Ashya King

The hospital have a duty of care to the child. If they think the parents will take a child away from the hospital to subject the child to treatments that are unproven and potentially harmful they would have to consider this as a safeguarding issue.

If there is evidence that proton beam therapy is not effective (not done oncology for a while so not sure of the current state of play) you'd have to stop the parents taking the child. All parents in this situation are desperate for a cure and this can become a problem.

The other thing to understand is Paeds oncology is the most supportive speciality in terms of family autonomy. They will fight right to the bitter end if the family want. It's very unusual to have conflict with parents.
 
Last edited:
Minstadave said:
The hospital have a duty of care to the child. If the think the parents take a child away from the hospital to subject the child to treatments that are unproven and potentially harmful they would have to consider this as a safeguarding issue.
Click to expand...

But that plainly isn't the case here. They were seeking treatment at more advanced facilities than we have in the UK. At another hospital within the EU.

At least that was the story last night :p
 
A treatment that the doctors felt offered no benefit. So is it a treatment or a last ditch was of the parents that will offer nothing but side-effects?

You can't just demand treatments from the NHS, especially unproven/experimental therapies.
 
FoxEye said:
But that plainly isn't the case here. They were seeking treatment at more advanced facilities than we have in the UK. At another hospital within the EU.

At least that was the story last night :p
Click to expand...
The Southampton hospital have already said they discussed 2nd opinions and the possibility of sending the boy abroad for treatment elsewhere, Prague I believe was the place where this was available.
I don't see how the parents were justified in taking the action they did under those circumstances.
 
Minstadave said:
You can't just demand treatments from the NHS, especially unproven/experimental therapies.
Click to expand...

Which apparently this isn't. It is coming to the UK, just we're behind other EU countries in adopting it. It's supposed to be safer than existing treatments.
 
So the issue here is they took ashya away to be cared for elsewhere without telling the relevant authorities which sparked a police search? since there seems to be no evidence of child neglact, why not just caution them for wasting police time as they cant just up and leave with seriously ill kid like that, and move on.
 
FoxEye said:
But that plainly isn't the case here. They were seeking treatment at more advanced facilities than we have in the UK. At another hospital within the EU.

At least that was the story last night :p
Click to expand...

That's fine if the family arranged treatment and asked for a transfer so that doctors could properly handover and give notes etc. That's not what happened though, the parents just took the seriously ill child without any explanation.
 
Funnily enough, this story has proven to be quite a matter of contention between my other half and I.

She works for Hampshire Constabulary, in Communications,so dealing with the press. She steadfastedly defends the Constabulary in all things to the nth degree.

I have my own personal views on this story and whether or not a state or governmental institution should overrule an individuals choice in a matter like this (note: I am also strongly in favour of euthanasia, as we put down an animal when its terminal because its "humane" , but don't seem to apply that same humanity to other humans, but that a separate issue). Due to my own personal views, we've had one or two clashes over the nature of morality , individuality and so on , over the course of this weekend :)

The end result of which is that talk of this "case" is now a banned subject at home :)
 
Last edited:
Tombstone said:
Funnily enough, this story has proven to be quite a matter of contention between my other half and I.

She works for Hampshire Constabulary, in Communications,so dealing with the press. She steadfastedly defends the Constabulary in all things to the nth degree.

I have my own personal views on this story and whether or not a state or governmental institution should overrule an individuals choice in a matter like this (note: I am also strongly in favour of euthanasia, as we put down an animal when its terminal because its "humane" , but don't seem to apply that same humanity to other humans, but that a separate issue). Due to my own personal views, we've had one or two clashes over the nature of morality , individuality and so on , over the course of this weekend :)
Click to expand...

The Constabulary make a lot of mistakes like pretty much any organisation, but I don't see how they could have handled this any differently.

I also am strongly in favour of an individuals determination on whether they live or die but this is a bit different. This is about care of a young individual who can't make their own decisions and how to best care for their welfare.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That's fine if the family arranged treatment and asked for a transfer so that doctors could properly handover and give notes etc. That's not what happened though, the parents just took the seriously ill child without any explanation.
Click to expand...

That's the sad part of this case, poor communication not negligence has lead the parents to prison.
 
The Geezer said:
That's the sad part of this case, poor communication not negligence has lead the parents to prison.
Click to expand...

No there was some neglect too... if they wanted to seek treatment abroad they could have done so - they didn't need to sneak the child out. If the child isn't fit to be discharged then I don't think the preferred/recommended mode of transport would be to stick the kid in the parents car either.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
The Constabulary make a lot of mistakes like pretty much any organisation, but I don't see how they could have handled this any differently.

I also am strongly in favour of an individuals determination on whether they live or die but this is a bit different. This is about care of a young individual who can't make their own decisions and how to best care for their welfare.
Click to expand...

I don't blame the Constabulary for the way things have been done (even though the missus views any criticism of anything the Constabulary do as some enormous personal affront and blasphemy :D ) , they've done what they are supposed to do, according to protocols. My issue isn't with their actions, its more a social and moral issue about whether things should be that way in the first place.

Having lost a child myself, I can pretty much 100% state that , given what I know of the case, the role in all of this of the Drs, in particular Dr Nicolin, I would have almost certainly done precisely what the Kings did and I would have defended my right to do it til the day I made it to my grave.

By the letter of the law, the Constabulary have acted correctly and precisely, my thoughts on the whole thing are not aimed critically at them, more that sometimes the letters of the law are not necessarily the right letters, or in the right order :)
 
Tombstone said:
Having lost a child myself, I can pretty much 100% state that , given what I know of the case, the role in all of this of the Drs, in particular Dr Nicolin, I would have almost certainly done precisely what the Kings did and I would have defended my right to do it til the day I made it to my grave.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar of what the Drs are said to have done/not done. Can you elaborate and is this information reliable or just from tabloids?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I'm not familiar of what the Drs are said to have done/not done. Can you elaborate and is this information reliable or just from tabloids?
Click to expand...

Well I'd be wary of saying its reliable, as I am sure you're aware, anything said by anyone, is usually said for a purpose and may have its own spin put on it in order to prove/defend a point. I'd rather say that, its as reliable as anything else that we've heard the Drs/Police/Family say. Rather than categorising it as explicitly "reliable".

Could be that what I believe as a result of it , comes to be shown as false, time will tell. But like I say, I don't have any criticism of the police for executing things in the way they have, they are simply "following orders" , if you wish to use the much bandied military vernacular. I don't even have any criticism of the hospital/Drs.

My critique is more a social and moral comment on the nature of society, individual rights and morality than any single representative of said society/infrastructure.
 
Tombstone said:
Having lost a child myself, I can pretty much 100% state that , given what I know of the case, the role in all of this of the Drs, in particular Dr Nicolin, I would have almost certainly done precisely what the Kings did and I would have defended my right to do it til the day I made it to my grave.
Click to expand...

Parents do not have he right to make dangerous choices for their child's healthcare. Omitting vaccinations seems to be an exception to this but that should be a child protection issue too.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
It could be negligence too as well as poor communication. That's the point of the actions that Hampshire Constabulary have taken.
Click to expand...

If a parent comes to a decision which he/she believes is in the best interests of their child - but is contrary to the opinion of medical staff - is it negligence if they follow through with their decision? Assuming they don't want the child to die or be harmed.
 
Contrary to the opinion of medical staff - fine if it's reasonable

Outright dangerous - not fine, call the po po

Bloody stupid/possibly dangerous - difficult area, let the court sort it out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom