I'm sure that real concern is sincerely felt by the Alder Hay hospital for Alfie as their patient, and that it is a major part of their motivation for resisting his moving to another hospital. But he is not "their patient" now - and when he was, being "their patient" in no way meant any kind of ownership.

In some ways it might indeed have been easier to accept the wishes of his parents. But that does not mean that to refuse to accept those wishes was right, because it was harder. Sometimes the easier course can be the right course.

Though it would indeed not be all that easy a course - in fact to admit that your views should be overuled is extremely difficult for professionals, and to change course is even harder. It is not just politicians who pride themselves for not making u-turns, or would boast of having no reverse gear.

I just cannot see on what basis the hospital feels its duty of care for Alfie outweighs and replaces that of his parents, just because they entrusted him to them, and to prevent them from entrusting him to another hospital. And I cannot see on what basis the courts should support the hospital's decision, rather than the parents' choice.

Stuff about how protesters behave, or about who might support or oppose the parents are completely irrelevant here. It invites a descent into the kind of tribalism and package deal ethics I referred to in a previous post.