Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Indeed. Like I said earlier, given the information that we had to go on I can't see any other result being appropriate.
Ashya King
- Thread starter Ilikeitblackplease
- Start date
Indeed. Like I said earlier, given the information that we had to go on I can't see any other result being appropriate.
I think a few things are worth pointing out in relation to this:
1) Proton beam therapy is available in the UK. Arguably not enough (which is why £250M is being spent building two more facilities) but it's being used for the cases in which it is most likely to be effective (which is a handful of rare cancers, mainly in children). Ashya King has a different form of cancer.
2) The NHS isn't just offering help in sourcing proton beam treatment abroad - it's paying for it in ~80% of cases. If they think it will be useful enough, they pay for it.
3) In the remaining cases, they'll provide help in sourcing the treatment abroad.
In the third case, I can see why someone might just skip town and source it by themself in order to save time (although it might not save time - the NHS has some arrangements with foreign health services that might make things quicker).
You miss the basic point, that the NHS can and do refer patients abroad for PBT if needed and even fund/partially find it. Also in most articles so how you missed it.
And yet again, they weren't arrested in a hospital, they didn't have funds for treatment and nothing to suggest they were on their way for treatment.
@ Burnsey: Neither can I. I think the police acted correctly. However, the information detailed to them doesn't appear to be spot on. Firstly, it seems the child was on a standard feeding regime that would be readily available and secondly the power lead used to charge feeding pumps is the same one that goes into the back of your PSU - it is not something that special. There was an overreaction again (not the first time by this hospital) and if a tangible risk was thought possible then surely the necessarily legal framework should have been put in place.
Even the information we have now, it still seems like correct response.
Weren't they on their way to sell property to then get treatment in Czech? Or something like that.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Assuming there was time to get a court order etc. All I'll say is there is a lot more back story so let's not assume the hospital was necessarily overreacting given the circumstances.
Supposedly, why does that require taking the kid out of hospital? Why does kid need to go sell a house, it makes zero sense.
Leave kid in hospital, obtain money whilst arranging treatment, move kid for treatment.
More like they were running to the Holliday home.
The NHS does not block alternative treatment, U less they get a court order, even then it's hard to go against parents wishes. Their story latterly makes zero sense.
It also wasn't just one place, they hadn't even decided hospital seeing as he himself Named three possible countries.
Last edited:
Such things are put in place well in advance. And they were reacting with the whole feedpump is going to run out of battery at XYZ time.
I'm sure there are teams of highly paid workers leeching off taxpayers money pulling an all nighter to see if the can nail these parents on something high fiving each other every day they can drag this out further.
I may not be aware of all he facts but I cannot see a reason why separating a seriously ill child from his parents is either benefiting or making anyone look particularly good at this present moment.
I may not be aware of all he facts but I cannot see a reason why separating a seriously ill child from his parents is either benefiting or making anyone look particularly good at this present moment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
There is only one clinic in the UK that offer it and only on eye tumors.
That's a crime now is it? Hopefully there'll be a full IPCC investigation of the police's actions here and we'll find out exactly what evidence the police were basing their decision to issue an International Arrest Warrant on. I personally hope it's more than "oh they're religious, it could be another Rotherham here".
That information is already out there. They were told by the hospital that the parent would soon have no way of feeding the child as the feed pump they were using was running on a battery. If it were true then that would mean the police would have no choice but to treat it as a potential risk to life.
This has been addressed many times now in this thread and in all the news articles.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,941
- Location
- Rutland
It's not uncommon to send the police to invite parents to return with their child if there is a concern.
Normally the presence of the police is enough to ensure common sense kicks in and no one is arrested.
If they've left the country though you have little choice but to have an arrest warrant put out.
Normally the presence of the police is enough to ensure common sense kicks in and no one is arrested.
If they've left the country though you have little choice but to have an arrest warrant put out.
That information is already out there. They were told by the hospital that the parent would soon have no way of feeding the child as the feed pump they were using was running on a battery. If it were true then that would mean the police would have no choice but to treat it as a potential risk to life.
This has been addressed many times now in this thread and in all the news articles.
What's also being reported is that Hampshire Police may have acted illegally and overstepped their authority in this case. The Deputy PM is also bemused why the police have acted the way they have: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/02/ashya-king-clegg-criticises-full-force-law
To be fair they don't know that the parents would be able to figure that out... I mean it seems very obvious and as it happens these parents apparently had prepared well etc.. but presumably they have to account for them being completely clueless... I mean they'd acted pretty irrationally in sneaking the child out anyway - they don't *know* for sure that they'd notice/figure out the device could be charged with a kettle lead.
That seems very much like intimidation.
I'm seeing a kind of implication here that parents are in the wrong whenever they challenge the opinion of medical professionals, and that it's totally OK to override parent's wishes whenever and as often as necessary.
And that the threat of police/arrest/prosecution, etc, is totally justified.
Really sucks to be a parent these days. Your kids aren't your own, they belong to the state. And if the state decides you aren't fit to look after its children, it will not hesitate to remove you from any decision making.
Like the whole thing about schools dictating what children will eat, and when they will go on holiday, etc.
**** nanny state we have here.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
You should see how some parents treat their children and I'm sure you'd have a different opinion.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,941
- Location
- Rutland
Unfortunately it's a sad truth that not all parents have their children's best interests at heart. We have a duty of care to the children we look after. Parents are intimately involved in the care of their children but they are not allowed to put them at risk of harm.
It's not intimidation, it's safeguarding children, it's taken years to get to the point where kids aren't just quietly neglected/harmed at home and no one has had the motivation to get involved.
Yes at times having a police officer turn up on your doorstep is an over reaction but it's the safest thing to do if you're in doubt.
No one wants to do safeguarding work, it's miserable most of the time, it's emotional and stressful but it's part of the job for the hospital staff, police and social services. If it's not done children die.
I would have done exactly what the hospital did.
It's not intimidation, it's safeguarding children, it's taken years to get to the point where kids aren't just quietly neglected/harmed at home and no one has had the motivation to get involved.
Yes at times having a police officer turn up on your doorstep is an over reaction but it's the safest thing to do if you're in doubt.
No one wants to do safeguarding work, it's miserable most of the time, it's emotional and stressful but it's part of the job for the hospital staff, police and social services. If it's not done children die.
I would have done exactly what the hospital did.
Last edited: