Inbox: Has the Christian Right Properly Represented the Alfie Evans Case?

This is one of those questions in which I cannot win. There's no way to answer something like this... honestly... and not upset folks. But I will attempt to do so.

Indeed Right wing and Christian circles are in a bit of a tizzy at the moment concerning the issue of the now dead toddler Alfie Evans. A tragic story to be sure it reminds me of so many of these types of cases in which I find myself largely dissatisfied with the positions of all parties involved.

The Right has used this occasion to launch a full assault on social medicine and the NHS has long been within its sights. And yet in this case I don't believe the NHS or even socialised medicine is really the issue but rather a respect for parental rights and prerogatives of custody are the pertinent questions. In this case the British Government was clearly out of line. It's one thing to say there's nothing more we can do and nothing more the state (or an insurance company) will pay for and yet to deny these parents the ability to take their child abroad or rely on charitable donations sets a rather unfortunate precedent.

Who decides how much suffering is to be endured? Who decides when treatment is to stop? I want to make the decision for myself and I don't want the state or for that matter even the often corrupted leaders of denominational churches to be involved in these matters. These questions are complicated and deeply personal. But it's one thing when it comes to me and/or my wife but what about my children?

Sadly, modern jurisprudence has determined the state has a vested interest in the welfare of children. All too often it has been the horror stories of gross neglect and abuse that have opened the doors allowing the state bureaucracy to come sweeping in. Classical Liberalism, though now only a shell focused on the rights of individuals, not families and thus the state determined long ago that it had an obligation to protect children's rights, sometimes from their parents. Many Christians believe this political framework and the social impulses which flow from it are rooted in the outworking and application of Magisterial Reformation principles. They may or may not be right in identifying its source, nevertheless these views do not represent a Scriptural view of the parent-child dynamic nor do they reflect a proper understanding of the family vis-à-vis the state. Since the 19^th century there have been numerous attempts by Christians to re-frame these questions but thus far their suggested paradigms, whether Theonomic, Kuyperian, Libertarian or something else, have largely failed.

And yet all too often I find that most, including many on the Right have not really thought through the issue and I'm often amazed at how some of the same people who would be most hostile to state intervention in their families will not hesitate to demand it when it comes to others. Of course their criteria are usually established within the framework of middle class values and its judgments concerning what denotes 'proper' provision.

If we as Christians ought to reject these values and indeed we should no matter how ingrained they might be... where does that leave us? In many cases I find myself just as opposed to the sentiments and attitudes of Right wing bourgeois as I am the 'It Takes a Village' social crusaders on the Left.

This same kind of spin took place during the 2005 Terry Schiavo affair. The earlier and once very famous case of Karen Quinlan also generated considerable controversy but I think less so. She died in the 1980's and the Culture War was not yet in full swing. In the case of Schiavo and certainly Evans, the Right has pulled out all the 'slippery slope' arguments at its disposal. Technically considered to be a fallacy such arguments are not always implausible. The rapid progression of sodomy and now newer forms of normalised degeneracy suggest this.

However I have never bought into the argument that Schiavo or Evans represent stepping stones on the road to euthanasia.

Of course there are many assumptions that are made that I don't buy into and yet I will be the first to admit some of these questions are impossibly difficult. The means by which life is prolonged and the Right's philosophy of medicine and death are not positions that I fully subscribe to. I have no desire to be hooked up to tubes and machines and yet as I know from family related situations sometimes these procedures can be utilised on a temporary basis to save a life. And yet in the case of some that temporary measure now becomes permanent and engenders a bioethical crisis, often exacerbated by emotions and false hopes.

I will risk the ire of readers at this point but personally I think it cruel to keep a child like Alfie alive and prolong his suffering. He was under the sentence of death and nothing was going to reverse that. But again, I'm more than a little cynical when it comes to modern medicine and I am largely opposed to its current trajectories.

Easy for me to say, right? I will also be the first to admit that you won't know until you're in that situation. Were I to be diagnosed with cancer I have no desire to pursue radiation and chemotherapy and I've always felt that way and yet it's different when you have a family depending on you. For me to die is gain but a father and husband understands that his family needs him. Even if he's an imperfect father and husband, it's better to be there than to be gone. That said, if it's my time, then who am I to resist God?

These are weighty matters and I hope I don't sound flippant. What irritates me is that I consider the Right, and in particular the Christian Right to be guilty of rank hypocrisy on these points. The truth is that market forces, the very paradigm they support and identify as 'Christian' kills people every single day. Their posture toward the poor, both in the West and in the developing world also leads to death. The foreign policy and militarism they champion also brings the shadow of death on many across the world.

Seeing a child suffering is always both moving and motivating. The media has used these images to manipulate public opinion with regard to war. In Vietnam the image of the Napalm Girl was used to turn the public away from the war. Recently the image of Omran Daqneesh has been used in a deceitful fashion to promote war in Syria on the disingenuous basis of humanitarian interests.

In the case of Alfie Evans, one cannot help but feel the sorrow of his parents. It's literally heartbreaking and yet I believe the Right is using this as a wedge, a means of garnering support for their attempts to repeal the Obama health care plan. A pro-Wall Street plan, it was doomed to fail from the beginning and the Right's project of sabotage has virtually guaranteed its degeneration into crisis and collapse.

For the Right, Alfie Evans is a means to an end. He is a tool they would use to disingenuously plea for humanity and mercy even while they promote the interests of the free market, finance capital and deregulation... the agenda of Wall Street.

It's a hotly debated issue and yet there's little truth or sincerity in the debate. The British Government behaved in an appalling manner and yet the issue here is not socialised medicine or a single payer system. Those listening to FOX news and the likes of Glenn Beck have little hope in learning the truth about such health care systems. Far from perfect, for the most part they function well... when they're allowed to. And in reality some of the most cutting edge treatments and procedures are found in places like France and the Netherlands. They're willing to attempt things that no Wall Street insurance firm would even dream of paying for.

The issue with Evans is not euthanasia. Is this an issue at all? It has the potential to be and bears watching but there are lots of ways for a system to kill off its unwanted and the Right is hardly exempt from such a charge. For more than a generation the Right which in this case refers to both Wall Street/Pentagon parties, the DNC and GOP have promoted programmes that have led to a decline in life expectancy, especially for certain classes and elements within society. They have destroyed economies, wasted communities and profited from said collapse. I am not letting the drug addicted off the hook. I do not agree that it's merely a disease and there isn't a moral component to their conduct. That said, they are not solely responsible. The despair and brokenness that grips much of society is not solely do to liberal values. That too is a false narrative. The collapse of families has been aided by feminism and cultural decadence but that's not the whole story. There are economic elements to this tale and the avaricious agenda of the American Establishment and those that sit atop the system bear considerable blame.

The Right has no claim to being pro-life. They are just as pro-death as the people who work for Planned Parenthood... many of whom genuinely want to help women and provide inexpensive health care. This does not excuse the murderous conduct of the abortion side of the machine but sadly I almost feel like defending them in the wake of the hypocritical and largely fallacious narratives provided by the Right and in particular the Christian Right, an element that has largely sold its soul in its quest for power and dominance.