parrot the Anglo-Malthusian line. Evans was a child? Check. Our definition of euthanasia? "the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering"... that is exactly what the British establishment itself is claiming, medical treatment was withdrawn to end the life of the child, supposed to relieve "suffering". Child euthanasia is an objective statement on this case. Especially given that the British state blocking international aid from the Italians could make this case fit under the technical definition of child murder, if people were so inclined to make the argument. Claíomh Solais (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You think that a comparison of the NHS to the Third Reich is a good basis on which to improve this article, yes? I know Wikipedia is not WP:RS, but the Euthanasia article says this: "The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering." Isn't there quite a major difference here between a new active intervention to end a life and the passive withdrawal of a previous intervention which was been put in place only to prolong life? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying "Anglo" and "Malthus" as if they actually mean anything, convey any meaning, or are literal or objective measures rather than obscure references to your own personal agenda and opinion. They really do not. As this is an article about a specific legal case, this is not about the opinions of people on the internet or even another country. If you wish to have an article or section about "Anglo-Malthusian euthenasia" then I would suggest that you find some reliable source, and then find a suitable section in the main Euthanasia article to insert it (with appropriate weight and balance). Koncorde (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Claíomh Solais if you continue to use this talk page as a forum for your morality stances on this issue, I will ask for a t-ban. How is comparing genocide to this case a productive comment? I get relieving the suffering a child may be a controversial moral issue for you, but Wikipedia is not the place to express your frustrations.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree the article should not link to euthanasia. The link would serve no purpose but POV-pushing by association. Besides, a "See also" section is inherently an admission of defeat and should be as short as possible in any case. Having said that, I believe the "dunce" is uncalled for. The Oxford English Dictionary definition cited on the euthanasia page specifically includes cessation of life support for a patient in an "irreversible coma". The House of Lords Select Committee definition also says a mercy killing of someone "irreversibly comatose" is euthanasia. For what it's worth, the Baby Doe Law mentioned on the child euthanasia page agrees as well. It's also not immediately obvious to me why "British law" should be an argument here; the POV of the British legal system is really just one POV among many. I know WP talk pages are famously testy and corrosive but Xavier's position is not as self-evidently idiotic as you make it out to be. Kramler (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The Euthanasia page says an awful lot more than your paraphrasing in order to distinguish this case. Particularly the principle difference is that euthanasia is pro-active, usually by providing some form of drug that enables a painless death, for a patient who will otherwise continue to live for an indeterminate amount of time with increased suffering, who are commonly conscious of the decision, or in some cases to hasten death for patients. The instances of the medical condition of being irreversible comatose are very specific, and medically indicate a complete inability to breathe unaided (brain death). A person may be maintained in this otherwise healthy state indefinitely and so a pro-active decision is taken to remove the mechanism (i.e. turning off the machine).

In contrast reducing the level of invasive care, that is keeping someone alive (define that how you will) is distinct in that it is allowing the natural progression to continue. It's why the concepts of Palliative care and End-of-life care are things.

Baby Doe law meanwhile is the reverse of this situation, where the parents (informed or not) are making the decision not to treat and individuals are attempting to legally force continued treatment (in particular to make no subjective evaluation of the childs qualitative life). Tony Bland as a test case for much of the law is far more relevant.

As this is a UK Case, UK POV is obviously the defining factor. Other peoples opinions, be they religious, legal or otherwise, may be presented within context but English Law is what it is, and this is a case of that law. For the record, I actually have no idea whether Scottish law is equivalent. Koncorde (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BBC reporting should be taken into consideration, as the BBC is the State-Sponsored media of the UK, the relevant jurisdiction here. Follow the Wikipedia link: "A 24 July 1939 killing of a severely disabled infant in Nazi Germany was described in the BBC [program] "Genocide Under the Nazis Timeline" as the first "state-sponsored euthanasia". Looks like an analogous case. XavierItzm (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say, not the opinions of editors pushing a particular angle. If you wish to make a case, you need reliable sources supporting the argument you are making. Bondegezou (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There are so many obvious dissimilarities between Gerhard Kretschmar and this case that any attempt to link them in such way is on libel grounds either without a massive series of reliable and reputable sources making that link. Definitely a fringe theory. Suggesting the UK government is responsible for a pogrom actively going out to kill thousands of healthy but disabled children is heinous. That is the context the BBC refers to the Nazi euthanasia. Koncorde (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:XavierItzm, I think that is one of most misguided and repellent suggestions I've ever seen anyone make at Wikipedia. I think you should strike it out. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Knowing XavierItzm as I do from articles on terrorism, he will most likely just double down on this "suggestion" and claim editors are trying to hide reliably sourced content. I strongly urge, however, for Xavier to strike his comment out as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Xavier: the Nazi euthanasia program was aimed at people with disabilities, especially cognitive disabilities, and the mentally unbalanced. Most of its victims were neither terminally ill nor experiencing any serious pain or anguish. They were killed not out of compassion but simply so Germany could cut down on welfare spending. Your comparison is inappropriate. It also fails as an argument because there is no such thing as a "relevant jurisdiction" on Wikipedia. What happened to Alfie is not the same thing as what happened to victims of Nazi extermination programs and is not naturally described with the same label in encyclopedic usage. The BBC cannot change that; it does not get to dictate what words mean. Kramler (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, now that Xavier and that other dude have sunk their case with their own histrionics and the debate is over, a point of order: "UK POV" is absolutely not "the defining factor"; the fact that "this is a UK Case" is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is committed to the NPOV. It does not privilege any POV over any other POV. This question was settled over fifteen years ago.

When it comes to what words mean, a commitment to the NPOV means a commitment to descriptivism, much like the one dictionaries have: a word means what it is typically used to mean by some suitably defined subset of the competent users of the English language, not what any particular creed, regime, or faction unilaterally decrees it to mean. This is not a new idea. As others have already pointed out, there are plenty of places where we use words like "murder" or "crime" for things that were neither under the legal rules of the relevant time and place.

You really need to take the high road here because there will be always be more angry trolls and single-issue POV-pushers than responsible editors. If you can pull new rules out of your ass on the fly then so can they, and in the long term they will swamp you. Kramler (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

How is English case law not the defining factor of an English case law article about a case of English law, on English wikipedia, largely reliant upon English sources? Are you really making the argument that if someone has an opinion about Strode's case that we should reference Italian law and allow it to define how we refer to Parliamentary Privilege? If you want to have a debate over how English case law differs to A.N.Other case law then that is your privilege, however it does not change the underlying facts. That isn't a lack of commitment to an NPOV, it is a clear commitment to what is relevant to an article via reliable sources. This is not some new rule pulled out of someones ass, this is how wikipedia works and has always worked.

When we talk, or reference, criminal acts by specific regimes this is (usually) not from the POV of case law within that country, but from some superior legal definition (i.e. International courts, inalienable rights, ECJ), a subsequent superseding law, or historical revisionism, or because of some intrinsically related legal standpoint (i.e. competing jurisdictions). If there was a clash of English vs EU Law, or some sort of similar instance spawned by this case then that might have some relevance, but otherwise it is pointless to reference other peoples opinions about their own laws unless it is actually specifically relevant.

The wider debate about euthanasia (or free speech, or any other myriad wider encompassing talking points) etc is being held on any other number of wikipedia articles, where many myriad opinions about it can be brought in to discuss the nuances of comparative legal structures. But in articles about English case law, English case law is the defining POV (until it is changed, of course, at which point it can be reviewed in posterity with their new reliable sources). Koncorde (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we're getting anywhere here. You started with broad general assertion about Wikipedia and linguistics: "it's a British incident so we're using the dictionary definitions decreed by the British government". I pointed out that this is patently silly. The British government does not actually presume to dictate dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general reader, not a legal professional's technical glossary. Wikipedia articles follow the principle of least terminological surprise. Wikipedia uses words to mean the things that it expects people to take them to mean. It does not troll readers through linguistic bait and switch.

Your response to that seems to be to move the goalposts and to accuse me of having made some equally nonsensical statement about jurisdictional demarcation conflicts that you managed to strawman up. It's a bit confusing though because in your second paragraph you appear to come out as a Monist in the Kelsen tradition, which kind of undermines the point you think you're making. We can absolutely have this discussion if you like. Could be interesting; the position you appear to be taking is somewhat unusual for an English person working from English legal tradition. I think JM Kelly may have come close once or twice but then again he's an Irish guy and an unapologetic Papist and I don't think you would like him.

Regarding Alfie, my objection is on the record. There is no "defining POV". The fundamental tenet of Wikipedia is the absence of a defining POV. For the vast majority of the users of this encyclopedia, the POV of some assembly of dudes in wigs on some damp island is just one POV among many. Checking out unless you want to discuss philosophy. Kramler (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahem, do you mind?? It's not always damp, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a Charlie Stross reference :) Kramler (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: "You started with broad general assertion about Wikipedia and linguistics: "it's a British incident so we're using the dictionary definitions decreed by the British government"." I didn't, specifically I didn't even refer to linguistics. I said (in two different sections) "As this is an article about a specific legal case, this is not about the opinions of people on the internet or even another country." and "As this is a UK Case, UK POV is obviously the defining factor. Other peoples opinions, be they religious, legal or otherwise, may be presented within context but English Law is what it is, and this is a case of that law". My second reply did not change from that core tenet.

This article is about case law, specifically an English case. It is referencing English case law, and the meanings within English case law. There is no straw-man to someone saying "It's also not immediately obvious to me why "British law" should be an argument here; the POV of the British legal system is really just one POV among many.". Koncorde (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Except that there's no such thing as "British law", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I was even overlooking the obvious. UK Supreme Court decisions apply to both "Britain" as such as it is, but there is some demarcation from the HCJ and Family Division, and then even more so from Scotland hence why I said "For the record, I actually have no idea whether Scottish law is equivalent" all that time ago. In short - this article doesn't care if someone in A.N.Other place thinks the UK Government is murdering children based on their own POV - they don't get to define the legal terminology in use. We might reference their opinion in context of a dispute or argument, but they don't define the subject matter using their POV push. Take that hypothetical dispute to the main euthanasia discussion page and push a fork discussing Anglo Malthus state of plebeian repression. Koncorde (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Your note for the record did not go unnoticed. But I'd rather not take that hypothetical dispute amywhere, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOT FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@TheGracefulSlick -- Withdrawing life support does not preclude palliative care in any civilized country. And if it does in the UK, that merely goes to show how FUBAR that country has become. They deserve Corbyn (royals will have to go to Luxembourg, oh but I digress). I agree brain death is irreversible but forcing parents to watch their child die from starvation or thirst is abominable. The Gard and Evans cases would never have taken on the significance and notoriety that they have were this not a matter of de facto euthanasia. Unless you are harvesting organs, with permission from the parents in cases of minors, there is no reason not to wait for natural death. This is not the first time, either. I remember some years ago a pair of Maltese conjoined twins whom a British judge ordered, against the vehement wishes of the parents, to be treated surgically, one of whom died? Maybe this has more to do with a morally and financially bankrupt NHS? Quis separabit? 16:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Definitely NOTFORUM content. Koncorde (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Rms125a@hotmail.com if you want to discuss morality, Corbyn, and/or your views on ending life support for a child with irreversible damage, we can off-wiki but please do not use this talk page as a forum. Alfie did not die from starvation or dehydration; he died five days after the ventilator was removed. His "natural death" was being postponed by machines. I have seen children pass on and commiserate with the parents, but I don't find anything sinister or morally bankrupt in ending suffering. My views, however, are irrelevant and I would appreciate if everyone could re-focus solely on content.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Alfie Evans evidence that doctors words -further treatment is "inhumane and unkind" is right

There was no investigation that Alfie was suffering a pain. Could you write how many hours Alfie was breathing after life support was withdrawn. Also there is no mention about his assessment of professional high standard staff from Bambino Gesù Hospital in April.

Please mention about taking parental rights against they will and belief. (catholic don't support euthanasia) 

Shame that the article is not objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:D204:9300:2915:B2F2:CF0F:7E00 (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking about writing a section contrasting the pro-life (not specifically Catholic) perspective on when life ends. It's a lot of work though and writing objectively on a difficult moral issue is challenging at the best of times. On Wikipedia we have a number of rules and guidelines governing how we present contentious statements. In the case you've given, the doctors gave that evidence in court - thus we need to include their words in the article to appropriately explore the hospital's perspective on the case. Objectivity requires us to acknowledge that there are very different moral approaches to end-of-life cases such as this. Remember that Wikipedia is led by volunteers - you are welcome to add relevant and reliably sourced information about Bambino Gesù Hospital or the medical opinions in the case if you wish, provided you maintain a neutral point of view. When I find the right words, I will try to expand upon both the medical and moral issues in the case, and talk more about the social/protest movement that opposed withdrawing Alfie's life support. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Maswimelleu, I think what you've written there makes a lot of sense. A new section might be seen as just transferring WP:FORUM from this Talk page into the article itself. Wikipedia doesn't do "editorials". But I don't see why there shouldn't be more detail, perhaps in a "Reactions" section, presenting comments from those on both sides of the issue. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like the page to include something akin to Charlie Gard case#Issues, although probably a bit shorter. The page should cover four key dimensions of the case - the medical (covered in background), the legal (also covered already), the social (covered in passing, in the form of the protests and family statements) and the moral (deeper commentary and exploration of this case's implications). I'm not experienced in writing ethics or philosophy related articles on Wikipedia, but I do have an academic background in it. So long as I'm clear on what I can and can't include then I can probably find enough sources to assemble something. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Charlie Gard case article would provided a very useful template. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought you've put into this, Maswimelleu. I agree the Charlie Gard case article provides a useful roadmap. In terms of the four key dimensions of the case...

Medical: there was much more to talk about in the Charlie Gard case, what with a possible experimental treatment being mooted. There's much less to discuss here. The cause of Alfie's degeneration is unknown. No-one was seriously proposing an alternate treatment. The question was whether to continue or stop life support.

Legal: agreed, covered well in terms of what was decided when. Perhaps we could find more explaining the decisions made, what precedents they draw on?

Social: agreed, somewhat covered already. We could do with more RS coverage of the social elements of the case, e.g. the role of social media and the international involvement.

Moral: neither this nor the Gard case really raise any new moral issues. Neither case has any implications. It comes down to longstanding debates around when to continue life support, and about who makes decisions on behalf of a child. It makes more sense to link to existing articles on those issues than to discuss them here. Material here must focus on how this case fits existing debates rather than re-hashing what those debates are. That said, I'm not certain what existing articles there are on such issues. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Social aspects of the case

I've opened a section titled "publicity and public reaction" to explore the "Alfie's Army" group, social media activism and protests. I've moved some existing content there. It's a work in progress and I want to cover it in sufficient detail to show it's impact on the public consciousness. Additional commentary from overseas (particularly the US, where it's attracted a lot of comment) would be welcome. A photograph of "Alfie's Army" protests with a creative commons license would be good, as would descriptions of the actual protests involved. I'm not going to move the stuff about threatening/menacing behaviour up because I think it belongs in the legal section, although I'm not entirely sure. I also want to dedicate a different section to the specifically moral dimensions of the case, which I'll try to write when I have time for more detailed reading on the subject. Maswimelleu (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add sources/references to Alfie Evans

Hi, I have just signed into Wikipedia for the first time and would like to add and update sources to Alfie Evans Case as I believe there is a deliberate attempt by the administrators to not be impartial.

Please unlock the editing.

There is no vandalism, it is just people are using Wiki for the first time to add actual, impartial facts Maythetruthprevail (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The semi-protection will expire on 8 May, after which time you'll be able to edit. In the meantime, if you put the sources here I can add them for you (provided they're suitable). Maswimelleu (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

To quote the top of this page "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard." I reported it to the noticeboard for continued BLP violations, both against Alfie Evans, and potentially libellous against the hospital and other agencies. The edit protection enables a period of temporary calm. Koncorde (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It might be useful if you linked that report. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Baby/infant in lede

Baby and infant is normally used for the first year of a child's life, maybe sometimes up to 18 months. After that the word would be "toddler" or simply boy/child. I understand this boy was severely sick already as baby, but the real dispute/attention seems overwhelmingly to have happenened near the end of his short life, when he was 22/23 months old, and no longer a baby. Iselilja (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule on what age range is appropriate. Happy to go with consensus but that doesn't appear to currently exist. Using toddler would definitely appear inappropriate in the situation. Koncorde (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

No strong view. But if this article is focussed on the legal case, as opposed to the medical case, I note that Infant says: "As a legal term, "infancy" continues from birth until age 18". There's also the note there about the British English Infant school. I don't think most readers would be mislead or confused by use of the word "infant". Charlie Gard case uses the phrase " infant boy ". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing period in "narrative"

The treatment section jumps from January to September. it goes from admission to hospital for tests etc to talk of what an Italian hospital could do in terms of life support. Reader is left disorientated by gap. At what point does his condition deteriorate such that life support is necessary? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)