Brain tumour 5 year old taken by parents

[Waldo 96]

Thank you taxman, that all makes a lot of sense.

 

I guess the main initial concern was the welfare of Ashya, which his condition was unknown before the authorities found the family in Spain. When they were found, the legal process was in motion and had to unfold as it did...

 

I'd be concerned though, that a family in a similar position, but without the same level of media attention and public pressure, may not have got the same outcome. I wonder, if without the media attention, the authorities in this case, would still be pursuing an extradition?

 

Great news of course, with regards to this family, I hope Ashya gets some appropriate and effective treatment.

[Mr Bloom 10]

Just watched the press conference after the Kings' release. God bless all the family. xxx

 

Mr King says the hospital in Southampton were going to turn his son into a vegetable and kill him. He said he would endure it all again, anything for his son. He also said he never wants another parent to have to go through anything like this.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Mr Bloom

[Waldo 96]

He said he would endure it all again, anything for his son. He also said he never wants another parent to have to go through anything like this.

 

This is what really bugs me.

 

Families out there in similar positions, who are being bullied in things they don't want, and because they don't have any media attention, they have to suffer at the hands of public servants who care more about protecting their own reputations, and care less about the welfare of those they're supposed to be helping.

 

So, if this was the best out-come for the family; why were the NHS trying to force inferior treatment on the boy in the first place?

 

Oh, and Joe-bloggs' family in the same position, isn't getting intervention (tweets) by the PM!

[Anna B 1,417]

This is what really bugs me.

 

Families out there in similar positions, who are being bullied in things they don't want, and because they don't have any media attention, they have to suffer at the hands of public servants who care more about protecting their own reputations, and care less about the welfare of those they're supposed to be helping.

 

So, if this was the best out-come for the family; why were the NHS trying to force inferior treatment on the boy in the first place?

Oh, and Joe-bloggs' family in the same position, isn't getting intervention (tweets) by the PM!

 

Budgets. They do it all the time.

[Waldo 96]

But that's criminal Anna. Well, maybe not criminal, but certainly unethical. The NHS forcing inferior treatments on patients, on the basis of financial considerations?

 

Can't that be challenged legally? (not that many families could afford to do so, or would have the energy for a legal battle, esp. when someone is seriously ill).

[Cyclone 10]

But that's criminal Anna. Well, maybe not criminal, but certainly unethical. The NHS forcing inferior treatments on patients, on the basis of financial considerations?

 

Can't that be challenged legally? (not that many families could afford to do so, or would have the energy for a legal battle, esp. when someone is seriously ill).

 

The NHS has a limited budget, what do you suggest they do?

 

---------- Post added 03-09-2014 at 12:36 ----------

 

 

Mr King says the hospital in Southampton were going to turn his son into a vegetable and kill him.

 

Saying it doesn't make it true of course.

[Waldo 96]

The NHS has a limited budget, what do you suggest they do?

 

Then they shouldn't have blocked the family from seeking superior treatment elsewhere. Why would they do that? Because it makes the NHS look bad and incapable? Do they care more about the public image of the NHS, than they do about the patients getting the best treatment?

 

As a general answer to your question though, I'd say, simply treat all people with the same level of fairness. Not give special privilege to some, just because they happen to be in the spotlight of media attention. I think the principles of fairness and equanimity are more important than doing something just because it's politically expedient (bowing to public pressure etc).

 

Fair and equal treatment for all, rather than the current seemingly iniquitous state of affairs we have now.

[Anna B 1,417]

Then they shouldn't have blocked the family from seeking superior treatment elsewhere. Why would they do that? Because it makes the NHS look bad and incapable? Do they care more about the public image of the NHS, than they do about the patients getting the best treatment?

 

As a general answer to your question though, I'd say, simply treat all people with the same level of fairness. Not give special privilege to some, just because they happen to be in the spotlight of media attention. I think the principles of fairness and equanimity are more important than doing something just because it's politically expedient (bowing to public pressure etc).

 

Fair and equal treatment for all, rather than the current seemingly iniquitous state of affairs we have now.

 

Welcome to my world.

 

Anecdotal evidence: A couple whose child sadly had cancer was told by the hospital that there was nothing more they could do...basically, their child was going to die.

 

Scanning the web in despair the parents came across a case in America which mirrored their child's, and a treatment that was available which had sent the cancer into remission.

 

They went to the hospital and told them but the doctor dismissed it sniffily with words to the effect, 'you shouldn't believe everything you read on the computer'

 

The parents persisted and he finally admitted that yes it might help.

 

'But you said there was nothing more that could be done' said the parents.

'No, I said there was nothing more we could do,' said the doctor, 'we don't offer this treatment.'

'But you didn't even tell us about this.'

'It's not my job to tell you about what's available elsewhere' said the doctor.

 

Technically correct of course.

 

The couple raised the money and travelled to America for treatment. 3 years later the child is still with us and doing very well.

 

As I said anecdotal, I heard it from a colleague, but it has the ring of truth about it.

[Daven 10]

Just two quick questions - has anyone yet confirmed whether proton beam treatment will benefit this little boy in any way and secondly, why did the parents take him to Spain ? Does Spain provide this treatment ?

Genuine questions.

http://news.sky.com/story/1328857/ashya-opinion-divided-on-proton-beam-therapy

Edited September 3, 2014 by Daven

[SevenRivers 10]

Cleggy was saying how brilliant the European Arrest Warrant is in the TV debates with Nigel Farage.

 

Something else he got wrong.

[taxman 12]

Just two quick questions - has anyone yet confirmed whether proton beam treatment will benefit this little boy in any way and secondly, why did the parents take him to Spain ? Does Spain provide this treatment ?

Genuine questions.

http://news.sky.com/story/1328857/ashya-opinion-divided-on-proton-beam-therapy

 

They took him to Spain in order to sell their Marbella property to pay for the treatment in the Czech Republic.

 

As to whether it will work....it has worked on some people, but then again it hasn't on others. The Soton hospital didn't think it would work but the parents and others they'd spoken to thought it was worth a chance.

 

Edit:

 

Soton hospital is now claiming that they were helping the family get the proton treatment

 

"Dr Pete Wilson, chief paediatrician at Southampton General Hospital, said doctors had told the family they believed proton beam therapy had "no benefit" but had still agreed to refer him for the treatment to be paid by the family and were in the process of helping them down this route."

[Cyclone 10]

Then they shouldn't have blocked the family from seeking superior treatment elsewhere. Why would they do that? Because it makes the NHS look bad and incapable? Do they care more about the public image of the NHS, than they do about the patients getting the best treatment?

 

As a general answer to your question though, I'd say, simply treat all people with the same level of fairness. Not give special privilege to some, just because they happen to be in the spotlight of media attention. I think the principles of fairness and equanimity are more important than doing something just because it's politically expedient (bowing to public pressure etc).

 

Fair and equal treatment for all, rather than the current seemingly iniquitous state of affairs we have now.

 

Agreed. They should have told them about the treatment, explained that it wasn't available here and not involved the police when a child they considered terminal was removed from hospital.

At the end of the day, if they considered his case to be terminal then the parents have the right to take him home to die with them there, unhappy though that sounds.