Discussion
Oh and, if I remember correctly, the hospital stated that they didn’t think that Proton Therapy would be of benefit in this case. This would suggest that they had at least discussed it with the parents prior to them taking the child out of the hospital. Thus it was not done on a whim based on an internet search. They had discussed it with the doctors and come to a different conclusion. Is this now a crime worthy of denying a parent access to their very ill child? The latest BBC report says that the parents have now been remanded in custody as they are fighting extradition.
Jonleeper said:
Oh and, if I remember correctly, the hospital stated that they didn’t think that Proton Therapy would be of benefit in this case. This would suggest that they had at least discussed it with the parents prior to them taking the child out of the hospital. Thus it was not done on a whim based on an internet search. They had discussed it with the doctors and come to a different conclusion. Is this now a crime worthy of denying a parent access to their very ill child? The latest BBC report says that the parents have now been remanded in custody as they are fighting extradition.
I don't think you could call the next generation of treatment a whim?from the parents perspective they want the very best option for their son, and proton beam offers the best outcomes for this kind of brain tumor without the level of brain-frying side effects of traditional X-ray chemotherapy.
what this case also highlights is the totally outrageous instrument that is the EU arrest warrant.
No crime committed, no laws broken, and out pops an EU arrest warrant, Mr Clegg must be so proud!
It would appear that everyone has an idea of what went on, as well as on the efficacy of certain treatments.
It is a reasonable assumption that the police had some sort of information from the hospital. Should they have reacted to this information or should they, like the various news outlets, have a chat to other people on what they think of proton treatment? It's a difficult one I know.
The discretion of the police is something that has been eroded over the years but in a case like this, where professionals (presumably) say one thing and the lay say another, if the welfare of a child is of concern I'd suggest they should depend on the former until the contrary is proved.
The suggestion from the hospital in the initial stages was that the current treatment would be rendered ineffective if left to the parents. If that was the information given to the police then I can't see this as knee-jerk reaction by them.
The police have no grounds for checking to see if alternative therapies are beneficial. That is beyond their remit. And quite rightly so. Listening to both sides in such matters is something that courts do, over a period of time, and with precedent. Not something advisable if the information is that a child might suffer from lack of treatment.
There are ways for the parents to take the child from the hospital in order to have other treatments and one wonders if they had availed themselves of these.
However, the duties of the police in this matter are fairly clear. If they are told one thing by the hospital they must react to it. It is up to the courts to decide where it goes from there. They should not make medical decisions based on anecdotes and stories. That's the remit of the media outlets.
When it comes to kids there is always an emotional side to it. But the police should, indeed must, act in the child's best interests and they should come to the decision as to what is in the child's best interest in cases like this by ensuring they have information from specialists.
One would hope the agreed procedures were followed, and we won't know whether they were until there is a public inquiry and then we won't know either because by then it will be political. Until there is evidence that they were abandoned, and no reason is given, then blaming the police is a knee-jerk reaction. There will be a fairly simple tick-box procedure to go through and if it wasn't then someone will be in trouble. If it was then if this is a massive invasion of the rights of parents then those who impose restrictions on the police will be the ones to blame.
They won't be blamed of course.
I've used the Children Act on occasion and it leaves little scope for value judgments if a doctor gives directions.
Whether the treatment can be delivered effectively via a cigar lighter, the efficacy of the alternative treatment and whether the law is wrong in restricting the rights of parents are not things relevant to the police action in this case. If the information was that the child was at risk then their course of action is quite clear. And it is a requirement.
If they have provided BS evidence for the order, then that is another matter, but we obviously do not know at this stage.
It is a reasonable assumption that the police had some sort of information from the hospital. Should they have reacted to this information or should they, like the various news outlets, have a chat to other people on what they think of proton treatment? It's a difficult one I know.
The discretion of the police is something that has been eroded over the years but in a case like this, where professionals (presumably) say one thing and the lay say another, if the welfare of a child is of concern I'd suggest they should depend on the former until the contrary is proved.
The suggestion from the hospital in the initial stages was that the current treatment would be rendered ineffective if left to the parents. If that was the information given to the police then I can't see this as knee-jerk reaction by them.
The police have no grounds for checking to see if alternative therapies are beneficial. That is beyond their remit. And quite rightly so. Listening to both sides in such matters is something that courts do, over a period of time, and with precedent. Not something advisable if the information is that a child might suffer from lack of treatment.
There are ways for the parents to take the child from the hospital in order to have other treatments and one wonders if they had availed themselves of these.
However, the duties of the police in this matter are fairly clear. If they are told one thing by the hospital they must react to it. It is up to the courts to decide where it goes from there. They should not make medical decisions based on anecdotes and stories. That's the remit of the media outlets.
When it comes to kids there is always an emotional side to it. But the police should, indeed must, act in the child's best interests and they should come to the decision as to what is in the child's best interest in cases like this by ensuring they have information from specialists.
One would hope the agreed procedures were followed, and we won't know whether they were until there is a public inquiry and then we won't know either because by then it will be political. Until there is evidence that they were abandoned, and no reason is given, then blaming the police is a knee-jerk reaction. There will be a fairly simple tick-box procedure to go through and if it wasn't then someone will be in trouble. If it was then if this is a massive invasion of the rights of parents then those who impose restrictions on the police will be the ones to blame.
They won't be blamed of course.
I've used the Children Act on occasion and it leaves little scope for value judgments if a doctor gives directions.
Whether the treatment can be delivered effectively via a cigar lighter, the efficacy of the alternative treatment and whether the law is wrong in restricting the rights of parents are not things relevant to the police action in this case. If the information was that the child was at risk then their course of action is quite clear. And it is a requirement.
If they have provided BS evidence for the order, then that is another matter, but we obviously do not know at this stage.
Seems to me that if the Police didn't act on the initial report of (possible) neglect they would be pilloried.
Now because they instigated action they are being pilloried - par for the course these days..
I am not privy to the minute detals of this case but there must have been concerns as CPS (lawyers) consulted,they and a wigged one (lawyer) gave the OK for the Arrest Warrant.
I guess now that the position has been reached neither side wish to back down and show some common sense.
In the parents position I would have accepted the extradition and back in the Uk with 48 hours instead of languishing in a jail sorted this matter out pdq with possible civil litigation but as I say I don't have all the facts that some on here do.
dvd
Now because they instigated action they are being pilloried - par for the course these days..
I am not privy to the minute detals of this case but there must have been concerns as CPS (lawyers) consulted,they and a wigged one (lawyer) gave the OK for the Arrest Warrant.
I guess now that the position has been reached neither side wish to back down and show some common sense.
In the parents position I would have accepted the extradition and back in the Uk with 48 hours instead of languishing in a jail sorted this matter out pdq with possible civil litigation but as I say I don't have all the facts that some on here do.
dvd
All very good Derek, but from what's been put out there, I can see NOTHING to justify Police intervention in the first place.
this is not a case of crackpot parents denying life-saving blood (Jehovah's etc) or the like.
My take on it is they were being railroaded into a treatment regime that the parents were not prepared to sign off on (look up the outcomes of Chemotherapy on child patients with brain tumours).
they wanted the hospital to look at proton beam therapy, they would appear to have stone-walled them, they then decided to go elsewhere for help.
this is not a case of crackpot parents denying life-saving blood (Jehovah's etc) or the like.
My take on it is they were being railroaded into a treatment regime that the parents were not prepared to sign off on (look up the outcomes of Chemotherapy on child patients with brain tumours).
they wanted the hospital to look at proton beam therapy, they would appear to have stone-walled them, they then decided to go elsewhere for help.
If you are a Police Officer and a Doctor tells you that parents have taken a child and they believe that if they don't get them back quickly they will die or be seriously injured what would you do? If you are a Doctor and your patient disappears and you fear for their welfare what do you do? If you are a parent and you believe your child has a better chance of survival and recovery somewhere else, but you suspect if you raise this courts will overrule you and take away your child what do you do?
I don't understand the laws involved in this, but I wouldn't want to have to deal with any of those situations. Personally I feel that if I was the parent I'd have done what they did, if I was the Doctor I'd have done what they did, and if I was the Police I'd have done what they did. Which really only takes me around in a circle.
If they do extradite the parents and try and lay criminal charges against them I think that will be unforgivable. Spending a fortune to lock them up isn't going to achieve anything. Even if a crime has been technically been committed this has to be one for the not in the public interest clause.
After Rotherham I am wondering if the Police have tried to go in a bit hard to show that they are trying to protect children now though.
I don't understand the laws involved in this, but I wouldn't want to have to deal with any of those situations. Personally I feel that if I was the parent I'd have done what they did, if I was the Doctor I'd have done what they did, and if I was the Police I'd have done what they did. Which really only takes me around in a circle.
If they do extradite the parents and try and lay criminal charges against them I think that will be unforgivable. Spending a fortune to lock them up isn't going to achieve anything. Even if a crime has been technically been committed this has to be one for the not in the public interest clause.
After Rotherham I am wondering if the Police have tried to go in a bit hard to show that they are trying to protect children now though.
photosnob said:
If you are a Police Officer and a Doctor tells you that parents have taken a child and they believe that if they don't get them back quickly they will die or be seriously injured what would you do? If you are a Doctor and your patient disappears and you fear for their welfare what do you do? If you are a parent and you believe your child has a better chance of survival and recovery somewhere else, but you suspect if you raise this courts will overrule you and take away your child what do you do?
you might want to question why the hospital did not bother calling you for the first 6+ hours?if it was that urgent (which clearly from what we know now, not was not urgent), why the wait?
The Police have been feed a line and I suspect now that the doctors involved will be back-tracking rapidly soon...
Scuffers said:
All very good Derek, but from what's been put out there, I can see NOTHING to justify Police intervention in the first place.
Part of the reason might be that the hospital have not joined this thread. They have not put their concerns down for us to pore over. The police have decided, it seems, to limit the information they give to the public.A clue is in your post, indeed in your capitalisation: the police have acted with the support of the CPS and courts. If your information is zero then the most likely suggestion, I would suggest, is that rather than the police acted without reason, in capitals or lower case, but that there is information that we on this thread are not privy to.
It is possible that one lone officer has the wrong end of the stick, that they have reacted without justification, that they have manufactured evidence. But let's run with the assumption that there hasn't been a rogue until such time as we have sufficient information.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Seems to me that if the Police didn't act on the initial report of (possible) neglect they would be pilloried.
Now because they instigated action they are being pilloried - par for the course these days..
No change there then.Now because they instigated action they are being pilloried - par for the course these days..
Scuffers said:
I don't think you could call the next generation of treatment a whim?
An unwarranted assumption. I had work on my mouth which, at the time, was described as revolutionary. It seems, however, that it was experimental. Every dentist who has examined my mouth has been critical. One called it butchery.
The fact is that we have to await the next generation before deciding what will be in it.
Martin4x4 said:
There was a Dr on the TV over the weekend all but called this Proton Beam stuff quackery with unconfirmed efficy. They got the idea off the internet ffs and didn't even discuss it with the Dr or hospital, instead they just disappeared mid treatment.
I thought the father said he did discuss the Proton Beam procedure, even putting it in writing that he'd pay for it but was unable to get a response to the letter from the consultant.Presumably, as the NHS fund it for other patients and as it's presumably administered by doctors in other first world countries and not in a shed, there are qualified opinions that disagree with the one who had his five minutes on the telly.
I've had to use "the internet" (i.e. advice from other doctors, not mumsnet) to get a diagnosis and use it again to get the appropriate treatment where my doctors refused to budge for over 2 years. I just needed an injection that costs pence. I can't imagine what trying to get a £100k procedure urgently out of them involves.
Derek Smith said:
Part of the reason might be that the hospital have not joined this thread. They have not put their concerns down for us to pore over. The police have decided, it seems, to limit the information they give to the public.
A clue is in your post, indeed in your capitalisation: the police have acted with the support of the CPS and courts. If your information is zero then the most likely suggestion, I would suggest, is that rather than the police acted without reason, in capitals or lower case, but that there is information that we on this thread are not privy to.
It is possible that one lone officer has the wrong end of the stick, that they have reacted without justification, that they have manufactured evidence. But let's run with the assumption that there hasn't been a rogue until such time as we have sufficient information.
Derek,A clue is in your post, indeed in your capitalisation: the police have acted with the support of the CPS and courts. If your information is zero then the most likely suggestion, I would suggest, is that rather than the police acted without reason, in capitals or lower case, but that there is information that we on this thread are not privy to.
It is possible that one lone officer has the wrong end of the stick, that they have reacted without justification, that they have manufactured evidence. But let's run with the assumption that there hasn't been a rogue until such time as we have sufficient information.
so, a police force with a truck-load of evidence against child molesters and rapists can do nothing for many years (and are still dragging their collective feet) but they chase loving parents round europe on some 'life and death' crusade on what would appear to be grossly misleading info.
Everything said to the public in the first hours of this case hitting the press has been shown to be tenuous at best, and quite possibly blatant lies.
ie, all the bulls
t about the battery in the feeder running out, FFS how lame was that?I particularly like this line from the BBC news report:
"Police officers from Hampshire have traveled to Spain to "assist the Spanish officers in the extradition proceedings", Mr Shead said."
Nice bit of gentle pressure - god forbid the Spanish judge concludes they have no case to answer in the U.K. Police might look a tad foolish if that were to happen.
SEND THE BOYS OVER!
"Police officers from Hampshire have traveled to Spain to "assist the Spanish officers in the extradition proceedings", Mr Shead said."
Nice bit of gentle pressure - god forbid the Spanish judge concludes they have no case to answer in the U.K. Police might look a tad foolish if that were to happen.
SEND THE BOYS OVER!
Scuffers said:
Derek,
so, a police force with a truck-load of evidence against child molesters and rapists can do nothing for many years (and are still dragging their collective feet) but they chase loving parents round europe on some 'life and death' crusade on what would appear to be grossly misleading info.
Everything said to the public in the first hours of this case hitting the press has been shown to be tenuous at best, and quite possibly blatant lies.
ie, all the bullst about the battery in the feeder running out, FFS how lame was that?
Not sure what you are suggesting here. so, a police force with a truck-load of evidence against child molesters and rapists can do nothing for many years (and are still dragging their collective feet) but they chase loving parents round europe on some 'life and death' crusade on what would appear to be grossly misleading info.
Everything said to the public in the first hours of this case hitting the press has been shown to be tenuous at best, and quite possibly blatant lies.
ie, all the bulls
t about the battery in the feeder running out, FFS how lame was that?Was the info misleading? Is so then that is hardly the fault of the police.
Your criticise the police for lack of action in the case of the abuse on minors, suggesting that they should have gone in earlier, then criticise the police for doing just that, acting on information received re a child. You can, it would appear, have it both ways. And the police can't have it either way.
If you want to have a go at the police then there's nothing I can do about it. Apart, that is, from suggesting that you are right is your statement that there is precious little information, NOTHING being the word you used, to base conclusions on.
But don't let that stop you.
Derek's authoritarian and illiberal approach to this case reflects the police mindset with depressing predictability. He appears to think that disagreeing with doctors means that the police must intervene.
No mention on BBC radio news this afternoon of any Court order. What we do know is that the boy has been forcibly separated from his parents. Derek might defend this, but I think it's a disgrace.
No mention on BBC radio news this afternoon of any Court order. What we do know is that the boy has been forcibly separated from his parents. Derek might defend this, but I think it's a disgrace.
Derek Smith said:
Not sure what you are suggesting here.
Was the info misleading? Is so then that is hardly the fault of the police.
Your criticise the police for lack of action in the case of the abuse on minors, suggesting that they should have gone in earlier, then criticise the police for doing just that, acting on information received re a child. You can, it would appear, have it both ways. And the police can't have it either way.
with respect!Was the info misleading? Is so then that is hardly the fault of the police.
Your criticise the police for lack of action in the case of the abuse on minors, suggesting that they should have gone in earlier, then criticise the police for doing just that, acting on information received re a child. You can, it would appear, have it both ways. And the police can't have it either way.
there's a hell of a lot of difference between hard physical evidence (that seems to always be getting 'lost') and unsubstantiated reports.
Look, they may be right and we don't know the half of it, however, if that were the case, I suspect now it;s been on open court, we should at least have some idea what they were working with?
obviously, time will tell, but I find it hard to deal with based on what's in the public domain at the moment.
My feeling is that the Police were spin a line and have dug in so deep now they can't back up.
The only thing we know is that Hampshire Police are now trying to criminalise parents for wanting the best for their children.
I won't knock them for trying to find the lad whilst they believed he was in danger. But they now have the information that his parents have taken him to another hospital to get treatment which they think is better for him.
I won't knock them for trying to find the lad whilst they believed he was in danger. But they now have the information that his parents have taken him to another hospital to get treatment which they think is better for him.
Derek Smith said:
It would appear that everyone has an idea of what went on, as well as on the efficacy of certain treatments.
Agreed, no-one is in full possession of the facts so cannot draw any conclusions about either the NHS sponsored course of action or the parents.Derek Smith said:
It is a reasonable assumption that the police had some sort of information from the hospital. Should they have reacted to this information or should they, like the various news outlets, have a chat to other people on what they think of proton treatment? It's a difficult one I know.
The discretion of the police is something that has been eroded over the years but in a case like this, where professionals (presumably) say one thing and the lay say another, if the welfare of a child is of concern I'd suggest they should depend on the former until the contrary is proved.
The suggestion from the hospital in the initial stages was that the current treatment would be rendered ineffective if left to the parents. If that was the information given to the police then I can't see this as knee-jerk reaction by them.
The police have no grounds for checking to see if alternative therapies are beneficial. That is beyond their remit. And quite rightly so. Listening to both sides in such matters is something that courts do, over a period of time, and with precedent. Not something advisable if the information is that a child might suffer from lack of treatment.
