Discussion
mph1977 said:
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.
As to passing medical records..... you may have missed it but it was the parents who requested their childs medical records to be passed over so that they could gain a second opinion on a course of alternative treatment.
Or am I mistaken? Does the Hospital have final say in to whom and where they send these records?
ED209 said:
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.
Yep. 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.
I'd like to know the circumstances of the child leaving that the hospital relayed to the police. The police have acted on the situation presented to them.
Damned of you do and damned if you don't. With the absence of the parents then what's the options, hope he's OK and leave it or locate him?
Let us suppose that the police were right to treat the matter as a missing person, potential health risk situation. To move from that to arranging for the parents to be arrested and kept away from their child for three days was a big leap. Yes, the Spanish court ruled on detention, but that process was set in motion by the police reaction, and was hardly unpredictable.
IanA2 said:
It seems clear now that the hospital threatened to apply for a protection order and take the Ashya away if the parents interfered with the hospital's treatment plan.
Were I in the same position as the parents found themselves in, I'm pretty sure I would have acted as they have done.
I think that's the crux of the matter...Were I in the same position as the parents found themselves in, I'm pretty sure I would have acted as they have done.
This has to be one of the worst abuse of authority I have ever seen. Ashya's parents are unable to take him to get the Proton Theraphy treatment unless a court agrees with it. He is now a ward of court.
I believe these kind of powers should only be exercised where there is a disagreement about receiving or not receiving care e.g. refusal of blood transfusion, seperation of conjoined twins e.t.c.
It is a gross abuse of power that PCC have obtained a court order to impose Soton hospital's prefered treatment on someones child.
Despite all the spin by the authorities PBT isnt quackery and if used, the worst outcome will be that one gets the same result as one would with standard radiotheraphy for much more money. This will be the king's loss. Why is Soton hospital and PCC worried about the King's spending their own money?
I believe these kind of powers should only be exercised where there is a disagreement about receiving or not receiving care e.g. refusal of blood transfusion, seperation of conjoined twins e.t.c.
It is a gross abuse of power that PCC have obtained a court order to impose Soton hospital's prefered treatment on someones child.
Despite all the spin by the authorities PBT isnt quackery and if used, the worst outcome will be that one gets the same result as one would with standard radiotheraphy for much more money. This will be the king's loss. Why is Soton hospital and PCC worried about the King's spending their own money?
Breadvan72 said:
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.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?http://www.uhs.nhs.uk/AboutTheTrust/Newsandpublica...
Clueless f
kwits still talking about "consent". Plainly they have learned nothing from their idiocy. Never back down, never apologise, always be right.
Clueless f
kwits still talking about "consent". Plainly they have learned nothing from their idiocy. Never back down, never apologise, always be right.Mermaid said:
Now reunited. Good news. The "Ashya" example will be talked about for years.
along with the McCanns as an example of how the populous believes that if you have means you should beyond reproach ... in both the McCann and King cases if the parents had be doleites they would be seen as dangerous and irresponsible, but as the kings and the McCanns had some means they are victims of an invasive state ...
'without fear or favour' doesn't seem to apply in the PH bubble, fortunately it still applies in Polcing and Health and social care ..
mph1977 said:
along with the McCanns as an example of how the populous believes that if you have means you should beyond reproach ...
in both the McCann and King cases if the parents had be doleites they would be seen as dangerous and irresponsible, but as the kings and the McCanns had some means they are victims of an invasive state ...
'without fear or favour' doesn't seem to apply in the PH bubble, fortunately it still applies in Polcing and Health and social care ..
Not for me. The McCanns were idiots for leaving their kids while they went out for the night. The Kings were doing what they believed was right for their child.in both the McCann and King cases if the parents had be doleites they would be seen as dangerous and irresponsible, but as the kings and the McCanns had some means they are victims of an invasive state ...
'without fear or favour' doesn't seem to apply in the PH bubble, fortunately it still applies in Polcing and Health and social care ..
The statement from University Hospital Southampton dated 2 September 2014 states, in adjacent paragraphs...
"Despite this, the Trust agreed with the family to refer Ashya for proton radiotherapy, as the family had indicated that they could fund it privately.
On 28 August 2014, during unsupervised leave on the Trust’s grounds, Ashya’s family chose to remove him without informing or seeking the consent of medical staff."
The paragraph indicating the hospital's agreement to refer the child for proton therapy has been placed immediately before the paragraph stating that the family removed the child from the hospital without notice.
This juxtaposition conveys the impression that the hospital gave it's consent prior to the child's removal by the family. It seems bizarre, from what has been reported in the media, that this was the actual chronology of events. The impression given by the media is that the decision by the hospital to refer the child didn't occur until after the family was found in Spain. Does anyone know if the juxtaposition of the two paragraphs is correct or, should they be reversed?
"Despite this, the Trust agreed with the family to refer Ashya for proton radiotherapy, as the family had indicated that they could fund it privately.
On 28 August 2014, during unsupervised leave on the Trust’s grounds, Ashya’s family chose to remove him without informing or seeking the consent of medical staff."
The paragraph indicating the hospital's agreement to refer the child for proton therapy has been placed immediately before the paragraph stating that the family removed the child from the hospital without notice.
This juxtaposition conveys the impression that the hospital gave it's consent prior to the child's removal by the family. It seems bizarre, from what has been reported in the media, that this was the actual chronology of events. The impression given by the media is that the decision by the hospital to refer the child didn't occur until after the family was found in Spain. Does anyone know if the juxtaposition of the two paragraphs is correct or, should they be reversed?
johnao said:
The statement from University Hospital Southampton dated 2 September 2014 states, in adjacent paragraphs...
"Despite this, the Trust agreed with the family to refer Ashya for proton radiotherapy, as the family had indicated that they could fund it privately.
On 28 August 2014, during unsupervised leave on the Trust’s grounds, Ashya’s family chose to remove him without informing or seeking the consent of medical staff."
The paragraph indicating the hospital's agreement to refer the child for proton therapy has been placed immediately before the paragraph stating that the family removed the child from the hospital without notice.
This juxtaposition conveys the impression that the hospital gave it's consent prior to the child's removal by the family. It seems bizarre, from what has been reported in the media, that this was the actual chronology of events. The impression given by the media is that the decision by the hospital to refer the child didn't occur until after the family was found in Spain. Does anyone know if the juxtaposition of the two paragraphs is correct or, should they be reversed?
but the Kings' decided to a do a massive flounce rather than wait the few days it would take for a proper referral and clinically safe transfer to be organised ... "Despite this, the Trust agreed with the family to refer Ashya for proton radiotherapy, as the family had indicated that they could fund it privately.
On 28 August 2014, during unsupervised leave on the Trust’s grounds, Ashya’s family chose to remove him without informing or seeking the consent of medical staff."
The paragraph indicating the hospital's agreement to refer the child for proton therapy has been placed immediately before the paragraph stating that the family removed the child from the hospital without notice.
This juxtaposition conveys the impression that the hospital gave it's consent prior to the child's removal by the family. It seems bizarre, from what has been reported in the media, that this was the actual chronology of events. The impression given by the media is that the decision by the hospital to refer the child didn't occur until after the family was found in Spain. Does anyone know if the juxtaposition of the two paragraphs is correct or, should they be reversed?
mph1977 said:
but the Kings' decided to a do a massive flounce rather than wait the few days it would take for a proper referral and clinically safe transfer to be organised ...
I think the point here is quite serious.The NHS team should be well advised legally.
The family are acting on instinct and with some knowledge.
Yet the NHS still allow a press release to go out stating "chose to remove him without informing or seeking the consent of medical staff". When the family did not need consent??
Or am I misreading this?
Timsta said:
mph1977 said:
along with the McCanns as an example of how the populous believes that if you have means you should beyond reproach ...
in both the McCann and King cases if the parents had be doleites they would be seen as dangerous and irresponsible, but as the kings and the McCanns had some means they are victims of an invasive state ...
'without fear or favour' doesn't seem to apply in the PH bubble, forrtunately it still applies in Polcing and Health and social care ..
Not for me. The McCanns were idiots for leaving their kids while they went out for the night. The Kings were doing what they believed was right for their child.in both the McCann and King cases if the parents had be doleites they would be seen as dangerous and irresponsible, but as the kings and the McCanns had some means they are victims of an invasive state ...
'without fear or favour' doesn't seem to apply in the PH bubble, forrtunately it still applies in Polcing and Health and social care ..
StuntmanMike said:
Timsta said:
mph1977 said:
along with the McCanns as an example of how the populous believes that if you have means you should beyond reproach ...
in both the McCann and King cases if the parents had be doleites they would be seen as dangerous and irresponsible, but as the kings and the McCanns had some means they are victims of an invasive state ...
'without fear or favour' doesn't seem to apply in the PH bubble, forrtunately it still applies in Polcing and Health and social care ..
Not for me. The McCanns were idiots for leaving their kids while they went out for the night. The Kings were doing what they believed was right for their child.in both the McCann and King cases if the parents had be doleites they would be seen as dangerous and irresponsible, but as the kings and the McCanns had some means they are victims of an invasive state ...
'without fear or favour' doesn't seem to apply in the PH bubble, forrtunately it still applies in Polcing and Health and social care ..
mph1977 said:
You appear to have a difficulty in understanding, no-one is comparing the McCanns to the Kings, only pointing out that becasue the McCanns and the Kings were 'people of means' , the reaction of the public is far more sympathetic, possibly to the point of overly sympathetic than if they had been doleites ...
I really think that to suggest that the Ashya and his family of attracted near universal sympathy for the position they have found themselves in because they are: "..people of means", is very very far off the mark. I think you should reconsider that position.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff