England and a Tale of Two Kates

Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, was in the news. As was Kate James of Liverpool. Both women were in the news because of their infant sons.

Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, recently gave birth to her third child, Louis Arthur Charles, officially to be known as His Royal Highness Prince Louis of Cambridge. The baby is fifth in line to the British throne.

Kate James and her partner Tom Evans gave birth to a son named Alfie James Evans twenty-three months ago. Alfie began having seizers and developed serious health issues.

Prince Louis (pronounced Lo-ee) went home to join brother and sister, Prince George (4) and Princess Charlotte (2). Their official residence is Kensington Palace.  Their private home is Anmer Hall, an 18^th century Georgian country home that was a wedding gift.

Alfie spent much of his 23 months in hospitals with an undiagnosed illness believed to be Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDS).  It is so rare only 16 people have ever had the disease.  Sufferers of this syndrome experience progress muscle weakness and brain damage. MDS is almost always fatal in infants and young children, although a few have lived into their teenage years. There is no cure, but there are known treatments that reduce symptoms.

Following the established procedures of the state health care system, doctors decided it was in the best interest of little Alfie that he die. All medical support was to be removed.  Kate James and her partner Tom Evans disagreed. In the pursuant legal battle, the court took parental rights from Kate and Tom and declared it was in the best interest of the child to allow him to die.

The Pope took an interest in the case and made arrangements for little Alfie to be treated at the Vatican hospital.  The Italian government named little Alfie an Italian citizen and had a military helicopter on standby to transport him.  The British Supreme Court said no.  It was not in the child’s best interest to send him to Italy.  The best interest of the child was to allow him to die.

On Monday, April 23^rd life support was removed.  Doctors said he would die within minutes. He lived for four days, most of that time resting in the arms of Kate.

Kate of Cambridge and Kate of Liverpool: Prince Louis, and little Alfie – if the situations had been reversed and Prince Louis was the one with MDS and Alfie was healthy, would there have been the same outcome?

What is of greater concern in this case is the removal of parental rights. In British law, this is established protocol, and it is quite disturbing. As in the case of Charlie Garb just a few months ago, the state is overriding a parent’s right to make medical decisions for their child.

What is equally disturbing in both of these cases, is that no one was asking the state health system to expend limited resources on these children. They had outside resources willing to take on these cases and the expenses involved. It would cost British Health Care nothing, but the courts still said, “no.” It was in the best interest of the child to allow the child to die.

In England parental rights are no longer recognized as “natural rights,” meaning rights not given by governments but rather, rights that naturally belong to individuals, God-given rights. Once this is done, it is easy for courts to subvert the will of parents.

Successful civilizations have always recognized the natural right of parents, except in cases of abandonment or abuse, to care for their children. Parents naturally know how to act in the best interest of their children.  Not anymore according to British precedent. The courts know best.

This is the Nanny State at its worse, and it is an idea supported by many progressives in this country as well.

The tale of the two Kates – one of elite privilege, the other of blue collar lower class – could become a tale of these United States if we do not remain diligent to protect our natural, God-given rights.