To be shocked that charges have been dropped and Cameron is tweeting happiness about Ayasha case

[Albertatata]

Shocked generally at the way this has been reported. So distrustful of both the medics and police when at the end of the day the parents removed their ill child, took them to a different country without any medical handover, starting an international search and now David Cameron is tweeting that he is relieved charges aren't being brought!

It is undoubtfully a terrible terrible situation but there is a way to behave and this isn't it. Fine if you want to sell your house and access medical care in another country do it, but do it with the guidance and cooperation of the medical team looking after him. Don't bloody run off with him to another country & not tell anyone.

Prepared to be flamed but the fact of the matter is that we have only heard the families side of things and medical team are limited by confidentially.

(Got my word endings mixed up a bit, there...)

But we, as a society, recognize that children need more protection than adults.

And we give this responsibility to their parents

I accept religion may wish to exclude certain treatments.
What I do not accept is if those of a particular religion are regarded as more "dangerous" to their children and less worthy of being consulted.
There seems to be prejudice in some quarters against JWs, seen on this thread too.

I also believe information about religious affiliation is subject to the Data Protection Act. Did a professional break this ?

Some of the most balanced coverage is in fact in the local paper
www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11446970.Hospital_were_willing_to_support_Ashya_s_transfer/

because the Kings are local,
the hospital managers who made the decisions are local
the nurses treating the child are local

from the coverage round here, the most scathing comments are for the Police who did not stop them getting off the ferry at Cherbourg
wit the assumption that they wanted a mini break in spain

What I do not accept is if those of a particular religion are regarded as more "dangerous" to their children and less worthy of being consulted.

You've missed the bit about where there's an established track record of some (not all) JWs refusing treatment on faith grounds for their children? Which has been the subject of court decisions?

I've already said that these particular parents don't seem to have done this (and nobody at all has said they are "less worthy of being consulted", ffs), but if the hospital didn't at least consider this as a factor when trying to work out why the parents had done a runner - even if only then to dismiss it - then they'd be negligent.

How is that balanced in any way, Talkin? It's simply quoting a spokesperson for SGH, who of course is going to put a positive spin on the hospital's role in the situation.

I'm sure the hospital staff were as co-operative, open to suggestion and willing to support the family as the spokesperson maintains.

MrsRuff
Look at ALL of the articles the paper has
www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/

as all of the people actually involved live in the area, its a lot more balanced than most of the press and politicians

I haven't missed the point about some religions having "track records"
It is exactly what I mean by prejudice, or profiling.

It's not acceptable for police to do mote stop & searches or raids, based on colour or religion. Similarly, it is not acceptable for medical / care professionals to decide parents wino are JWs or Muslims are inherently more dangerous to their children.

In this case, religion was totally irrelevant: the parents wanted a treatment that they thought would give better outcomes for the child's body, not his soul.
So why publicise their religion unless to prejudice people ?

I was in France when the story broke out. Do you know what the news said? That these parents had taken their child away from life saving treatment and that the child only had hours to live as they had taken no life saving drugs for him nor food.
This is what the police in effect said to allow for a European search for the family.
Does it have anything to do with the reality? NO because the grounds for stopping them were so shaky they had to invent new ones.

How on earth it's ok to accept that if you don't follow what your consultant says then your life is in the line, I don't know.
I've seen it happening btw. From comments from midwife saying that they wouldn't make an of effort for X patient because she went against consultant advice. To someone with a severe debilitating induction accepting treatment that he knew would be detrimental To him because otherwise he wouldn't get any treatment at all as the consultant would get shitty about it.

Maybe what we need to give the right to decide what one should do about their own health and remind consultant that they can only advise peoe what to do. Not force them.

YY Big re prejudice. This is another really awful side to that story.

This thread just goes to show why you can never have a reasonable discussion about subjects like these. I agree with the posters who have pointed out that medulloblastomas can be treated with protons but in advanced cases the whole brain and spinal cord need to be treated and so it doesn't matter about the energy deposition of protons.

I am not a doctor and I have not seen his notes but I do know that the mechanism for sending patients abroad for protons does work and I'm sure if it would benefit this child he would have been put forward by his medical team. What benefit is it to them that he doesn't have the best treatment? Do people really believe that people working in hospitals don't care? I have worked with plenty of treatment radiographers who have cried over their patients and I have cried over some of mine when I know I cannot help them. If we could we would. We don't do this job for fun you know, we're in it to cure people.

I do know about protons, thanks. Let's hope I do as my centre is one of the two installing protons to start treatment in 2018. We will treat medulloblastomas as well as many other sites but that's not to say the treatment will be better than x-rays in all cases. There are so many assumptions on here which drives me bats.

By the way, this What Happy has posted is exactly the problem with the nhs and new treatments. They don't know about the stuff they don't provide but seem to be all too happy to pontificate about it! is as bad as assuming patients know nothing. You can't tar all people from the same profession with the same brush. We're individuals.

BigChocFrenzy a prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience.

If you check whether the decisions particular parents are making is based on their faith, a faith that has demonstrably caused other parents of the same faith to want to take medical decisions that are not in the best interest of their children, decisions based on the what they perceive as the requirements of that faith, then your checking is based on reason and experience.

Ergo not prejudice.

Wow, MrsDeVere, you are reaching a bit there. Maybe respond to what is said here, rather than what you imagined is said?

Happy was right - there's no point in trying to have a reasonable discussion about this here, which is a real pity. Insults, misreadings (whether intentional or not) and some really dodgy projecting of other posters' own assumptions, all over this thread.

Maryz
The court orders have sadly been needed to ensure treatment for JW children in the past against the wishes of parents

Soton General clearly had a bad communication breakdown with the family - its hitting the fan up there at the moment already

BUT
the bit I still do not get is why they were not stopped as they got off the ferry by the police ?

Well 'Dave' is all for patient choice....

Meanwhile back in the UK 1400 groomed Rotheram children continue without justice :(

I don't know much about Anglicanism, MrsDeVere.

I have repeatedly said - and you have repeatedly ignored me saying - that in this case it has been shown that the parents in this case agreed to medical care, including surgery. Other parents have not. I have never said (though you clearly wish I had) that you should not go in with an open mind, and I have not mentioned race, colour or sexuality at all - you have.

If you persist in attributing things to me that I have not said, MrsDeVere, the only conclusion I can reach is that you are wilfully misreading, and that there's no point in continuing this discussion.

annie I disagree with you. It is well known that not everyone follows a religion the same way or will out the same emphasis on things. It would be like saying that all Muslims are ready to do some suicides bombings based on our experience of some Muslims doing so.
Generalisation on that sort of subject IS prejudice and not based on reason...

Also agree with MrsDeVere.