- Joined
- 9 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 1,457
You belong to the state when your parents sign the birth cert.
Anyway Aysha King's doctors signal U-turn over proton therapy, because of political pressure, see how the system works in this country.
Ashya King
- Thread starter Ilikeitblackplease
- Start date
Anyway Aysha King's doctors signal U-turn over proton therapy, because of political pressure, see how the system works in this country.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I suggest you stop with the freeman BS. It won't get you very far here.
That isn't exactly true.
You register your child into society, which ultimately gives the law society permission to force on you some thing they call, common purpose.
It doesn't mean you are handing over title ownership, like the freeman thinks.
One thing is true though, if you don't register your child, they can't touch it, same with cars, land, etc. This is the reason why they can't take gypsy babies from their parents.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,275
Parents do not have the right of life or death over their children. They may be more emotionally attached but that doesn't make them right. You think a parent who looks up some stuff on the internet is more qualified to make a medical decision than a qualified medical practioner?
The child would have been taken out by the family and around the hospital and the ward of course the parents would have been able to plug the device back in. Partnership of care drastically failing if they couldn't.
Given the information that the child was at risk then that is clearly wrong. The simple fact is that you are clearly overlooking something that you I doubt would actually know about. This child would have some form of central venous access device - that means an IV line going from outside the body (or maybe just under the skin) and then tunnelled through into the vena cava which I am sure you remember from school leads directly into the right atrium of the heart. This line is a severe infection risk. Once an infection takes hold it immediately goes to the heart and rapidly spreads around the body. Do you not think this sounds like a potentially dangerous thing that would require rapid assessment? You would be right to think that is - the result is septic shock and will quite quickly lead to you've guessed it - death. Therefore, one has to ask why was the child taken to Spain, away from medical treatment, for the family to sell property which is never a quick process to then move on again to Czech. Do you not think that sounds like a remarkably long-winded route when the child will be at risk of infection all along the way with no guarantee the expertise to access the device would be available. Most paediatric nurses can't access ports in specialist centres let alone elsewhere. This point is further exaggerated when the family were offered a second opinion at either Gt Ormond St or Evelina and also offered support to get assistance overseas.
And Clegg is being a 'tard again as usual. However, I do agree that the family should be together at this time but under very close supervision with court protection orders in place.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
That's not true either. All births must be registered by law. If your birth isn't registered it doesn't stop government agencies from intervening.
Parents do not have the right of life or death over their children. They may be more emotionally attached but that doesn't make them right. You think a parent who looks up some stuff on the internet is more qualified to make a medical decision than a qualified medical practioner?
There isn't a catch-all answer to that question. Apparently the parents spent "months" researching this. Perhaps they spoke to other trained medical professionals? Most likely they did.
I don't think we're talking about a quick visit to wikipedia in any case. Frankly from the quotes coming from the parents it seems like the hospital didn't want to discuss alternative treatment with the Kings and were quite dismissive of the idea.
Also a spokesman of the Czech facility has already said they would be able to treat the child. I'm guessing they don't have his medical records so that's probably a generalised "we can treat that kind of cancer" statement.
In fairness I've known parents who have researched stuff and approached medical practitioners (very senior and reputable) and they have had their suggestions ignored only to be proven correct with time.
However, the difference here that people seem to be wilfully ignoring is once again that:
A second opinion was offered
Help to go abroad was offered
This treatment is obtainable on the NHS and is not denied when appropriate
Not all brain tumours are in the same location
Not all brain tumours are the same size
Not all brain tumours are of the same "type"
However, the difference here that people seem to be wilfully ignoring is once again that:
A second opinion was offered
Help to go abroad was offered
This treatment is obtainable on the NHS and is not denied when appropriate
Not all brain tumours are in the same location
Not all brain tumours are the same size
Not all brain tumours are of the same "type"
Last edited:
The problem I have with the above is that we already know that Southampton hospital have lied about the case so they could also have lied about the above too.
please please try driving an unregistered car around the uk then tryign to stop the police taking it away.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
In Hampshire mainly.
They seemed to have misled police and the media about how complex the feeding apparatus was and how the child was hours from harm when the battery ran out as it would take specialist equipment to recharge it.
No, there is a communication breakdown with peoples understanding of the complexities of the care. We can see that in this thread. Police are not medical personnel they can't understand the details. We see that on these forum all the time - one person who knows what they are on about using terminology and someone who doesn't know what they are on about swearing blue they are saying something wrong. That doesn't have to be misleading that is a problem with language. I've made my views clear on that in this case.
To say though it was lying is completely and utterly wrong. To say they misled them from a deliberate point of view is also most likely wrong. To say there was yet another breakdown in communication and imparting of information and checking that information was received and understood by the Southampton team is more likely correct.
TBH it was more likely a doctor who said that. The nurse would have full well known it wasn't anything fancy being as they do the work and all.
I shall step out of the thread then and keep my ignorance to myself.
I was only going from the media reports and from a conversation with my cousin who is a paediatric consultant who has been somewhat scathing of Southampton's handling of this case.
Surely both of those are lying? So is lying "completely and utterly wrong" or just "most likely wrong"
The misconception was in the media for long enough and supported by the police for long enough for the hospital to offer a correction surely? Of course such a correction wouldn't have been in their best interest...
I shall step out of the thread then and keep my ignorance to myself.
It was a general observation. Not specific to you. That's why I said on the forums and deliberately didn't use the word "you".
Well I've quite clearly not been in their corner on this one have I. Or have you not read the whole thread yet. Make particular note to where I question whether Southampton should actually be covering this service
I'd disagree. Lying is a conscious deliberate action - stupidity, ignorance or overreaction don't necessarily meet that test.
And we don't know whether any attempt was made there do we.