MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Cant believe they have been separated from their child it must be awful for the boy and the parents.
They love their son and are/will doing anything they can for him...If the UK law prosecute them then quite clearly the legal system is sh 1 t...
Rotherham council says it all about our legal/system...WHAT A JOKE
They love their son and are/will doing anything they can for him...If the UK law prosecute them then quite clearly the legal system is sh 1 t...
So if they did the same with faith healing/reiki/homeopathy you'd be ok with that too?
edit:
Rotherham council says it all about our legal/system...WHAT A JOKE
So is your problem that local authorities are too keen to intervene in the affairs of the family or not keen enough?
I suspect we don't know all the facts. I certainly wouldn't trust anyhing the media reports on it... it's one of those emotional/moral stories which the papers love to use to generate polarized opinion, and they certainly won't let facts get in the way of circulation/click-raising editorial
There was an interview with one of the senior Hampshire police - assistant chief constable or something. He pointed out if they'd not instigated the hunt for a seriously ill kid who'd been taken out of hospital by his parents and the kid had died, how would that have looked?
In this case it looks like the parents were very careful to ensure continued feeding and assistance in the hunt for another treatment, but at the time it all started how were the police/hospital to know that?
It's a bit damned if you do, damned if you don't this one.
Also the older brother initially appealed for his safe return, defo something odd going on
Welcome to the world of child protection guys....
From what I understand, the child's parents want a specific treatment for their child, that treatment is not available in the UK. So instead of taking their child, against advice of medical professionals, to somewhere where the treatment is available, they abscond to their holiday home in Spain, then post videos on YouTube and court the tabloids to raise their profile and the plight of the child.
Poor child.
From what I could gather, the NHS will send people abroad for the treatment, if they deem it likely to actually be worth doing for the specific case. They concluded it wasn't, but the parents decided that their Google skills are better than the medical skills of the doctors
I dint get the fact they went to Spain in order to sell a house to fund the treatment. Isn't the Spanish housing market dead in the water? As above I suspect the story isn't yet complete.
The child isn't the parents' property to do what they want with. His welfare has to come first, the parents wishes will, of course be considered.
Cases like this are difficult because the authorities are very limited in what information they can release. So the parents can make all kinds of allegations/claims and the hospital/police/social services can't really respond.
I think theres more to play out on this...
Drive 7-up to southern spain, to sell a house (not an overnight task), with a poorly son.
Then presumably drive 2800km to the Czech Republic with the poorly son, 7-up to get the treatment.
I get the parent bit, but they seem to be logical and considered on the youtube video - but as a plan this seems flawed.
It was reported on R4 PM today that there is an element which can't be reported on yet, information that only the authorities are privy to. I haven't heard this mentioned again through the evening but I think that yes, there is more story to unfold.
There was an interview with one of the senior Hampshire police - assistant chief constable
Chris Shead. Agree with everything he said. The police have a positive duty of care (ie required to take action)- if they hadnt acted and the child had died he/they would be getting a kicking in the press for allowing his death.
Using the European Arrest Warrant is a blunt instrument, but they used what tools and legislation they could to try protect the child.
Set against the context of recent high profile reports of police inaction/negligence...
being in Chris Shead's words "proactive" is to be applauded.
Kid in hospital in foreign country with no one. At least one parent should be released and be there with him. Seems basic human rights to me.
There is a lot of information that the hospital and the police haven't released, as can be seen by the brief and limited statements, so all most people have to go by is the kings you tube videos, and family statements, and a very well orchestrated publicist the dad seems to be.
I feel the police are in the right here, based upon what they have been told
but my suspicion is that the hospital have been less than straight...
From the experience of some close family friends, I can quite believe the scenario of stressed and worried sick parents being met with a stonewall of 'we make all the decisions, you do as we say, and if you dare to question us we'll make your child a ward of court and overrule you'
Plod, High Court and Press seem to have been fed a pack of alarmist and seemingly untrue tales by the usual suspects.
onehundredthidiot - Member
I dint get the fact they went to Spain in order to sell a house to fund the treatment. Isn't the Spanish housing market dead in the water? As above I suspect the story isn't yet complete.
Perhaps if they had the money in place to pay for extra/different treatment they could have got the receiving hospital to speak to the British hospital and organise for his notes to be sent over and for a sensible and coordinated transfer.
