The tragic case of Alfie Evans illustrates the travesty of placing a child’s best interests in a rights framework held by the state. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) holds itself out as protection for children, but it offers all power to the state, rather than to parents who want to protect their own children. To learn more see:
| | UK Judge Rules Against Parents of Toddler: Baby Alfie Will Not Go to Italy for Treatment www1.cbn.com A United Kingdom judge ruled Tuesday afternoon that toddler Alfie Evans, who has been fighting an undiagnosed brain disease and is now off life support, may not fly to a Vatican hospital in Rome for treatment. |
This case, like that of little Charlie Gard last year, illustrates again the travesty of the CRC’s legal application for children and their parents who want to protect them as meaningless against what the state deems best. A rights framework sees the state as the chief protector of children, rather than their parents.
For more clarity on this problem see Suffer the Children: How the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Has Not Supported Children, 22 N.Y. Int’l. L. Rev. 57 (2009), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1962681; and A Brief Assessment of the 25-Year Effect of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 23 Cardozo J. Int’l. & Compar. L. 323 (2015), at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2382670.
Alfie deserves to be protected and provided for by his parents.
No comments:
Post a Comment