Ashya King

Tombstone · 1 Sep 2014 at 14:58

Minstadave said:
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.

"Dangerous" is the key word there.

Minstadave · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:00

I would consider leaving hospital secretly with an NG fed child to bugger off to Spain for an unproven treatment dangerous. I would have called the police too and asked them to "invite" the family to return.

Your duty of care is to the child, the parents decisions were potentially life threatening from the little information in the public domain.

Tombstone · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:02

Minstadave said:
I would consider leaving hospital secretly with an NG fed child to bugger off to Spain for an unproven treatment dangerous. I would have called the police too and asked them to "invite" the family to return.

Well I am sure that what you and I, and indeed the rest of the worlds population qualifies as Dangerous, differs quite a bit

Lets just say that as things come out about this "case", if what I believe is true, I would be utterly, utterly stunned if any extradition was successful.

Tombstone · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:03

Minstadave said:
from the little information in the public domain.

That's the 2nd key phrase in the thread.

Minstadave · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:04

Extradition isn't the priority for anyone I wouldn't have thought. As long as the kid is getting appropriate care and their whereabouts are known that's all that's really necessary.

Having worked in paediatric oncology I highly doubt that if the parents request was even slightly sensible it would have been supported. Unfortunately the emotional weight of the situation often defeats sense.

Xordium · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:10

Tombstone said:
"Dangerous" is the key word there.

Whilst what they did was not dangerous, in hindsight, how was anyone supposed to know that at the time?

Moreover, again numerous children have been given this treatment in this country and sent abroad. The family were offered to seek treatment at another centre presumably GOSH or Evelina - they chose not to take that option. The family were given the opportunity for their team to facilitate treatment abroad. The chose not to take that. That would certainly in my mind question their decision making as being totally rational. Now how they got that way I think Southampton needs to have a good think about. Again this is not the first time this hospital has had big problems in the press about such matters.

Everyone is also assuming this was an appropriate therapy. I haven't seen the case files and I am not an oncologist but I know enough to say it may not have been an appropriate treatment in this case irrespective of its efficacy elsewhere.

Tombstone · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:12

Minstadave said:
As long as the kid is getting appropriate care and their whereabouts are known that's all that's really necessary.

With luck, every institution will agree upon this.

Minstadave said:
Having worked in paediatric oncology I highly doubt that if the parents request was even slightly sensible it would have been supported.

You would certainly hope that to be the case.

Tombstone · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:14

Xordium said:
Whilst what they did was not dangerous, in hindsight, how was anyone supposed to know that at the time?

The family were offered to seek treatment at another centre presumably GOSH or Evelina - they chose not to take that option. The family were given the opportunity for their team to facilitate treatment abroad. The chose not to take that.

Only time will tell I suspect before we can be certain of all the ins and outs of this situation.

Minstadave · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:21

Xordium said:
Everyone is also assuming this was an appropriate therapy. I haven't seen the case files and I am not an oncologist but I know enough to say it may not have been an appropriate treatment in this case irrespective of its efficacy elsewhere.

It won't be an appropriate therapy, otherwise they'd have been offered it. There is essentially no limitation on children's oncology care in the NHS from my experience.

Tombstone · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:25

One thing is for sure, this is a story which is going to run and run. The world will now be watching Ashya to see what treatment he eventually receives and how things turn out.

FoxEye · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:37

Minstadave said:
It won't be an appropriate therapy, otherwise they'd have been offered it. There is essentially no limitation on children's oncology care in the NHS from my experience.

Except the treatment they were after "Proton Beam Therapy" is not available in the UK until 2018. It is coming, but it's not here yet. It is available in other countries - now.

This has been all over the news, it's a pretty basic point in this case.

Xordium · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:42

Minstadave said:
It won't be an appropriate therapy, otherwise they'd have been offered it. There is essentially no limitation on children's oncology care in the NHS from my experience.

Correct, but that doesn't mean that Eveline or GOSH would have made the same decision.

Xordium · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:44

FoxEye said:
Except the treatment they were after "Proton Beam Therapy" is not available in the UK until 2018. It is coming, but it's not here yet. It is available in other countries - now.

This has been all over the news, it's a pretty basic point in this case.

And yet again for the third time. It is available in this country for eyes. Other patients have gone abroad when it is deemed necessary. About 300 kids have so far since it started in 2008.

scorza · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:47

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...-remanded-custody-judge-considers-extradition

Parents remanded in custody

The Spanish justice almost makes ours look competent.

Minstadave · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:52

FoxEye said:
Except the treatment they were after "Proton Beam Therapy" is not available in the UK until 2018. It is coming, but it's not here yet. It is available in other countries - now.

This has been all over the news, it's a pretty basic point in this case.

Yes and we send children over seas for it, it is readily available when needed.

Glaucus · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:53

Seems like PR nonsense from parents/relatives and hospital/police did what they should. Obviously based on the little we know.
If they were going to get treatment else where, why wasn't the kid there. Why was there seemingly no plan. Combined with their comments about radiation killing everything between his ears nonsense. It might not be targeted, but if it killed all his brain matter, then he would be dead.
Sounds more like I read this on the internet must be true, doctors are like no this would not work in his case. Parents with fingers in ears. On top of that NHS do support 2nd opinion and treatment/experimental treatment abroad.

Destination · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:56

scorza said:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...-remanded-custody-judge-considers-extradition

Parents remanded in custody The Spanish justice almost makes ours look competent.

Why?
We issued a European arrest warrant.
The refused extradition.
He then has to hold then, until the extradition is decided.
He can do this on bail, or in custody.
With custody they might quickly change their minds and go home, making it not his problem anymore.
With bail, they are a flight risk, as they already left a county with a sick child.

This is exactly the situation we started, our justice department, by issuing a European arrest warrant.
Judge had little choice.

scorza · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:57

Hikari Kisugi said:
Why?
We issued a European arrest warrant.
The refused extradition.
He then has to hold then, until the extradition is decided.
He can do this on bail, or in custody.
With custody they might quickly change their minds and go home, making it not his problem anymore.
With bail, they are a flight risk, as they already left a county with a sick child.

This is exactly the situation we started, our justice department, by issuing a European arrest warrant.
Judge had little choice.

Yeah you're right, stupid of me to think there was a more incompetent justice system than ours

Minstadave · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:57

Glaucus said:
Sounds more like I read this on the internet must be true, doctors are like no this would not work in his case. Parents with fingers in ears. On top of that NHS do support 2nd opinion and treatment/experimental treatment abroad.

It seems pretty much like that from the Dad's video.

"We're not coming back to England until Ashya gets the treatment I want".

Parent with limited knowledge from the web demanded inappropriate proton beam therapy instead of appropriate chemotherapy, relationship broke down, emergency protection order threatened, parents did a runner.

Destination · 1 Sep 2014 at 15:59

Minstadave said:
It seems pretty much like that.

Parent with limited knowledge demanded inappropriate proton beam therapy instead of appropriate chemotherapy, relationship broke down, emergency protection order threatened, parents did a runner.

Hang on, are the hospital now saying they offered this?
Maybe I have missed this all along.