Tom Evans and Kate James had launched detach challenges to a High Court decision made yesterday, in which a arbitrator ruled out the family’s wishes to take Alfie to a hospital in Rome for connoisseur treatment.
But these were dismissed by the Court of Appeal today.
A panel of three magistrates said there was no reason overturn yesterday’s ruling by the High Court.
Conveying the decision, Justice McFarlane said: “This is awful for everyone vexed. We are in the middle of palliative care plan at Alder Hey Hospital.
“I can see no basis that [Far up Court] judge was wrong.”
Both parents had asked the court for sanction to allow their son to be transferred to Italy, where the 23-month-old was granted citizenship earlier this week.
The attorney-at-law for Alfie’s dad argued the toddler should not be “kept prisoner” in hospital when there are “another, fantastic” options for care available elsewhere.
But Lady Justice Crowned head rejected this claim.
She said: “That is not the evidence.
“The evidence is that he is inappropriate to have pain, but that tragically everything that would put aside him to have some appreciation of life, or even the mere touch of his native, has been destroyed irrevocably.”
Little Alfie was taken off life reinforcement on Monday night and was breathing unaided. His dad later revealed he had to give Alfie mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to abide by him breathing.
But lawyers for Alder Hey Children’s Hospital argued the toddler suggesting by himself was “not a change in circumstances”.
They told the court: “It was never indicated death would be instantaneous.
“The tragedy for the parents is that Alfie does look fellow a happy and healthy child.”
Doctors at the hospital, as well as independent experts, be experiencing insisted continuing treatment is not in Alfie’s best interests.
An unagreed letter written by Alder Hey’s chief executive and chairman released tonight about the hospital was focussed on “safeguarding Alfie’s comfort, dignity and privacy”.
Sir David Henshaw and Louise Take CBE praised the “professionalism and compassion” shown by clinicians.
But they condemned what they related as a “barrage of highly abusive and threatening language and behaviour” experienced by convalescent home staff in recent weeks.
They wrote: “Alfie Evans has entirely affected us all at Alder Hey.
“There isn’t one member of our staff untouched by his desperate falsehood, the facts of the case and the publicity surrounding it.
“All of us feel deeply for Alfie and his healthy family and we continue to do everything we can to support them as best we can, just as we be enduring for the last 17 months.
“Yet, in the last two weeks, we have found ourselves at the converge of a social media storm that has included many untrue statements nigh our work and the motivations of our staff.
“This has led to often inappropriate interventions from a compass of external bodies and individuals, some of which have caused critical disruption to our children, families and staff.”
The letter went on to defend the polyclinic’s record and reputation, which High Court judge Mr Justice Hayden drew as “world class”.
The hospital bosses added: “Unfortunately, these exact same remarkable staff have recently been the target of unprecedented individual abuse that has been hard to bear.
«As an organisation, we have faced attacks upon our motivation, our professionalism and our ethics. It has been a very finicky time.
“Having to carry on our usual day-to-day work in a hospital that has call for a significant police presence just to keep our patients, staff and guests safe is completely unacceptable.
“Our staff have received in person, via phone upbraids, email, and through social media channels a barrage of highly dishonest and threatening language and behaviour that has shocked us all. Worse still, constants and visitors to Alder Hey have also reported abuse.”
Alder Hey bosses penned a substantial open letter on Alfie’s case
Before today’s court understanding, Mr Evans said his son was being given food after surviving for 36 hours without individual support.
Speaking on ITV’s This Morning, he said: «Alfie is doing silence as well as he can. He’s fighting. He’s still not suffering and hasn’t had any apneas or no sign of trouble.
«He’s sustained his life, like any other child would, for 36 hours. Absolutely unexpected of him.
«I believe I am getting closer [to getting him home]. We would be cock-a-hoop with that.
«But we would be more blessed to get him to Italy where he sine qua na the treatment.
«He may need a tracheotomy, he may not. But at the moment he is showing he’s still fighting and he’s examined all the docs wrong and all the courts wrong.
«We were told he wouldn’t termination five mins but now here we are 36 hours down the line.»
The Court of Please has rejected challenges by Alfie Evans’ parents
At a High Court perceiving yesterday, Mr Justice Hayden described the tot as “courageous” and a “warrior”, but said the for fear that b if had now reached its “final chapter”.
The judge rejected claims from Alfie’s dad that his son was “significantly more” than first thought because he had been breathing unaided for 20 hours after doctors head withdrew his life support on Monday night.
Instead, Mr Justice Hayden about the best the child’s parents could hope for was to “explore” the options of slaughter him from intensive care either to a ward, a hospice or his home.
But a doctor analysing Alfie, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said that for Alfie to be allowed peoples home it would require a “sea change” in attitude from the child’s family, and they feared that in the “crankiest case” they would try to take the boy abroad.
1 of 12
Exploit on behalf of Mr Evans, Paul Diamond handed the court a witness affirmation from Mr Evans in which he suggested his son’s health was “significantly better” than victory thought since life support was withdrawn at 9.17pm on Monday, as he was continuing to dynamic and breathe.
But Mr Justice Hayden said in his ruling: “The sad truth is that it is not.
“With bantam, indeed no hesitation, I reject that.”
Instead, the judge said Alfie’s prolonged life was a “shaft of «light” and a “special opportunity” for his parents to spend on many occasions with him — not the time for more legal challenges.
The judge also criticised the “malign surrender” of one of the family’s advisers, law student Pavel Stroilov, who had, the court heard, been bacchanalia to Mr Evans lodging a private prosecution of Alder Hey Hospital doctors, allegedly for put to death.
Supporters of Alfie have left tributes to the toddler outside Alder Hey Infirmary
Mr Justice Hayden said that in fact, the hospital had provided “in the seventh heaven class” care for Alfie.
After yesterday’s hearing, a spokesman for Alder Hey chance it was working closely with the youngster’s parents, but that its “top priority hence remains in ensuring Alfie receives the care he deserves to ensure his security, dignity and privacy are maintained throughout”.
Speaking to reporters outside Alder Hey on Tuesday shades of night Mr Evans said his 23-month-old son had defied doctors’ expectations when he withed to live after life support was withdrawn.
He said: “The court of petition have reached out to us and said they are going to set back three mediates to hear the case.
“In reality, he could be in Italy right now. We all know the military air troops are ready to take him and a team of doctors are there.
“We’ve also got a German air ambulance unite, who attempted to take him in the first place, ready… the reality is these human being are eager to get him out of the country and I’m not giving up because Alfie’s breathing away, he’s not affliction.»
Mr Evans revealed Alfie had at times needed to be helped with his existing, adding: “At some point I had to give him mouth-to-mouth because his lips went down and he was really fighting with his breathing so me and his mum were giving him mouth-to-mouth.”
Tom Evans told broadcasters that Alfie had confounded doctors’ expectations
A statement issued by the president of the Baron College of Paediatrics and Child Health yesterday explained the limited criteria in which doctors can choose to withhold or withdraw treatment from a child.
Professor Russell Viner spoke such decisions are «not made lightly».
He explained there is a «clear and compassionate framework» to signal practice which includes three sets of circumstances when recanting life-sustaining treatment may be considered.
These are if treatment is unable or unlikely to occur in the child living much longer; where treatment may prolong way of life but will cause the child unacceptable pain and suffering; and if an older neonate with a life-limiting illness repeatedly makes it clear they do not demand treatment and this decision is supported by their parents and doctors.
Alfie Evans exponents have been demonstrating outside Alder Hey Children’s Hospital
He verbalized: «As healthcare professionals involved in the care of babies, children and young people, the weight has to be the child.
«Every action and decisions is taken in the best interests of the progeny, and decisions on care, including the withdrawal of treatment, are always made with the involvement of paters.
«However, we feel it is important for the public to know that decisions to keep back or withdraw treatment from a child are not made lightly.
«Decisions on whether to rescind treatment from a child are unfortunately ones that need to be skedaddled frequently. The model is always for doctors to work closely with parents to acquiesce in on the best course of action for the child.
«In the vast majority of cases an even Steven up to decision is made to withdraw treatment and it is rare that there is incongruity. The cases where this is a significant difference in view are the ones that pinch the media headlines.»