Ashya King’s parents have reduced his long term survival by 30%
I don't know how any report could conclude this, because the individual prognosis is not an average whatsoever and individuals often vary around that enormously.
I do not agree with this assessment of the AK debacle at all. First off, had the UK actually had proton beam therapy to offer the child, then there wouldn't have been a delay in treatment which may have compromised long-term survival, because both options would have been on the table from the start. The NHS is now hurrying to provide it, mindful that it is shameful other countries in Europe have it and use it for that type of tumour as it minimizes collateral brain damage. We come really low down the table for European survival rates and time to diagnosis and time to treatment is undoubtedly behind that. Second, what was being offered, if I understand correctly was whole brain radiotherapy (the kind that causes cognitive impairment, short term memory loss and if repeated a lot, dementia). It's not wrong to seek a second opinion or consider alternatives when the side effects may damage a child's brain for life- perhaps they then decided better to compromise long-term survival for short-term preservation of function given proton beam therapy is quite new (so I don't see how you can categorically state the 30% less likely given presumably we don't have massive clinical trials which deny children radiotherapy as a control group, or compare long-term proton beam outcomes).
Finally- perhaps over time they decided chemo was the right course of action but again, many people do decide not to go for this option of intense illness against future survival. That's the type of very difficult decision making that needs to be weighed up which is why calling social services/getting a European warrant is totally inappropriate as a way to handle such cases.
The report that states survival etc- well, I read (and sometimes write) reports like this all the time that back to the hilt the current state of play. But whole brain radiotherapy and chemo is intensely crude and very damaging as a therapy, and seeking alternatives which are more targeted is not, of itself, a crazy thing to do.
The fact that the child is back at school and hasn't suffered significant brain damage and is in remission three years later (which is simply amazing for a very aggressive tumour) kind of proves the parents' point IMO. I would have sought such options if I had a child with similar prognosis, I wouldn't just crack on and do the first thing the NHS suggested because they are not actually always world experts (depending who your local consultant is) and they don't have all the full range of newer technologies open to them. Having looked at the evidence for a child, I probably would go ahead with chemo, which I think they eventually did, but am not sure about that.
In this instance (AE), I do agree that enough experts (including international ones) have been consulted and the parents are in complete denial, so it is a different case.