From the experience of some close family friends, I can quite believe the scenario of stressed and worried sick parents being met with a stonewall of 'we make all the decisions, you do as we say, and if you dare to question us we'll make your child a ward of court and overrule you'
There are around 120 different types of brain cancer, with different treatments and probably an equal number of different variations of effectiveness to those treatments. As mentioned by an experienced oncologist.
Just because this particular beam treatment has proved effective against certain types of cancer, does not mean that it's effective against all, which is why the specialists who do know what they're talking about say it's not appropriate in this particular case.
Or so I understand from news reports I've heard on the BBC.
Of course, Google may have far more accurate information...
Perhaps if they had the money in place to pay for extra/different treatment they could have got the receiving hospital to speak to the British hospital and organise for his notes to be sent over and for a sensible and coordinated transfer.
This is the bit I don't understand. Has this just been a colossal breakdown in communications?? Sounds like the Kings may have taken their son without informing the hospital staff, which would leave the hospital in a tough position because they would still have a duty of care to that child
my suspicion is that the hospital have been less than straight.
Bingo. The medico's have been twisting things from the beginning and leaving the Police to take the heat.
What about the story that the kid couldn't be fed? That his machines needed the power source changed by an expert only?
There is a panel in the UK that assesses the Proton Beam treatment and whether it would work. Was this case put before them or has the hospital made a decision that it wasn't worth it?
Of course, Google may have far more accurate information
One of the big complaints form the parents is that the doctors were telling them nothing at all and they were at the end of their rope. I can belive that is true.
There is a lot more to come; on both sides.
Had the Kings informed the hospital of their intent to remove their child the hospital would have applied for a 'Protection Order'.
The medico's have been twisting things from the beginning
so far as i've seen they've not so much twisted things as not said much. I'm assuming they're protecting patient confidentiality. It's up to the patient/family how much private information they choose to reveal but the doctor can hardly go out and discuss it with everyone.
Totally agree with the others who think there's a lot more to it than we've heard (not necessarily anything scandalous, likely just stressed and misguided people not being very rational)
ohnohesback - Member
Had the Kings informed the hospital of their intent to remove their child the hospital would have applied for a 'Protection Order'.
And good for the hospital, then it could be reviewed and rushed though and either granted or not. As many have said the medical profession have a duty to the patient not the parent first.
The hospital are protecting the patients confidentiality, if they make all the facts public than they would get in trouble that way, it is a lose lose situation.
The power source would have run out, unless you spend a bit of time googling, and then everyone becomes a expert in whatever subject you have googled.
Also what you see reported may not always be true.
A sad story, the authorities did right in their actions to find the child. It's a shame yes that the patents are in custody, they could leave them with their child. What if the abscond again though, when is the right time to place them into custody. There is likely more behind this story and whatever happens I hope the child recovers well.
The impact this has on healthcare professionals hesitating putting child protection in due to the possibility of bad media coverage and ill feeling from the relatives of the child is just another complication. It's one of the worst things I have to do, awful not knowing what the outcome will do to the family. We rarely ever get feedback and only once did by pure chance as the case was used as an anon example on some training. There was enough details for me to recognise it though and the outcome was excellent for the kids.
They concluded it wasn't, but the parents decided that their Google skills are better than the medical skills of the doctors
From experience, this is sometimes the case. I feel deeply sorry for the parents.
The hospital has now issued a statement 'regretting' the breakdown of its relationship with the family, so it's fairly clear that some of the responsibility for this lies with them, regardless of how challenging this particular family has been to work with. If it gets to the stage where a couple feel they have to remove a child from hospital without notice, there have been failures on both sides.
If they/social services/the police is briefing against the family behind the scenes, saying that there is more to this, I'm afraid it doesn't make them look any better or more professional.
Either way, it's an object lesson in how state powers such as the European Arrest Warrant are put into statute with lots of talk about serious criminality or terrorism, then roundly abused in a very flimsy allegation of child neglect.
And now that the UK authorities know that the child is being well cared for in a Malaga hospital, with a properly qualified medical team in another country offering him a licensed therapy, why are they still relentlessly pursuing extradition, leaving a vulnerable five-year-old without his parents in a foreign hospital room?
As an aside about the proven/unproven nature of proton beam therapy, it is disingenuous to say that it has not been demonstrated as effective against the particular type and variant of tumour that the boy has. The relative rarity of that specific tumour, the limited availability of PBT, added to the ethical problems of conducting trials in seriously-ill child patients means it is highly unlikely that a definitive answer, or anything approaching it, exists. The Southampton team may well have a viewpoint on its likely effectiveness, but it is an opinion, not gospel.
martinhutch - a couple of questions if I may...
Do you think that a public statement "regretting" something means an admission of responsibility for that situation?
Can you tell me where the hospital have briefed against the family? (genuine question)
Can we not find a better benchmark of objective truth than the bible? Even a lot of practicing Christians would prefer something more scientific to judge their medicine against.
Do you think that a public statement "regretting" something means an admission of responsibility for that situation?
As close as you'll get to partial admission, yes, IMO of course
Can you tell me where the hospital have briefed against the family? (genuine question)
Not what I said. Someone has, hence the R4 today programme implication that there is 'more to the story than what has been revealed'. Don't know which particular agency or authority has done this, though.
Can we not find a better benchmark of objective truth than the bible? Even a lot of practicing Christians would prefer something more scientific to judge their medicine against.
Turn of phrase. I'm sure you can cope.
As close as you'll get to partial admission
Well it could equally be as close as you'll get to them publicly criticising the family for not talking to them.
The Southampton team may well have a viewpoint on its likely effectiveness, but it is an opinion, not gospel.
Southampton hospital is a centre of excellence for cancer treatment and considered at the forefront of care (FWIW my mother was treated for cancer there); it's not like it's some random place.
Having watched the video his dad put out though, it's clear there was a massive breakdown in the relationship between the parents and the doctors. I doubt either party comes out of that terribly well.
Well it could equally be as close as you'll get to them publicly criticising the family for not talking to them.
That would be 'disappointed' in NHS PR statement speak. I worked in NHS PR for a couple of disappointing years...
'Regret' is code for 'maybe we we could have done more, but it's not all our fault'.
'Sorry' and 'Apologise' are generally reserved for a response to a damning public inquiry report or court judgement. 🙂
Gross speculation until the exact story is released. However, IMO any hospital which refuses to allow access to a 5 year old son should be utterly ashamed of themselves and the UK authorities should be equally ashamed for having two loving parents locked up in a Spanish prison whilst there very ill, very afraid son is sitting in a foreign hospital bed on his own. The world has gone bonkers.
It is evident that they are trying to help him, that he is not in danger and that they have his wellbeing as their no.1 priority.
Southampton hospital is a centre of excellence for cancer treatment and considered at the forefront of care
But seemingly not in family relations.
It is evident that they are trying to help him, that he is not in danger and that they have his wellbeing as their no.1 priority.
Not saying this is not correct, but where do you draw a line? There are loads of cases where kids are removed from treatment because the parents don't want them to have it for some reason (religious for example). Should those kids be left in the good care of their parents who genuinely want the best for their kid but their definition/understanding of "best" differs from those of the doctors. In cases like that is removing the child from the parents care acceptable or do we just say "Hey, the kid died, but the parents were trying their best"?
Each case is different, but upon face value the parents have not gone into hiding, have all the feeding equipment required, have explained the motives and are actively persuing to significantly cripple themselves financially to provide in their opinion a better chance of survival for their child - not exactly lock them up and throw away the key material is it?
The father has pretty much had to give up everything to do what he needs to do for the life of his son. Anyone would do the same. His reward, being locked away in a spanish prison away from a 5 year old. FFS, just plain wrong no matter which way you look at it.
Slightly off-topic but regarding the European Arrest Warrant; many countries have an absolute prosecution policy, where all reported crimes are investigated/prosecuted. In the UK we apply a Public Interest test and many cases fail this (effectively "what good can come from this prosecution?").
I've known foreign nationals, settled, living and working here legally, detained on a EAW to be sent home in order to be questioned (not charged) about low value theft allegations that would end up with a police caution (not in public interest to send it to court its so trivial) if it occurred (and they were found guilty) here.
The idea its an anti terror/organized crime tool is far from the truth. If you're Polish and forgot to give your neighbor his hedge trimmer back 5 years ago, expect a knock at the door.
As far as I can see, there is no longer any meaningful evidence that an offence under UK law has been committed, no prospect of conviction, and yet the extradition process rumbles on, the parents remain in jail hundreds of miles away from their isolated, presumably confused, five-year-old son.
Hopefully the Spanish legal system will get a move on, get them release, and get them back to his bedside, supervised if necessary.
The father has pretty much had to give up everything to do what he needs to do for the life of his son.
Not quite. He's "pretty much had to give up everything" to do what he THINKS he needs to do. It's not the same as it being true though (although it might be, I'm not a doctor)
He's "pretty much had to give up everything" to do what he THINKS he needs to do
Since the alternative being offered by the Doctors in England seems to have been palliative care, I reckon most parents would be desperate enough to think anything was better than nothing!
Radio 5 had a call in on this subject yesterday. I'm not for a minute saying that all is known in this case but what struck me was caller after caller talking about brain tumours in relatives and their experiences with NHS consultants refusing to countenance PBT. I'm not talking about considered decisions based on facts of whether or not each case was appropriate for PBT but simply that the consultants refused to even discuss the option.
That's arrogance of the highest order and if it was my child I'd want my kid to at least be assessed by an expert clinic that offers PBT. Google may not provide all the answers but it can be brilliant for at least generating some questions about options that 'may' be available. Doctors are not perfect and have no right to refuse to discuss options like that.
Having seen an interview with one of the consultants at Southampton, I can very well believe how frustrated the parents were. He almost 'boasted' that their care would have provided a 70-80% chance of the child surviving for another 6 months!! Either that or a 'chance' that their child could live for many many years - its not a hard choice is it?
Very sad story all round, and currently situation (with the little lad in hospital on his own) is appalling.
However, regardless of their 'good intentions' bundling a seriously ill 5 year old child into a car (8 days after having brain surgery) and driving him across Europe is at best ill conceived, and at worst, downright reckless and stupid.
There is a lot more to this story than we're being told, and I don't think we'll ever find out what led to this point.
I'm not really sure what the answer is - however I don't feel that the parents are currently able to make sound and balanced judgments about their child's treatment, and are likely to leg it, probably to Eastern Europe in search of a miracle cure.
I do understand how they feel - my younger brother died from cancer last year, and there were times when we were desperately searching the internet looking for a magic bullet - I guess desperation drives you to do crazy things..
Oddly, [url= http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29002221 ]these stats from the BBC[/url] indicates that the majority of referrals for PBT end up with that treatment. It would be nice if the doctors would explain their reasoning for not wanting to refer the kid for PBT as I'm sure it's not just on a whim
They won't release it though - they aren't allowed to. It is lose-lose for the hospital. The parents can say whatever they like but they cannot respond due to patient confidentiality.
They can't really, confidentiality and all that.
Possible catch-22 though. If the NHS refers, the NHS pays. So if you agree to the referral on the basis that the parents pay, they can turn around and say 'why wouldn't you reimburse us?'.
Obviously I'd hate to think that budgetary constraints at the trust or commissioning group would influence a clinical decision, but sadly, the trust may be looking for strong evidence of likely benefit (which may not be available for this tumour type in children) before getting the cheque book out.
What a mess of a story. Both the parents, the police and the hospital seem to have communicated badly and it's difficult to establish the facts.
I've been out of radiotherapy research for 20yrs (following the field very much at a distance) and I was surprised in some ways and not in others that we still don't have a proton beam therapy unit in the UK. I went to meetings +20yrs ago when it was discussed that we should have a PBT and it wasn't a new discussion then. Hence I'm more disappointed than anything else that we haven't got one yet.
However for almost all brain tumours PBT is the best treatment and the NHS line of "the best treatment" the SGH are giving out is very much a partial truth. They might be giving the best treatment they have available but it's not the best treatment. I suspect that the boy here didn't even get Gamma Knife treatment. Basically radiotherapy is very much underfunded in the UK.
Christ. Didn't realise PBT had been around for that long! What's the evidence like on that for individual tumour types in paediatrics now?
Oddly, these stats from the BBC indicates that the majority of referrals for PBT end up with that treatment. It would be nice if the doctors would explain their reasoning for not wanting to refer the kid for PBT as I'm sure it's not just on a whim
Probably because they know quite a lot about the therapy and whether it will work or not? If the Dr thinks it will work then they refer them to the Consultant/comittie/whoever who then agrees as presumably there's a reasnoble ammount of evidence which both Dr's have access too and are unlikey to make different decisions? It's probably not quite as simple as "if this then that" but that's probably how it worked?
Possible catch-22 though. If the NHS refers, the NHS pays. So if you agree to the referral on the basis that the parents pay, they can turn around and say 'why wouldn't you reimburse us?'.Obviously I'd hate to think that budgetary constraints at the trust or commissioning group would influence a clinical decision, but sadly, the trust may be looking for strong evidence of likely benefit (which may not be available for this tumour type in children) before getting the cheque book out.
As it's the NHS my guess it's more likely simply under resourced, do you give the treatement slot to the patient whos condition may not improve from it, or the other patient who's condition is known to be treatable by it?
PBT has been around for about 35yrs as a treatment, initially for tumours of the eye (usually retinoblastoma). The trouble is that you need a cyclotron (always sounds like a sci-fi machine every time I hear it!) and these are +£100M whereas linear accelerators for Gamma Xray are much cheaper (relatively). It's not that PBT doesn't work better than Xrays it's just whether it's cost effective to use them.
Having 5 family members who are Doctors / Surgeons both in the UK and the US I obviously make this statement very carefully...but...Doctors don't always necessarily know what is right, they have to make decisions based on risk assessments, budgetary constraints as well as advice from central governing bodies.
I have two very close to home examples where in the first the doctors told the parents their newborn would not live to be 1 year old and with the work, research and care the parents have put in on their own i attended the childs 13th Birthday party in February and in the other case a relative with an advanced cancer was again given weeks to live but with a different form of treatment as well as some more "normal" lifestyle changes is fit and healthy 4.5 years later.
When you go through these things and have access to such a multitude of information, trials and studies from across the world, you will realise that you are more empowered than you think to question what is potentially better for your loved ones.
We will never know all the facts here, for reasons discussed above. The sad fact is that any health system cannot afford to pay for every possible treatment for every patient.
There needs to be a clear and transparent process for deciding who gets what, and a rational debate about how much "we" are prepared to pay into the NHS to deliver services.
And pray we never end up facing the desperate choices that this poor family appear to have done.
The latest update from the hospital: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11446970.Hospital_were_willing_to_support_Ashya_s_transfer/?ref=var_0
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29040124
And the back pedalling begins.
What back pedalling is that then?
Having just read through it seem like there isn't much back pedalling on there more just stating some facts. Now the kid is in hospital and they know where he is there is no need to find him as urgently.
Seems someone else might need to back-pedal now. As always expected by the sensible folks there's far more to the story than first released and sure there'll be more yet.
Having read that, I'm not sure she knows any more about the exact circumstances than any other journalist. Unless the authorities have been briefing off the record again (naughty).
But what's this? She can't resist a Jehovah's dig:
"But the fact that his parents belong to a millennial religious cult – members believe that the end of the world is imminent and only 144,000 human beings will be saved – suggests that they might not be entirely open to rational argument."
Pretty much any religious belief fits into that line, does it not? If you believe in any superhuman deity, you can't be expected to behave rationally in any part of your life...
Then you look at the author's biog, expecting her to be at least a medical journo, and all becomes clear:
"Known for her human rights activism and writing on subjects such as atheism and feminism, Joan Smith is a columnist, critic and novelist. An Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society."
Not sure all is as it seems here...
I think the story in the Independent is starting to scratch the surface of the other side.
Found this from a spanish paper: http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2014/09/03/costa-friends-reveal-ashya-king-was-diagnosed-in-spain-where-his-family-had-previously-lived-for-years/
Not sure all is as it seems here...
Yup I agree which I mentioned myself but it's almost certainly not the way the media were trying to tell us at first.
There was a discussion pointing out the proton beam was seized on because it is precisely targeted and does not damage surrounding areas hence its frequent use on cancer in the eyes . But it this child's case given the child's cancer the need is to carpet bomb a whole area hence the proton beam would be counter productive or massively complicated with enhanced risk.