Discussion
tenpenceshort said:
You may be entirely right about the treatment, however that is not the point at issue.
What criminal offence do say was committed by the parents in removing their child from the hospital?
I disagree, treatment is very foundation of the issue. What criminal offence do say was committed by the parents in removing their child from the hospital?
I haven't said anything about a 'criminal offence' and as lawyer I would expect you to know that is not necessary in this sort of case.
Breadvan72 said:
Fed abroad in secret? Do you inform the Government every time that you get on a car ferry?
How is this even close to a reasonable comparison?Breadvan72 said:
Endangered the child? Do you have some evidence for that assertion?
Self evident by fleeing the in the middle of treatment.Breadvan72 said:
Identify which human right of the child has been infringed here. Oh, none. Whoops.
How about the right to life.Brain Cancer prognosis with proper treatment means 8 out of 10 Children survive.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/type/b...
Scuffers said:
this case is kind of interesting in the context..
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-01/proton-therapy-...
I post New Scientist and people respond with "ITV's Good Morning Britain" http://www.itv.com/news/2014-09-01/proton-therapy-...
I say this pretty much sums up the problem here, the triumph of ignorance & hubris over science.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Tuesday 2nd September 13:06
If the facts don't fit, just make them up, eh Martin? There is no evidence that the parents "fled in the middle of treatment".
The point about the car ferry is valid - You say that this was fleeing in secret. Those who who does not subscribe to a police state mentality might say that this was a family exercising their lawful rights to travel freely within the EU.
Right to life? Child not dead, life not endangered (according to the medics in Spain). Try again.
The point about the car ferry is valid - You say that this was fleeing in secret. Those who who does not subscribe to a police state mentality might say that this was a family exercising their lawful rights to travel freely within the EU.
Right to life? Child not dead, life not endangered (according to the medics in Spain). Try again.
Breadvan72 said:
There is no such thing as an emergency police protection order. After the family left the hospital, the local Council obtained an interim Wardship order directed simply at ensuring that the child receive medical treatment. The child is receiving medical treatment.
I can assure you that police protection orders are very real.Martin4x4 said:
...
I haven't said anything about a 'criminal offence' and as lawyer I would expect you to know that is not necessary in this sort of case.
...
So you can be hunted by police and arrested without committing a criminal offence? Wow.I haven't said anything about a 'criminal offence' and as lawyer I would expect you to know that is not necessary in this sort of case.
...
PS: 10PS isn't a lawyer. He is a very well informed layman who is thinking of training as a lawyer.
Martin4x4 said:
I post New Scientist and people respond with "ITV's Good Morning Britain"
I say this pretty much sums up the problem here, the triumph of ignorance hubris over science.
Stop being silly - Science by it's very nature is always changing and improving. It's not maths - there are no absolute proofs. Opinion changes and moves on. What is written in ONE popular science magazine (not a peer reviewed journal I might add) is evidence of nothing. Come and tell us when Nature or the Lancet all start publishing information about the topic, the New Scientist is nothing more than Scientific pop trash written for the people with no expertise in the field. I say this pretty much sums up the problem here, the triumph of ignorance hubris over science.
Greendubber said:
Breadvan72 said:
There is no such thing as an emergency police protection order. After the family left the hospital, the local Council obtained an interim Wardship order directed simply at ensuring that the child receive medical treatment. The child is receiving medical treatment.
I can assure you that police protection orders are very real.Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 2nd September 10:56
Breadvan72 said:
I think that has happened because of authoritarian mindsets adopted by pubic bodies including the police, and possibly to save the face of the latter. A huge and costly police search was conducted despite not even the glimmer of a crime being committed.
Winston in complete agreement with BV shocker 
Jasandjules said:
RogueTrooper said:
In plain English, you can leave the ward without being discharged, but you're expected back, because you haven't been discharged.
It's nothing to do with detention or acting unlawfully.
IN plain English, if I want to leave a hospital ward I will do so. It's nothing to do with detention or acting unlawfully.
Unless there are very good reasons ( MHA detention, common law reasons for detention to protect the individual or others) clinicians cannot stop people with Mental Capacity from leaving. However if you wish to discharge yourself it is prudent to:
1. Inform the staff
2. Be prepared to acknowledge the advice and warnings you have been given ( most if not all NHS trusts have a Self Discharge / Discharge against Clinical Advice policy and a standard form which explains the liability the trust doesn't now have.
It is also pertinent to point out that Hosoitals have no interest in keeping competent patients who do not wish to be there.
Scuffers said:
Martin4x4 said:
This whole thing is turning into a replay of the MMR controversy, questioning the conventional well proven treatment bigging up a controversal alternative treatment.
how so?this is not some hair-brained quackery, it's the next generation of therapies.
the UK currently only has Proton Beam used for optometry, these a plan to have two new installs for 2018(?).
the US and Japan have had it for some time, as have some private clinics in the EU.
as usual, the NHS is behind the curve.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/09/16...
[quote="cancerresearchuk"]
Before we get too excited about this new treatment, it’s important to point out that it’s thought that only around one per cent of UK cancer patients could be suitable for proton therapy. There’s also a lack of hard conventional evidence to prove that it’s more effective and kinder than conventional radiotherapy.
Breadvan72 said:
Can you please cite the Statutory provision that you rely on, thanks. You may be thinking of orders granted by courts at the request of local authorities. The police have some specific powers to safeguard a child under section 49 of the Children Act 1989, but these powers are not reported as having been relied on here, and indeed could not have applied on the kniwn facts if the case. Section 49 confers no power of arrest.
So they do exist now? Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 2nd September 09:43
Do you know exactly what the hospital has said to the police? They could have made any allegations meaning that arrest was necessary.
I gave you more credit than basing discussion on the media reports.
Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 2nd September 09:48
Martin4x4 said:
Russ T Bolt said:
You do realise that the NHS already funds this treatment for some people and that from 2018 the facilities will be available in the UK.
As treatment for a completely different condition. It is this sort of idiocracy leading to using anti-biotics for treating virus and blight of anti-biotic resistance.The funding is for a research facility and trial not a treatment center.
No, there will be at least one, possibly two treatment centres built by 2018. One in Manchester and possibly one in the South. B
Martin4x4 said:
I've already addressed these points, it might have potential but it IS unproven and that link confirm what I've already said:
Look, nobody is suggesting that proton beam is the 100% replacement for X-ray based chemo, however, in specific cased with spine/eye/brain tumours etc, where collateral damage from X-ray can be catastrophic, it offers a much more targeted approach reducing the very high risks from collateral damage.cancerresearchuk said:
Before we get too excited about this new treatment, it’s important to point out that it’s thought that only around one per cent of UK cancer patients could be suitable for proton therapy. There’s also a lack of hard conventional evidence to prove that it’s more effective and kinder than conventional radiotherapy.
My comparison with the MMR controvery is the Media whipping up Public hysteria based on ignorance and not scientific facts.if its such quackery, why are the NHS funding it's install and why have they already paid for hundreds of similar patients to get treated in the US?
it's called progress.
Greendubber said:
Breadvan72 said:
Can you please cite the Statutory provision that you rely on, thanks. You may be thinking of orders granted by courts at the request of local authorities. The police have some specific powers to safeguard a child under section 49 of the Children Act 1989, but these powers are not reported as having been relied on here, and indeed could not have applied on the kniwn facts if the case. Section 49 confers no power of arrest.
So they do exist now? Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 2nd September 09:43
Do you know exactly what the hospital has said to the police? They could have made any allegations meaning that arrest was necessary.
I gave you more credit than basing discussion on the media reports.
Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 2nd September 09:48
photosnob said:
Stop being silly - Science by it's very nature is always changing and improving. It's not maths - there are no absolute proofs. Opinion changes and moves on. What is written in ONE popular science magazine (not a peer reviewed journal I might add) is evidence of nothing. Come and tell us when Nature or the Lancet all start publishing information about the topic, the New Scientist is nothing more than Scientific pop trash written for the people with no expertise in the field.
Well, there you have it. That science is always changing is self evident. Always improving - now there's a leap of faith and one certainly unjustified in this case, at this stage at least.The parents seem convinced by the advertising for the new product. Well good for them. I wouldn't dream of criticising them. Advertising is a big and clever industry and no matter how much we as individuals feel we are somehow immune, the evidence, the strong evidence, is that it works with us all. Indeed, there is some suggestion that those who consider themselves too intelligent to be influenced by sales staff are the ones easiest to convince.
However, I wonder how the parent's expert knowledge stacks up against that of the New Scientist staff. I'm not a betting man but if, as has been reported, the internet has been the major source of information for the former, then if anyone would like to offer odds I'd be more than willing to listen.
There are an awful lot of conclusions on here, many damning the actions of the police and other bodies as being [add your own extreme modifier here] yet we have little information, too little to form conclusions. This is, apparently, no reason not to indulge in attribution and arrive, by a circuitous route, that everyone else's decision making and morals is below that of one's own.
My assumption, and why should I not follow the trend, is that the police acted under guidance of the CPS and specialists in the field. However, I don't know. And now we've got a politician spouting off about it, we'll never know.
To be controversial for a moment, run with the questionable premise that we are not in receipt of the full facts in this case.
Edited by Derek Smith on Tuesday 2nd September 10:02
Derek Smith said:
To be controversial for a moment, run with the questionable premise that we are not in receipt of the full facts in this case.
I'm sure we don't have the full facts. I'm sure we won't get the full facts. I'm entirely unconvinced there could be any that warrant the current situation though.If the CPS had been involved at the outset, the police would have said so by now, as they need to cover their blushes. What we do know is that the CPS have been brought in now, after the police had already decided to commit vast resources to what looks like a non crime.
Also "specialists" advise, they can't dictate. I am all in favour of respecting science and expertise in all fields, and generally regard so called alternative medicine as mendacious woo*, but we must not adopt an attitude of undue deference to sacerdotal experts.
* Proton therapy is probably not in this class, but may or may not be right for this child.
Also "specialists" advise, they can't dictate. I am all in favour of respecting science and expertise in all fields, and generally regard so called alternative medicine as mendacious woo*, but we must not adopt an attitude of undue deference to sacerdotal experts.
* Proton therapy is probably not in this class, but may or may not be right for this child.
from me. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff