Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Fall 2022 PDF
    • SUMMER 2022 ARTICLES
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • INSISTING ON LIFE
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
    • HLF In The News
    • LIBERTY TO DO WHAT? Hadley Arkes and Rusty Reno join George McKenna June 1, 2022 in New York
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2022
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2022
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 Dinner Ticket
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 STUDENT or PREGNANCY CENTER STAFF Ticket
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2022
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Cart

Articles

Over 45 years of Life-Defending Articles At Your Fingertips
1 Comment

Rest in Peace Alfie Evans: Matters Sacred and Irreversible

30 Apr 2018
W. Ross Blackburn
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Most who read this will know that 2-year-old Alfie Evans, who suffered from a mysterious neuro-degenerative disease, died last week, the UK Supreme Court having ordered life support be removed and, despite the desires of Alfie’s parents, forbidding him to receive treatment elsewhere. Now Alfie’s parents are grieving, and the rest of the world debates the rectitude of the Court’s decision.

Let’s agree that sometimes medical decisions, particularly when they involve end-of-life matters, can be difficult, and all the more in an age when medical technology has given us choices unavailable in previous ages. How then can we assess the basic rightness of decisions in these kinds of matters?

We can look at the language.

I am not a lawyer, but I can read and understand plain English. The following are a few simple observations and reflections upon the text of the UK Supreme Court’s ruling.

Let’s begin with the use of the passive voice. Consider the following sentences:

It had been decided, after careful examination of the evidence, that it was not in [Alfie’s] best interest for the treatment which sustained his life to be continued . . . (paragraph 4).

 It has been conclusively determined that it is not in Alfie’s best interests, not only to stay in Alder Hey Hospital being treated as he currently is, but also to travel abroad for the same purpose (paragraph 13). 

The passive voice is not simply a different way of saying something. It removes the subject of the verb. In the sentences above, the passive voice hides exactly who has made the decisions that affect Alfie’s life. In other words, by leaving unanswered who decided and conclusively determined Alfie’s best interests, the passive voice conceals, ironically making plain the Court’s reluctance to assign responsibility for its decision.

When the Court does address responsibility (how could it not?), it continues to do so in language not meant to reveal, but to conceal. Consider further the following two statements:

The decisions of the trial Judge clearly amount to decisions that the parents have no right to direct Alfie’s future medical treatment (paragraph 9).

 Every legal issue in this case is governed by Alfie’s best interests. These have been conclusively and sensitively determined by the trial judge (paragraph 14).

The first line above is remarkable in its obfuscation—“the decisions of the trial judge clearly amount to decisions. . . .” Why not simply “The trial Judge decided that Alfie’s parents have no right to direct his future medical treatment”? Not only is this sentence more concise, it states plainly what is at stake. The passive, indirect language serves to soften what is a very bold claim on the part of the Court. Or, for the second line, why not “The trial Judge has determined what Alfie’s best interests are”? The answer is obvious—stating the matter plainly would run the risk of it being understood.

Let us move from the passive voice to the choice of wording. Consider the following sentences, partially quoted above:

The decisions of the trial Judge clearly amount to decisions that the parents have no right to direct Alfie’s future medical treatment. This is not a criticism of them.  How could it be? It simply means that they cannot take Alfie away from Alder Hey for the purpose of transporting him at some risk to other hospitals which can do him no good (paragraph 9).

After the Court assures us that they are not being insensitive or critical of Alfie’s parents (whether that is true, or why it even matters, is another question), we are assured that the ramifications of denying Alfie’s parents’ rights are modest—the denial “simply means” that they cannot transport Alfie from the hospital. Leaving aside the ridiculous claim that transporting Alfie would carry “some risk” (surely they can’t mean a risk that Alfie would live?), the suggestion that this case is about simple movement and risk management is a massive obfuscation. The case is about Alfie’s death.

This kind of euphemism-speak continues:

It is not lawful, therefore, to continue to detain him, whether in Alder Hey or elsewhere, for that purpose. The release to which he is entitled, therefore, is release from the imposition of treatment which is not in his best interests (paragraph 13).

 Here the Court describes Alfie as a boy on the move, one being unjustly detained. Aside from the irony that the Court required the hospital to detain Alfie, the question arises—detained from what? The answer, of course, is death, a word that curiously does not appear in the text. Furthermore, note here how the Court frames the issue. According to the Court, Alfie’s case is not about a right to life, but rather a right to release—a release to which (note the word) he is entitled. A release to what? Again, death. Pardon the clarity here, but the Court is ruling that Alfie would be better off dead, but refuses to say so in plain English. Language of journeys and destinations and release are not nearly so jarring.

 None of this is new. In his 1946 essay, Politics and the English Language, George Orwell described well the kind of writing we see in the Court’s decision:

. . . political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. . . . The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. Where there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms.

Orwell’s point is that bad language often marks insincerity. In other words, perhaps we can assess the morality of the Court’s decision by looking at its own words. The Court’s use of vagueness, question begging, and euphemism says a lot about what it thinks of the merits of its own position or, at the very least, it reveals its fear of what others would think if it were to speak plainly. And therefore it does not.

Matters as sacred and irreversible as life and death deserve, indeed demand, plain speaking. The Court’s words confuse an already difficult situation, dishonor Alfie and his parents, and undermine whatever legitimate moral authority the state may have in matters pertaining to children. If the Court is going to deny the rights of the parents to care for their son, then let it say so, plainly and without dissembling. Otherwise, let the Court not be surprised when people question the moral integrity of both the ruling and the Court itself, and decide that perhaps those willing to take full responsibility for Alfie—his parents—should have the prerogative of determining his best interests.

 

178 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
W. Ross Blackburn

Dr. Ross Blackburn has been ordained for 20 years and has served as Rector for Christ the King for the past 10. He earned a Master of Divinity at Trinity School for Ministry, and a PhD in biblical studies at the University of Saint Andrews, Scotland. He and his wife Lauren have been married for 23 years and have five children.
As a member of Anglicans for Life's Board of Directors, Dr. Blackburn is a regular contributor to AFL's Lectionary Life App series, and writes for the Human Life Review as well as  Christian Publications.

Social Share

  • google-share

One Comment

  1. Pingback: Rest in Peace Alfie Evans: Matters Sacred and Irreversible - Anglicans For LifeAnglicans For Life

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR

Recent Posts

Hit and run violence after Roe: Can't we talk about the morality of abortion?

28 Jan 2023

Abortion activist attempts to expose crisis pregnancy centers—and fails

17 Jan 2023

An Abortion Clinic in Your Neighborhood

09 Jan 2023

CURRENT ISSUE

Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott B G Carter Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Laura Echevarria Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Meaghan Bond Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Patrick J. Flood Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro W. Ross Blackburn Wesley J. Smith William Doino Jr. William Murchison

Pages

  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • TOPICS
  • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.