Again agreed. I am not sure that anyone is disagreeing with the initial police action. Starting a search for the child was a logical and proportionate response, albeit a little concerning that a child who is so at risk was not missed for over 6 hours! When I start to get a little more concerned is when they discover that the child is in Spain and is getting decent medical treatment. At this point what part of the NHS doctors concerns are not met? The child has access to the same level of care, Spain is a First World country with decent medical facilities after all, so the immediate concerns are dealt with why continue with the arrest warrant and extradition, and on what grounds?The discretion of the police is something that has been eroded over the years but in a case like this, where professionals (presumably) say one thing and the lay say another, if the welfare of a child is of concern I'd suggest they should depend on the former until the contrary is proved.
The suggestion from the hospital in the initial stages was that the current treatment would be rendered ineffective if left to the parents. If that was the information given to the police then I can't see this as knee-jerk reaction by them.
The police have no grounds for checking to see if alternative therapies are beneficial. That is beyond their remit. And quite rightly so. Listening to both sides in such matters is something that courts do, over a period of time, and with precedent. Not something advisable if the information is that a child might suffer from lack of treatment.
Derek Smith said:
There are ways for the parents to take the child from the hospital in order to have other treatments and one wonders if they had availed themselves of these.
Well they walked out with their child which they were entirely legally allowed to do. Had they discussed an alternative treatment regime with a doctor? Probably from the evidence supplied. Had they told the doctor that they were looking to get this treatment from another source? Don’t know but there is nothing to say one way or the other. Did the hospital think that the parents posed a risk to the child? Not on the basis of the evidence supplied. They had not applied for any of the court orders they could have and were not even keeping an eye on the child.Derek Smith said:
However, the duties of the police in this matter are fairly clear. If they are told one thing by the hospital they must react to it. It is up to the courts to decide where it goes from there. They should not make medical decisions based on anecdotes and stories. That's the remit of the media outlets.
When it comes to kids there is always an emotional side to it. But the police should, indeed must, act in the child's best interests and they should come to the decision as to what is in the child's best interest in cases like this by ensuring they have information from specialists.
Agreed, but it is the continued action of the police once the facts became known that is being debated here, at least by me.When it comes to kids there is always an emotional side to it. But the police should, indeed must, act in the child's best interests and they should come to the decision as to what is in the child's best interest in cases like this by ensuring they have information from specialists.
Derek Smith said:
One would hope the agreed procedures were followed, and we won't know whether they were until there is a public inquiry and then we won't know either because by then it will be political. Until there is evidence that they were abandoned, and no reason is given, then blaming the police is a knee-jerk reaction. There will be a fairly simple tick-box procedure to go through and if it wasn't then someone will be in trouble. If it was then if this is a massive invasion of the rights of parents then those who impose restrictions on the police will be the ones to blame.
They won't be blamed of course.
I've used the Children Act on occasion and it leaves little scope for value judgments if a doctor gives directions.
Whether the treatment can be delivered effectively via a cigar lighter, the efficacy of the alternative treatment and whether the law is wrong in restricting the rights of parents are not things relevant to the police action in this case. If the information was that the child was at risk then their course of action is quite clear. And it is a requirement.
If they have provided BS evidence for the order, then that is another matter, but we obviously do not know at this stage.
What we do know is that the police started to look for a sick 5 year old child. I think that they acted correctly to try everything in their power to track the child down, including issuing an arrest warrant for the parents if that is what is needed to gain the cooperation of a foreign government department. Unfortunately when they found the parents they also found that the child was getting a good standard of care and that the parent had taken all reasonable, and perhaps a few more, steps to ensure that their child was safe and medically looked after. That this was not the same care that the NHS wanted becomes irrelevant as the primary aim of the Legislation you quoted is the wellbeing of the child not saving face for the doctor who set off the manhunt. At this point the police could easily have said “look folks the child has been found and is getting appropriate medical treatment. The doctors will now argue about it but we are happy no crime has been committed and, therefore, have no further interest.” Instead they have continued with an arrest and have pushed for an extradition hearing. Now if I was a parent being treated as a criminal because I want what’s best for my child then of course I’m going to fight extradition to the country that’s making me a criminal. They won't be blamed of course.
I've used the Children Act on occasion and it leaves little scope for value judgments if a doctor gives directions.
Whether the treatment can be delivered effectively via a cigar lighter, the efficacy of the alternative treatment and whether the law is wrong in restricting the rights of parents are not things relevant to the police action in this case. If the information was that the child was at risk then their course of action is quite clear. And it is a requirement.
If they have provided BS evidence for the order, then that is another matter, but we obviously do not know at this stage.
I’m not sure what the expected outcome was of al this once the child was deemed to be out of risk. It is not even in a high dependency ward and cannot, therefore, be at such a high risk that proceeding like this is a good thing for anyone.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff