Discussion
I haven't read the full thread but I haven't seen anyone mention the Judge who issued the arrest warrant?
He/She must have been satisfied that it was lawful and proportionate before issuing it.
The bottom line is the parents created this situation by their actions. In my opinion removing the kid was a stupid thing to do however even after doing that why did they not contact the relevant people and advise them of their intentions? This may have reassured the police/medical staff and prevented what ultimately appears to have been a heavy handed response.
Still I am sure if the police didn't act and the child had died we would have the usual media frenzy about how its all the fault of the police.
He/She must have been satisfied that it was lawful and proportionate before issuing it.
The bottom line is the parents created this situation by their actions. In my opinion removing the kid was a stupid thing to do however even after doing that why did they not contact the relevant people and advise them of their intentions? This may have reassured the police/medical staff and prevented what ultimately appears to have been a heavy handed response.
Still I am sure if the police didn't act and the child had died we would have the usual media frenzy about how its all the fault of the police.
Knowing no more about this than anyone else it appears that if the family had communicated their intentions to the hospital and spoken with the police this would never have happened. No hospital can just allow critically ill children to be taken from wards with no communication or plans for their care or future surely. I'm sure if the family had spoken with the hospital and authorities this would never have happened. Its an awful situation for them but u can't help thinking it could have been avoided
Breadvan72 said:
Investigate and establish that there was no legal impediment to departure from hospital. Ask about the feeding equipment and establish that it can be plugged in to a power supply. Advise hospital that no crime is evident. Return to station for well earned pastry snacks.
If medical experts state there's a high, immediate risk (assuming they did or similar) I don't think any officer is qualified to override that advice. Especially as, in most circumstances, it's probable to be correct. tenpenceshort said:
A curious feature of PH are the people who take a position defending something obviously fubar, then continuing to defend the fubarring party long after said party has admitted fubar, paid out and flagellated.
I don't think this common behaviour is limited to PH. sdc77 said:
Knowing no more about this than anyone else it appears that if the family had communicated their intentions to the hospital and spoken with the police this would never have happened. No hospital can just allow critically ill children to be taken from wards with no communication or plans for their care or future surely. I'm sure if the family had spoken with the hospital and authorities this would never have happened. Its an awful situation for them but u can't help thinking it could have been avoided
not sure, but in passing on one news clip was something about them being threatened with legal action if they did not agree to the hospitals treatment plan....at this point they decided to remove their child.
ie, they felt they were being bullied/railroaded into a treatment plan they did not agree with, and I suspect why the hospital belatedly said they would allow a second opinion (after the event).
my take on all this is the hospital have acted in a very authoritarian/high handed way and just expected the parents to be good little parents and do as their told.
calling the police in and feeding them a line about the child being in imminent risk etc etc etc was just massively disproportionate, and the police should have asked the hospital more questions.
Its interesting now t read this timeline, taken feom the start of the other theead:
http://m.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11440746.LIVE__Hunt_...
http://m.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11440746.LIVE__Hunt_...
tenpenceshort said:
A curious feature of PH are the people who take a position defending something obviously fubar, then continuing to defend the fubarring party long after said party has admitted fubar, paid out and flagellated.
Is winning an argument on the internet really so important?
Spot on, they provide great comedy value. Is winning an argument on the internet really so important?
johnao said:
Derek Smith said:
Did the officers in the case do the best they could for the child? We don't know. No pontificating, no long words, no bringing in lexicographers, no attribution can change that. As politicians become involved, the information we have will become less trustworthy with the spin that will be put on it all. It is probable that we will never know the full reasons for the decision by the doctors. But that's no reason, it appears, not to beat up those tasked with making difficult decisions in short time.
Nobody is criticising the initial decision, and action taken, to locate the boy and his family; even if that involved an EAW. The criticism is of the authorities failure to react immediately and withdraw the EAW when it became clear that the child was not in grave danger and before the the parents were arrested. On 30th August Assistant Chief Constable Chris Shead said... "Although the arrest warrant was "based around neglect", Mr Shead said this did not necessarily mean the parents would be charged with that offence."It purely gives us the power to arrest and then we will be able to speak to them," he said." As soon as the family's circumstances were revealed in Spain it was clear within hours that the police didn't have any grounds... "to speak to them".The parents were located and arrested on 31st August. But, it's taken 48 hours for the authorities... "tasked with taking difficult decisions"... to come to the same conclusion that was patently obvious to everyone else within hours of the family being located on the 31st August. It seems that the spirit of slow, arcane law processes that gave rise to Bleak House are still alive and well in the United Kingdom.
There has been a report on here of arrogant doctors, presumably not pure guesswork and instead alleged by someone who has dealings with the specific ones in charge of the medical care of the child. Or maybe not. There have been outrageous conclusions based on nothing more than attribution. Indeed there is a post below which starts admitting no knowledge of the circumstances and then criticisms being made of the actions.
If it is now accepted that there is insufficient information to form a valid critique of the police/medical actions then I'm happy to leave it, but that, I fear, is a long way away. Posters are still happy to condemn on uninformed guesswork. Prejudice is a powerful moderator of behaviour. Logic isn't able to compete.
I would just point out that some on here are convinced by the video the parents have produced and the assertion of the relatives that they are pristine. The word obvious has been used to describe the one-sided information. The police are limited to what they can say in support of their actions due to a child being involved.
I'm watching Sky news and everyone on it agrees that the video proves something. Farcical. It proves nothing. If anything happened to the child and the police had to justify their actions and said that they produced the video there would be pages of criticisms on here.
This incident is now a vehicle to criticise the police with little chance of being proved wrong because there is no information either way.
But thanks for coming alongside by [apparently] agreeing that there is insufficient information to criticise the initial actions of the police. I assume this also includes the doctors.
ED209 said:
How do you know what questions the police asked or didn't ask?
Even if they asked a million questions, if the answers were of a medical nature how can you expect a police officer not to take them at face value? They were/are police officers after all, not doctors.
Indeed. "I have no expertise or basis in which to question your assessment of a complex illness or risk to the patient you're telling me exists - BTW, how long do the batteries last?" Even if they asked a million questions, if the answers were of a medical nature how can you expect a police officer not to take them at face value? They were/are police officers after all, not doctors.
Derek Smith said:
There has been a report on here of arrogant doctors, presumably not pure guesswork and instead alleged by someone who has dealings with the specific ones in charge of the medical care of the child. Or maybe not.
I'm yet to see where this conclusion has come from other than it being a mentally convenient story to fill the information void. Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 3rd September 09:25
A serious criticism is that this went from 0 to 60 faster than a chavved up stolen Vauxhall. The EAW is designed to nab terrorists and major crims, not to resolve childcare issues. The Chief Constable appears from his own statement to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an arrest warrant is for.
Scuffers said:
I would be very surprised if NICE had anything to do with this case specifically....
I think it's more likely the trusts budget holders or consultant..
Proton Beam Therapy is a specialised service commissioned by NHS England.I think it's more likely the trusts budget holders or consultant..
The Trust and their local commissioners (i.e. the GPs in Southampton) don't hold the budget for this treatment and so aren't in a position to approve it. Though they are responsible for making a referral to a panel (the Proton Clinical Reference Panel) who will make the decision if funding should be approved. To be clear, these panels are made up of clinicians not "managers" before everyone starts getting excited bashing NHS managers
I suspect the parents were told that the hospital didn't have the power to approve the funding for treatment. Poor communication, as sadly, clinicians often don't fully understand the commissioning process and shouldn't be expected to as it is now so absurdly complex following Andrew Lansley's reforms.
Breadvan72 said:
Why assume that options are binary? Kick the doors down or do nothing? How about some fact sensitive and proportionate decisions?
The optuins weren't binary but the King family took the nuclear option following their dramatic flounce. Odd isn't it that people are in thrall of the lawyers on here but the moment someone who actually understands tbe issues gives an opiniin they are a disgrace and public sector scum.
Oh yes i forgot PH is 30 years behind the truth. In the powefcully built PH world only Doleites and slightly odd celebs abuse or neglect children, people of means can do what they like as the police and social services are there for the lower orders.
mph1977 said:
The optuins weren't binary but the King family took the nuclear option following their dramatic flounce.
that's a bit simplistic...it's pretty obvious that the hospital's relationship with the parents had already broken down before they did a runner.
if your kid required treatment, but you're told the very best treatment currently out there is not available to the hospital so not an option, what would you do? shrug your shoulders and go with second best in the full knowledge that the side effects are going to be pretty traumatic brain damage?
the parents had obviously researched proton beam and found the Prague clinic, and would assume told the hospital about this, so the next question is what exactly did the hospital tell them?
mph1977 said:
The optuins weren't binary but the King family took the nuclear option following their dramatic flounce.
Odd isn't it that people are in thrall of the lawyers on here but the moment someone who actually understands tbe issues gives an opiniin they are a disgrace and public sector scum.
I rather like lawyers. Odd isn't it that people are in thrall of the lawyers on here but the moment someone who actually understands tbe issues gives an opiniin they are a disgrace and public sector scum.
Do tell, mph, what is your opinion now that we learn the family made contact with the hospital in Prague many weeks ago and after the family asked for their notes to be shared and a referal given,the UK hospital simply sat on it/them for a week or two and by the looks of things had absolutely no intention of sharing anything with anyone?
AlfaPapa said:
Scuffers said:
I would be very surprised if NICE had anything to do with this case specifically....
I think it's more likely the trusts budget holders or consultant..
Proton Beam Therapy is a specialised service commissioned by NHS England.I think it's more likely the trusts budget holders or consultant..
The Trust and their local commissioners (i.e. the GPs in Southampton) don't hold the budget for this treatment and so aren't in a position to approve it. Though they are responsible for making a referral to a panel (the Proton Clinical Reference Panel) who will make the decision if funding should be approved. To be clear, these panels are made up of clinicians not "managers" before everyone starts getting excited bashing NHS managers
I suspect the parents were told that the hospital didn't have the power to approve the funding for treatment. Poor communication, as sadly, clinicians often don't fully understand the commissioning process and shouldn't be expected to as it is now so absurdly complex following Andrew Lansley's reforms.
A referral can only be made to the panel after an an appropriately specialist clinical oncologist has assessed whether proton beam therapy would benefit the patient.
Given that Ashya was initially refused treatment and that it is now reported that they are having a change of heart, the question that needs to be asked, is was he appropriately assessed in the first place?
TVR1 said:
mph1977 said:
The optuins weren't binary but the King family took the nuclear option following their dramatic flounce.
Odd isn't it that people are in thrall of the lawyers on here but the moment someone who actually understands tbe issues gives an opiniin they are a disgrace and public sector scum.
I rather like lawyers. Odd isn't it that people are in thrall of the lawyers on here but the moment someone who actually understands tbe issues gives an opiniin they are a disgrace and public sector scum.
Do tell, mph, what is your opinion now that we learn the family made contact with the hospital in Prague many weeks ago and after the family asked for their notes to be shared and a referal given,the UK hospital simply sat on it/them for a week or two and by the looks of things had absolutely no intention of sharing anything with anyone?
or would you be happy to see medical records passed to a third party in a foreign country without due diligence taking place ?
this also disregards the cultural issues within the NHS surrounding the behaviour of some consultant secretaries and of medical records depts.
Aside from that there is still the clinical question to be answered of would proton beam therapy be indicated in this specific case.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff