Ashya King

Author
Discussion

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Plod may perhaps have been misled by some arrogant doctors who had had their sense of amour propre offended, but Plod should exercise some critical judgment and not just jump into action.
We do not know, of course, whether the police have exercised any critical judgment. Or that the doctors were arrogant. The reality is that should they have overruled doctors then the there would be considerable criticism in the media and on a threads on here.

To support this might I quote: ‘saving face’, ‘disgrace’, ‘the reality is that Plod had overreached himself and needed something to cover his blushes’, ‘BS allegation’, ‘I think it's a disgrace’, ‘authoritarian and illiberal approach to this case reflects the police mindset with depressing predictability’, ‘the outrageous detention of the parents in custody’, ‘police officer involved in this outrage should be ashamed’, ‘That is a disgrace’, ‘an exercise in saving institutional face at the expense of a family already under the burden of serious illness’, ‘the pursuit of the parents and their incarceration are disgraceful’, ‘This was a gross over reaction by arrogant and authoritarian minded public bodies’, ‘If that isn't a disgrace, it's hard to see what is’, The CPS . . . a back pedaling exercise’, .’police so over played their hand’, ‘public bodies are sadly obsessed with reputation and face saving’, ‘authoritarian mindsets adopted by pubic bodies including the police’, ‘the police . . . need to cover their blushes’ and (no doubt not finally) ‘police officers can't be relied on to know what the law is’, [compare with a later ‘Family Judges do not always share the common law instincts of their brothers and sisters in more enlightened Divisions of the Courts’].

Rather ironically we also get: ‘The language used to describe something often indicates underlying concepts’.

All this on reports in the media.

I resent being called illiberal and authoritarian when all I have done is report on the reality of the situation. I have come to no conclusions unlike others. That’s because to do so is unjustified. Perhaps not making judgments without sufficient facts is a hangover of having been an illiberal and authoritarian police officer.

The police freedom of action has been steadily eroded over the years through unconsidered and hysterical accusations in the press and other media. Further, the courts have used hyperbole in their decisions. The police have been required to accept these limitations. The police have to accept what the doctors say.

The skill that most police officers develop is one of having to make decisions on a course of action on limited information. It is a requirement in fact. Officers do this day in and day out. There’s often no chance of looking it up in books, of asking for an adjournment, of sleeping on it. The problem is, of course, that there is no chance of being right all the time. Let’s face it, even being able to look it up is no guarantee of being right.

To accept that errors will be made takes maturity.

This is a complex situation. There is probably no 100% ‘good’ answer to it. There are any number of balances to be made. If a decision has to be made in real time then it can often be improved upon at a later date, when the pressure is off. Although there will still be an argument in a court. That doesn’t make the initial decision wrong.

I doubt somehow that the doctors were not bothered by the needs of the child and instead were arrogant, that the police had no other concern than not losing face.




Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
coyft said:
Really? Just take a moment to think about it.

You think it more likely that the doctors were more concerned for the boys wellbeing than his parents?
I think you should take a moment to read what I wrote, and it wasn't that the doctors were more concerned as to the child's welfare than the parents.

The question might be who is better informed as to the child's medical needs. But I didn't write that either.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
We do not know, of course, whether the police have exercised any critical judgment. Or that the doctors were arrogant. The reality is that should they have overruled doctors then the there would be considerable criticism in the media and on a threads on here.

...
It was not a case of "overruling" doctors. Doctors can't "rule". Bear in mind how this case was first presented. Some people had done something that they needed consent to do, without that consent. In fact, nothing of the sort had occurred, and even the hospital is not now pretending otherwise, but that sort of thinking appears to have tainted earlier judgments. Is there anyone here who is prepared to defend the detention of the parents?

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
I won't sign that because it describes the options offered by Southampton Hospital as poor. I have no view on that. I am not anti doctor. The parents may be wrong about the treatment options. My concern is that being wrong about a matter of opinion shouldn't lead to incarceration.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
I have also offered on the FB page to give the family legal advice for free. Carry on signing petitions.

IanA2

2,762 posts

161 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
I can’t find a precise diagnosis for this wee lad other than “brain tumour”

Here is a list of routine proton therapy carried out at the Philadelphia Children’s Hospital

See: http://www.chop.edu/service/oncology/proton-therap...

Tumors we treat with proton therapy

Brain and central nervous system

• Astrocytoma
• Atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumors (ATRT)
• Craniopharyngioma
• Ependymoma
• Intracranial germ cell tumors (germinoma)
• Low grade glioma
• Medulloblastoma
• Meningioma
• Optic nerve tumors
• Optic pathway/hypothalamic glioma
• Primitive neuro-ectodermal tumor (intracranial PNET)

Solid tumors
• Chondrosarcoma
• Chordoma
• Ewing sarcoma
• Neuroblastoma
• Rhabdomyosarcoma (and other soft tissue sarcomas)
• Soft tissue sarcoma
• Tumors of the head and neck
• Wilms tumor

Lymphoma

• Hodgkin
• Non-Hodgkin


ETA @ 1613hrs It seems that the diganosis is medulloblastoma. It's on the above list.

Edited by IanA2 on Tuesday 2nd September 16:14

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
coyft said:
We each do what we can. I think you may have misread the petition as it doesn't criticise the doctors.

...
The Petition says -

"They are not refusing any treatment, just the poor options available to them in the Southampton Hospital."

I would not be at all surprised if the options offered by the hospital are in fact the best ones available, but that's not the issue for me.

johnao

667 posts

242 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Martin4x4 said:
I would much rather they accepted the order and returned with the child and resolved this in ... an appropriate manner. If they wanted a second opinion I sure the care could be picked up by another UK hospital.
Unfortunately, that comes across, not deliberately I'm sure, as being just a little bit arrogant. He is not your child. Why should you presume to suggest that the parents comply with the extradition request and "resolve this in... an appropriate manner"? That's not what they wish to do. Why should they return to the UK if they don't believe that would be in the best interests of their child? In a case like this the State acts in our name when the authority to whom it delegates the power believes that the child is in grave danger. Although it was not clear at the outset, when the family "disappeared", it is quite clear now that the child is not currently in grave danger. The State should now accept that at present it has no further role to play in this particular case and rescind the EAW and abandon the extradition proceedings. Why should the parents meekly accept an extradition order whose continued existence has clearly become a gross and unnecessary abuse of power?

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
A friend of mine argues similarly on Facebook. The over mighty State asserts itself, and so the family should just bow the knee and be bullied into submission.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
"Disingenous" is a posh word for "lying". I am quoting what the Petition says. I choose not to sign it. If that upsets you, tough titty. It doesn't entitle you to call me a liar.

photosnob

1,339 posts

117 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
I have also offered on the FB page to give the family legal advice for free. Carry on signing petitions.
Are you allowed to take direct instructions? I thought you had to get them from a solicitor.

Sorry - off topic, but thats how it's always been when I've had to use a barrister.

essayer

9,011 posts

193 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
CPS plan to withdraw the European Arrest Warrant

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
photosnob said:
Breadvan72 said:
I have also offered on the FB page to give the family legal advice for free. Carry on signing petitions.
Are you allowed to take direct instructions? I thought you had to get them from a solicitor.

Sorry - off topic, but thats how it's always been when I've had to use a barrister.
Some barristers do direct access. I don't. On pro bono cases, you can almost always find a solicitor willing to join in. I can also do pro bono work without a solicitor through the Bar Pro Bono Unit. The family may well already have lawyers, so won't need me, but I thought I'd make the offer.

The Torygraph reports, reliably or not, that the Southampton doctors are in touch with the Prague proton dudes.



Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
It was not a case of "overruling" doctors. Doctors can't "rule". Bear in mind how this case was first presented. Some people had done something that they needed consent to do, without that consent. In fact, nothing of the sort had occurred, and even the hospital is not now pretending otherwise, but that sort of thinking appears to have tainted earlier judgments. Is there anyone here who is prepared to defend the detention of the parents?
I've just listened to a (self styled) human rights lawyer on Sky news on this matter and he seemed to suggest that the initial procedures gave him no problems and that the action of the over mighty State in asserting itself, and the requirement for the family to bow the knee and be bullied into submission were, given the initial information, reasonable and seemingly lawful.

I don't know if this is true or not so in that respect I'm just like all other commentators on this thread.

As for rule, doctors can indeed rule. They rule on the medical situation. According to one dictionary I as a rule keep on the shelf behind me, it gives the definition of rule as it applies to legal matters, and also says that to rule means (inter alia) to give judgment on a matter.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Play with words all you like, Derek. A doctor can opine. He or she can't make a decision that binds, outwith certain statutory contexts that are not presently relevant.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Back pedaling furiously, the Chief Constable has written a letter to anyone he can think of saying that the situation is "not right". Fancy that, eh, Chief Constable? Nothing at all to do with you then?

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
coyft said:
Really? Just take a moment to think about it.

You think it more likely that the doctors were more concerned for the boys wellbeing than his parents?
They may not have had the same emotional involvement, but when does emotional involvement ensure the best decision-making? If anything, a more objective, less involved relationship is better.

I fail to see on what grounds people are concluding the medical teams had any other motive than to provide the best care, and had honest intentions when they concluded the risk the child were at. We don't know what information they made those judgements upon. Unknowns increase risk.

Derek Smith said:
The skill that most police officers develop is one of having to make decisions on a course of action on limited information. It is a requirement in fact. Officers do this day in and day out. There’s often no chance of looking it up in books, of asking for an adjournment, of sleeping on it. The problem is, of course, that there is no chance of being right all the time. Let’s face it, even being able to look it up is no guarantee of being right.

To accept that errors will be made takes maturity.

This is a complex situation. There is probably no 100% ‘good’ answer to it. There are any number of balances to be made. If a decision has to be made in real time then it can often be improved upon at a later date, when the pressure is off. Although there will still be an argument in a court. That doesn’t make the initial decision wrong.
Well put. A quality decision is one made in the circumstances, and to be judged by those circumstances at the time. Hindsight bias is such a powerful psychological feature, it makes it very hard to judge the quality of decision making at the time once the outcome is known.

Breadvan72 said:
I have also offered on the FB page to give the family legal advice for free. Carry on signing petitions.
This forum is no place for substance and actually doing something about something, thank you wink





IanA2

2,762 posts

161 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Martin4x4 said:
I would much rather they accepted the order and returned with the child and resolved this in ... an appropriate manner. If they wanted a second opinion I sure the care could be picked up by another UK hospital.
When will people realise that the medical service in this country is not that wonderful. I have over many years had close personal and professional contact with many seniors in the employ of the "NHS". One such told me over 25 years ago that the "NHS" was third world. This individual had been the national deputy chief medical officer and service specific chief government advisor to a comparatively rich African country and was appalled by what was going on here.

At the time I thought she was exaggerating. Twenty five years on I now think she was not.

Don't get me wrong there are pockets of excellence, but you have to know where they are. In this case it is perfectly proper for the family to seek help elsewhere and not necessarily in the UK. From personal experience I can tell you that I had a life threatening condition that the local "centre of excellence" did not treat for over eight months. The Marsden acted in eight days.

Many years ago, an Italian friend of mine took his baby son to the USA to have novel heart surgery, this was against the advice of the Italian doctors. My friend did not end up in jail.

By the way, for most things I'd rather be in an Italian/French/Swiss/German etc hospital.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
Hampshire CC saying the current situation isn't right: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29036154

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 2nd September 2014
quotequote all
AKA running for cover.