Draft 20 February 2018 15:26 Page 19
127 (Fam). Though extremely helpful, it is unnecessary for me to reprise that
exercise here.
51. I have on the parents’ behalf taken very great care to evaluate the quality of Alfie’s
present circumstances, even though I accept entirely the conclusion of the medical
evidence that treatment for Alfie is futile. It does not follow axiomatically that the
futility of Alfie’s situation leads to the immediate withdrawal of ventilation. Life
itself has intrinsic value, however tenuous or vestigial it’s hold. I am very much
aware that both parents are Roman Catholics, brought up in that tradition. They do
not present themselves as devout or observant but it is obvious to me that their faith
plays a part in their life and sustains them both at this very difficult time. In his
closing remarks F said that Alfie is “our child and a child of God”. It is important
that these beliefs are considered within the broad gamut of relevant factors to which
I have alluded and which collectively illuminate where Alfie’s best interests lie.
52. Mr Mylonas presented a document to the parties which I permitted to be filed within
the proceedings. The position of the Roman Catholic Church is sometimes
characterised inaccurately in cases concerning these difficult ethical issues. Mr
Mylonas’s document is an open letter, by His Holiness Pope Francis to the President
of the Pontifical Academy for Life, dated November 2017. In his message Pope
Francis called for “greater wisdom” in striking a balance between medical efforts to
prolong life and the responsible decision to withhold treatment when death becomes
inevitable. His letter identifies that not adopting or suspending disproportionate
measures can avoid over-zealous treatment. I would not presume to add any gloss
to the following extracts:
“Your meeting will address questions dealing with the end of earthly
life. They are questions that have always challenged humanity, but
that today take on new forms by reason of increased knowledge and
the development of new technical tools. The growing therapeutic
capabilities of medical science have made it possible to eliminate
many diseases, to improve health and to prolong people’s life span.
While these developments have proved quite positive, it has also
become possible nowadays to extend life by means that were
inconceivable in the past. Surgery and other medical interventions
have become ever more effective, but they are not always beneficial:
they can sustain, or even replace, failing vital functions, but that is
not the same as promoting health. Greater wisdom is called for
today, because of the temptation to insist on treatments that have
powerful effects on the body, yet at times do not serve the integral
good of the person. Some sixty years ago, Pope Pius XII, in a
memorable address to anaesthesiologists and intensive care
specialists, stated that there is no obligation to have recourse in all
circumstances to every possible remedy and that, in some specific
cases, it is permissible to refrain from their use (cf. AAS XLIX
[1957], 1027-1033). Consequently, it is morally licit to decide not to
adopt therapeutic measures, or to discontinue them, when their use
does not meet that ethical and humanistic standard that would later
be called “due proportion in the use of remedies” (cf.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH,
Declaration on Euthanasia, 5 May 1980, IV: AAS LXXII [1980], 542-
552). The specific element of this criterion is that it considers “the
result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick