Discussion
Well, I've experience of working within the legal system and with the media and I've learnt several things, the main one being; you can't trust either. There's so much spin and arse covering involved in this his now, you'll never get down to brass tacks.
At the end of the day, unless the parents possess a history of abuse or are official suspects for the aforementioned, then it appears on the face of it, the state interfering in private and family life. However, you'll never know the truth as the HRA also protects those previously guilty of such offences and the press have a history of sensationalising; or; it may be a result them having their wings clipped following the Mitchell affair.
Who do you believe? Either way, most parents would do the best thing for their child, regardless of of what laws they would need to break in the process.
At the end of the day, unless the parents possess a history of abuse or are official suspects for the aforementioned, then it appears on the face of it, the state interfering in private and family life. However, you'll never know the truth as the HRA also protects those previously guilty of such offences and the press have a history of sensationalising; or; it may be a result them having their wings clipped following the Mitchell affair.
Who do you believe? Either way, most parents would do the best thing for their child, regardless of of what laws they would need to break in the process.
Scuffers said:
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...
as has been pointed out despite the huge Flounce from the Parents when the Doctors didn't do what the parents wanted immediately m despite the fact the parents resfused a Second opinion , despite the fact did not engage with the clinicians or the hospital management ... 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...
if the parents had not been of means and seemingly sensible until the point of their massive flounce child protection proceeding may have all ready have been instituted and even if not 'ward leave' restricted far more than it was
when patients are allowed 'ward leave' clearing off a few hours to go to the park / shops / randoming milling aobut is typicla and normal
when patients do not return in a typical time frame then the police are involved as a matter of routine as the Hospitals and police would be pilloried if they hadn;t and a patient was found in a collapsed state ...
Most people seem to be taking the view the parents are all sweet and light......
How do we know they didn't kick up a massive fuss when they were offered proton treatment? How do we knwo the medical staff were not totally reasonabe? They also took the child without notice.
It could be ages before geezer sells his house and fudns the treatment - can they sustain the interim treatment for that long.
Just playing devils advocate but having worked in a public sector role its amazing how peopel can change and twist their story...
Asp oster above says you have to be wary of trusting anyone.
How do we know they didn't kick up a massive fuss when they were offered proton treatment? How do we knwo the medical staff were not totally reasonabe? They also took the child without notice.
It could be ages before geezer sells his house and fudns the treatment - can they sustain the interim treatment for that long.
Just playing devils advocate but having worked in a public sector role its amazing how peopel can change and twist their story...
Asp oster above says you have to be wary of trusting anyone.
Mojooo said:
Most people seem to be taking the view the parents are all sweet and light......
How do we know they didn't kick up a massive fuss when they were offered proton treatment? How do we knwo the medical staff were not totally reasonabe? They also took the child without notice.
Maybe they made a fuss, the medical staff were totally reasonable and it seems certain they took the child without notice. That's no reason to hold them away from him behind lock and key.How do we know they didn't kick up a massive fuss when they were offered proton treatment? How do we knwo the medical staff were not totally reasonabe? They also took the child without notice.
Mojooo said:
It could be ages before geezer sells his house and fudns the treatment - can they sustain the interim treatment for that long.
The Czech team released a statement saying payment can wait.Mojooo said:
Just playing devils advocate but having worked in a public sector role its amazing how peopel can change and twist their story...
Asp oster above says you have to be wary of trusting anyone.
Sure. I just can't see what they even might have done to warrant this though.Asp oster above says you have to be wary of trusting anyone.
For the sake of argument, I am prepared to assume -
(1) that the doctors are wonderful;
(2) that the parents are a right pain;
(3) that rubbing sparkly magic unicorn dust on your toes would be more effective than proton therapy.
Even making those assumptions, the pursuit of the parents and their incarceration are disgraceful. Freedom includes the freedom to be an awkward sod. Those who talk in terms of a patient being "allowed" ward leave reveal what looks to me like a worryingly authoritarian mindset.
(1) that the doctors are wonderful;
(2) that the parents are a right pain;
(3) that rubbing sparkly magic unicorn dust on your toes would be more effective than proton therapy.
Even making those assumptions, the pursuit of the parents and their incarceration are disgraceful. Freedom includes the freedom to be an awkward sod. Those who talk in terms of a patient being "allowed" ward leave reveal what looks to me like a worryingly authoritarian mindset.
Breadvan72 said:
For the sake of argument, I am prepared to assume -
It rather looks as though you've made up your mind regardless of any argument.Breadvan72 said:
Even making those assumptions, the pursuit of the parents and their incarceration are disgraceful. Freedom includes the freedom to be an awkward sod. Those who talk in terms of a patient being "allowed" ward leave reveal what looks to me like a worryingly authoritarian mindset.
Ward leave = freedom to physically leave the ward to which you've been admitted, but from which you've not (yet) been discharged as a patient.Does freedom to be an awkward sod include freedom to put others at risk, hypothetical or otherwise?
No, but here there is no evidence that the child was placed at risk.
Your comment about ward leave suggests that you believe that hospitals have some sort of coercive power to detain patients and that if a patient is not discharged he/she is acting unlawfully by leaving hospital. That is to me a worrying point of view. Hospitals have limited and clearly defined powers to detain mental patients. Those are not in play here.
If the facts change, I will change my mind, but the reported facts available at present all point one way. This was a gross over reaction by arrogant and authoritarian minded public bodies. It has led to the parents being taken from their child and thrown in jail. If that isn't a disgrace, it's hard to see what is.
Your comment about ward leave suggests that you believe that hospitals have some sort of coercive power to detain patients and that if a patient is not discharged he/she is acting unlawfully by leaving hospital. That is to me a worrying point of view. Hospitals have limited and clearly defined powers to detain mental patients. Those are not in play here.
If the facts change, I will change my mind, but the reported facts available at present all point one way. This was a gross over reaction by arrogant and authoritarian minded public bodies. It has led to the parents being taken from their child and thrown in jail. If that isn't a disgrace, it's hard to see what is.
Ashya King: Case under 'immediate review' by CPS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29026339
is this the start of some official backpedaling?
has somebody there suddenly realised just what a mess this is?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29026339
is this the start of some official backpedaling?
has somebody there suddenly realised just what a mess this is?
Breadvan72 said:
Your comment about ward leave suggests that you believe that hospitals have some sort of coercive power to detain patients and that if a patient is not discharged he/she is acting unlawfully by leaving hospital.
You're putting your own interpretation on the word "leave" and making assumptions as a result - 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.
RogueTrooper said:
You're putting your own interpretation on the word "leave" and making assumptions as a result - 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.
experienced this a few years back when trying to get my other half out of hospital (in a disgracefully dirty ward and catching a hospital acquired infection after an emergency operation).It's nothing to do with detention or acting unlawfully.
to put it bluntly, they started acting like the prison service, almost go to lawyers at dawn before they backed down.
they seem to have the mentality that they are always right even when patently they are wrong, and you as a patient (or relative) have no say in the matter.
If the medical advice is that there is serious risk to the child then the police will act on that and treat them as a high-risk missing person. I don't think anyone disagrees with that and if they do then that they have little concept of risk and response.
It's the EAW and detention that requires further explanation given the circumstances in which ones are issued.
It's the EAW and detention that requires further explanation given the circumstances in which ones are issued.
RogueTrooper said:
Breadvan72 said:
Your comment about ward leave suggests that you believe that hospitals have some sort of coercive power to detain patients and that if a patient is not discharged he/she is acting unlawfully by leaving hospital.
You're putting your own interpretation on the word "leave" and making assumptions as a result - 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.
The CPS may indeed be tasked with a back pedaling exercise. The police so over played their hand that now it is hard for them to back down without looking stupid. Modern public bodies are sadly obsessed with reputation and face saving (a bit odd, as they have no legally protectable reputations).
La Liga said:
If the medical advice there is serious risk to the child then the police will act on that and treat them as a high-risk missing person. I don't think anyone disagrees with that and if they do then that they have little concept of risk and response.
yes right up to the point that in this case, no actual 'treatment' was actually due/in plan for him.It would appear the 'argument' was over what options were being offered, and if what's being reported is correct, they were only being offered chemo,
the parents are fully aware of the likely outcome of this on their son (significant permanent brain damage etc) and wanted them to look at sending him overseas for proton beam as the collateral damage from this is significantly reduced.
going on what the hospital have now said, they are now suggesting a second opinion may be available - begs the question what was said in the first place?
La Liga said:
It's the EAW and detention that needs questions answering.
Very much so, not just because of this case, but because it flies in the face of british justice.Breadvan72 said:
For the sake of argument, I am prepared to assume -
(1) that the doctors are wonderful;
(2) that the parents are a right pain;
(3) that rubbing sparkly magic unicorn dust on your toes would be more effective than proton therapy.
Even making those assumptions, the pursuit of the parents and their incarceration are disgraceful. Freedom includes the freedom to be an awkward sod. Those who talk in terms of a patient being "allowed" ward leave reveal what looks to me like a worryingly authoritarian mindset.
Agreed. There is nothing stopping parents discharding their kids from a hospital. Treatment on the NHS is a service and you consent to treatment, its not something thats forced on you.(1) that the doctors are wonderful;
(2) that the parents are a right pain;
(3) that rubbing sparkly magic unicorn dust on your toes would be more effective than proton therapy.
Even making those assumptions, the pursuit of the parents and their incarceration are disgraceful. Freedom includes the freedom to be an awkward sod. Those who talk in terms of a patient being "allowed" ward leave reveal what looks to me like a worryingly authoritarian mindset.
The only thing that seems to have happened here is that the parents wanted to try an different treatment, and the doctors have threatened them. The parents have taken their child to get that treatment, and the full weight of the state has been unleashed on them.
These people are not criminals, so why are the now in jail fighting extradition?
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.
we seem to be living in an age where the various authorities have unprecedented powers to control what we can and cannot do, spy on us, etc. is this any wonder?one look at what kind of mess can happen like Rotherham should be enough for the government to wind back just how many powers are actually legitimate in a free democracy.
and, right on que...
Nick Clegg calls for Ashya King family to be reunited
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-09-02/nick-cle...
maybe somebody should remind him of his blanket support for the EAW?
Nick Clegg calls for Ashya King family to be reunited
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-09-02/nick-cle...
maybe somebody should remind him of his blanket support for the EAW?
Breadvan72 said:
The efficacy of the proton treatment isn't the issue. I am no fan of try any old thing medicine, but the issue here is a civil liberties issue. The parents had a difference of opinion with the medics and this has led to an Interpol hunt and the parents being imprisoned. That is a disgrace.
No, come on you are losing your normal razor sharp focus. They haven't been imprisoned for a difference of opinion, it is because they fled abroad, in secret, endangering the child and are refusing to return and continue treatment. If they did return with him they would not be imprisoned. They have endaged him and they are absolutely responsible for the situation they are in.
The Human Rights of the child trump the civil liberties of the parent to bloody minded.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff