I seem to remember in at least the case of Alfie Evans, the UK bishops they were actually rather halfhearted in their support for Alfie and his family, and their statement after he died was in support of the hospital staff nearly as much as his family. I probably wouldn't put too much hope in the UK bishops taking any kind of action to c…
I seem to remember in at least the case of Alfie Evans, the UK bishops they were actually rather halfhearted in their support for Alfie and his family, and their statement after he died was in support of the hospital staff nearly as much as his family. I probably wouldn't put too much hope in the UK bishops taking any kind of action to challenge the establishment culture in the near future.
I am curious as to why this time, however, that Islamic religious beliefs are being taken into account, and Catholic beliefs were not last time. I am sure I don't understand all of the legal complexities going into these cases, but it is certainly interesting to note the difference here. Or perhaps it is simply due to a differing opinion of a different judge that made the difference, which would not be unheard of in the U.S. either.
Different judge just taking a different approach seems the most likely to me; but two other differences could be relevant: the judge seemed to take into account that the child had shown some kind of personal affiliation with her faith (to the extent that 4 year olds do), and gave that some weight in addition to weight of the parents' belief; and that the relevant religious ruling seems more black and white (can't remove life sustaining equipment for any reason) than Catholic teaching would be (which, as I understand it, would allow the removal of life sustaining "extraordinary measures" if they are causing disproportionate harm to benefit)
Whites in Britain are subject to a de facto different legal standard than non-whites. Muslims in particular are afforded greater leeway than whites. For the most extreme instantiation of this, see the Rotterham rape gangs.
I seem to remember in at least the case of Alfie Evans, the UK bishops they were actually rather halfhearted in their support for Alfie and his family, and their statement after he died was in support of the hospital staff nearly as much as his family. I probably wouldn't put too much hope in the UK bishops taking any kind of action to challenge the establishment culture in the near future.
I am curious as to why this time, however, that Islamic religious beliefs are being taken into account, and Catholic beliefs were not last time. I am sure I don't understand all of the legal complexities going into these cases, but it is certainly interesting to note the difference here. Or perhaps it is simply due to a differing opinion of a different judge that made the difference, which would not be unheard of in the U.S. either.
Different judge just taking a different approach seems the most likely to me; but two other differences could be relevant: the judge seemed to take into account that the child had shown some kind of personal affiliation with her faith (to the extent that 4 year olds do), and gave that some weight in addition to weight of the parents' belief; and that the relevant religious ruling seems more black and white (can't remove life sustaining equipment for any reason) than Catholic teaching would be (which, as I understand it, would allow the removal of life sustaining "extraordinary measures" if they are causing disproportionate harm to benefit)
Whites in Britain are subject to a de facto different legal standard than non-whites. Muslims in particular are afforded greater leeway than whites. For the most extreme instantiation of this, see the Rotterham rape gangs.