Ashya King

matdom said:
been following this and think that is a country can not offer a certain treatment then, they should be allowed to look elsewhere, what gives them state the right to stop them.
Click to expand...

no one is stopping them from doing that:

University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust said it had offered the family the chance of a second opinion over his treatment and help in organising treatment abroad.
Click to expand...

The problem is doing a disappearing act with an ill child in that condition and the medical staff not knowing what is going on etc.. is going to trigger a police response.
 
I think if anything were to come of this is the fact that these people got to Spain before being found...

So much for border control, i wonder how many terrorists just come and go as they please?
 
It was not surprising to see the amount of media coverage, anything which let them broadcast something that wasn't Rotherham for a while.
Once they had left the country, then it was up to foreign police services to find them, with support, and this seems to have been what has happened.
 
scorza said:
I disliked the way the media jumped on the fact they were Jehovah's Witnesses.
Click to expand...

it wasn't entirely unreasonable before more details emerged given their messed up views on blood transfusions and a child being taken from hospital etc..
 
The media made assumptions, incorrect assumptions, all released information now seems to suggest a completely contrary view to the one the police and media portrayed.
A european arrest warrent has been issued.
It has been acted upon.
Now they are in court, they will be asked do they agree to their extradition back to the UK.
If they say no, does that mean the UK then has to mount a legal case and give reasons why such an extradition is warrented?

Given that this won't involve the immedite return of the child anywhere, and given no evidence of neglect, will they just dump the case, or will we waste taxpayers money on this?
 
matdom said:
been following this and think that is a country can not offer a certain treatment then, they should be allowed to look elsewhere, what gives them state the right to stop them.
Click to expand...

The treatment is available for children. However, it was determined to be not appropriate in this case. When the parents didn't like that they were given the chance to seek a second opinion which they didn't take. They were also give assistance on how to get the non-recommended treatment abroad. They took the child without letting anyone know they could appropriately care for them. Southampton does seem to have a problem with these cases though doesn't it.
 
Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with blood donated from other people. That's about it - they will consent to blood being infused from the person undergoing the treatment so it is generally a non-issue. And tbh I never had the situation where blood was not given anyway - when push came to shove it was always a case of don't ask don't tell.
 
Xordium said:
Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with blood donated from other people. That's about it - they will consent to blood being infused from the person undergoing the treatment so it is generally a non-issue. And tbh I never had the situation where blood was not given anyway - when push came to shove it was always a case of don't ask don't tell.
Click to expand...

In my opinion the medical team should be making the decisions, not the parents.
 
dowie said:
it wasn't entirely unreasonable before more details emerged given their messed up views on blood transfusions and a child being taken from hospital etc..
Click to expand...

That's the implication the media were propagating - presenting the parents as religious zealots who put their beliefs above the well-being of their child, when in fact the opposite was true and Aysha had already had operations performed where he presumably received blood transfusions.
 
String said:
In my opinion the medical team should be making the decisions, not the parents.
Click to expand...

They have no treatment options (curative) avilable, the two options presented to the parents were second opinion elsewhere, or help with fundraising for treatment abroad.
Medical team had done their things.

Usually I would agree with your sentiments, but when the medical team can do nothing, then to prevent dispair, you have to let people explore options, exhaust them, and finally allow acceptance.
 
String said:
In my opinion the medical team should be making the decisions, not the parents.
Click to expand...

The medical team should be making medical decisions. However, the care of a child is more than just medical decisions. That is why they adopt the partnership model of care. Essentially the goal is to support the family care for their child rather than subvert that natural responsibility. Where possible the family should be providing all care and trained to do so. That appears to be case here does it not judging by the parents competency.

There is also a very good argument that parents will read more and be motivated more to finding new treatment options.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
They have no treatment options (curative) avilable, the two options presented to the parents were second opinion elsewhere, or help with fundraising for treatment abroad.
Medical team had done their things.

Usually I would agree with your sentiments, but when the medical team can do nothing, then to prevent dispair, you have to let people explore options, exhaust them, and finally allow acceptance.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, can't argue with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom