|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Who knows best - the state or the parents?
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: To which the next response has been to suggest that the child's state is such that his departure from the hospital had to be treated as a grave, immediately life-threatening emergency.
Which it wasn't. The immediate need for sustenance was taken care of by the feeding tube. While it's true that he needs cancer treatment reasonably soon, it's simply NOT true that the lack of cancer treatment constituted the emergency. Last I heard, he still isn't getting cancer treatment.
We've been arguing about this now for almost as long as the period of Ashya's disappearance (maybe longer?!), and what's actually happened? The most recent report I've seen says he could be given chemotherapy and radiotherapy in Spain, but he hasn't yet. No-one's seen fit to declare that if he doesn't get cancer treatment this very second, he will die.
[ 04. September 2014, 22:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I might as well also add, while I'm here munching on breakfast, how striking it's been that the argument 'against' the proton beam therapy never seems to have risen any higher than "it's more expensive and it won't improve his chances".
Fine. Are those reasons for him not to have it? No.
They may well be reasons why any one of us would decided not to go for that treatment option. But given that the patient isn't us or our child, that's not a relevant question. It's a valid, effective treatment option - even if it isn't more effective, it's still a treatment.
Once that's established, it doesn't matter a damn whether it's the treatment that I'd choose or you'd choose or a doctor in Southampton would choose. The wisdom of the choice from our perspective is irrelevant. So long as it's a medically reasonable treatment, his parents have fulfilled their obligations to look after their child.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
orfeo:
The doctor/patient relationship in the case of hospital treatment is ended by the patient being discharged, usually with the agreement of the doctor and often with a plan for continuing medical care. When a patient chooses to leave against medical advice they are asked to sign a discharge form confirming this. If a child is discharged by parents against medical advice and the hospital believes this places the child in danger then there is a duty to take action, as quoted above, which may lead to parents being prevented from removing the child.
All the parent does is to initiate the doctor/patient relationship for the child. Parents are parties to the relationship but they are not the patient and the doctor's first duty is to the patient. Changing a GP doesn't alter anything - it would just move the relationship to a different doctor.
It's the same with a school. Parents can choose a school and the school then has a duty of care to the child. Parents do not control the teacher/pupil relationship.
If a hospital or a school fails in its duty of care and a child suffers injury as a result then the child can sue for damages, either independently when they reach 18 or via a 'next friend', who is often a parent.
[ 04. September 2014, 23:14: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
All the parent does is to initiate the doctor/patient relationship for the child. Parents are parties to the relationship but they are not the patient and the doctor's first duty is to the patient. Changing a GP doesn't alter anything - it would just move the relationship to a different doctor.
It's the same with a school. Parents can choose a school and the school then has a duty of care to the child. Parents do not control the teacher/pupil relationship.
Sorry, but both of these statements just tell me you don't understand what a doctor/patient relationship or a teacher/pupil relationship is. Indeed, it tells me you're not thinking about what the word 'relationship' means.
It's a relationship between specific people, not a 'relationship' between the medical profession at large or the teaching profession at large. A relationship is not some abstract thing floating around on its own.
Of course changing GP alters something, it alters which GP has duties towards you. That's the whole point. Saying "it moves the relationship to a different doctor" neatly obscures that the relationship with the first GP ends and a relationship with the second GP begins.
What you're effectively arguing is that if I divorce my first wife and remarry, "the marriage" is still in existence. No. I'm still married. But "the marriage" ended when I got divorced. I'm now in a different marriage.
If you think that a parent can take their child out of one school and put them in another school, you think the parent controls the teacher/pupil relationship.
[ 04. September 2014, 23:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
[If you think that a parent can take their child out of one school and put them in another school, you think the parent controls the teacher/pupil relationship.
No I don't. Because the kind of relationship under discussion places a legal duty of care on the professional party. That duty of care is controlled by legislation, guidelines and professional practice, not by parents.
[ 04. September 2014, 23:46: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
[If you think that a parent can take their child out of one school and put them in another school, you think the parent controls the teacher/pupil relationship.
No I don't. Because the kind of relationship under discussion places a legal duty of care on the professional party. That duty of care is controlled by legislation, guidelines and professional practice, not by parents.
The existence of the relationship. I thought it was perfectly clear we were talking about deciding to either start or end the relationship, not what goes on while the relationship is in place.
[ 04. September 2014, 23:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'd go so far as to say this whole sorry mess is driven by a general failure to understand and apply the difference between absolute statements:
I am married
I go to school
I am not being treated
and relational statements:
I am married to Jessica
I go to school at Sunnydale High
I am not being treated by Dr Smith
They mean quite different things. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that they get blurred, because in fact a huge part of my job is pointing out to people when they've missed out relational linkages or applied the wrong ones.
But never underestimate the importance of relational linkages. The difference between "I don't want my son to be treated" and "I don't want you to treat my son" is probably what's put this whole saga on the front page in the first place.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: In fact, I wouldn't be the least surprised if an inquiry shows that exact sentence, or one very very similar to it, was used. I can well believe that Mr King said "I don't want you to treat my son", and that the hearer of this went and started telling people "He doesn't want his son to be treated".
Which is wrong. It's shorthand, and indeed it's a very common kind of shorthand, especially if people are talking heatedly, but the two sentences are not grammatically equivalent. "I don't want you to treat my son" is capable of 2 possible meanings, one of which emphasises the fact of treatment and one of which emphasises the person doing the treating.
And if one is going to start talking about court orders or arrest warrants, it's absolutely vital that one understands which of the 2 meanings is meant. I'd bet a fair sum that no-one ever went "hang on, what exactly did he say" and considered the possibility that Mr King made a relational statement, not an absolute one.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The difference between "I don't want my son to be treated" and "I don't want you to treat my son" is probably what's put this whole saga on the front page in the first place.
What put this saga on the front page was an attempt by a parent to end a doctor/patient relationship without regard to the doctor's duty of care. Taking the child away without having agreed the conditions of his discharge meant the hospital still had a legal duty of care and had to act to safeguard the patient.
It's the same with your divorce analogy - in order to end a marriage you have to go through a legal process and satisfy certain conditions, you can't just waltz off and declare yourself unmarried.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Yes. Communications screw-ups happen. Particularly, as noted above, when you're talking busy medical personnel and worried stressed parents. I can't honestly see this as anything more than that.
There may or may not have been some pride or arrogance at play on either or both sides-- it's certainly not unheard of for doctors to think they are omnipotent, but I have also known a number of people who defied sound medical advice thinking they know better-- and suffered severe consequences as a result. But people will be arrogant at times, they will be harried or stressed or busy, they will mishear or make assumptions about what someone meant based on prior experiences or expectations. All sorts of things happen. And will continue to happen, despite our best efforts to prevent them. Human communication is always prone to error and misunderstanding.
I don't see this as evidence of any dark conspiracy or government overreach. Just a misunderstanding that grew into a kerfuffle but thankfully seems to have ended well. In the grand scheme of things, there are much bigger things to worry about.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
What put this saga on the front page was an attempt by a parent to end a doctor/patient relationship without regard to the doctor's duty of care.
I'll go back to my earlier statement. It is reasonable for a doctor, or a hospital, to be concerned that a parent wants to withdraw a child from treatment, take him home, surround him with crystals and chant a lot.
A letter from the parents, handed to the hospital receptionist, stating that they withdraw their child from the hospital's care, and place him under the care of Dr. X at Facility Y is sufficient to meet the hospital's legitimate concerns. I'm happy to allow the hospital 15 minutes to phone facility Y and verify that they are prepared to accept the child as a patient. I would also expect the parents to be asking that all the child's medical notes be transferred to facility Y.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Let me put the point another way, lest I get another round of people talking to me as if I'd said that it was fine if a child didn't get treated by anyone at all.
I'm talking about the relationship between a specific doctor and a specific patient. That's what a doctor/patient relationship is.
As North East Quine and Gracie have set out quite well, there may well have been a miscommunication between the parents and the hospital about whether the father meant "I don't want my son treated" or "I don't want my son treated HERE, BY YOU".
They are 2 different questions. I accept that the parents have an obligation to ensure that their son is treated. I've accepted that from the very beginning. I've said from the beginning that not getting your child any kind of treatment is a form of neglect.
What I've also been trying to point out, from very early on, is that it's the parents that decide which medical treatment is delivered from the range of options and who by.
The problem is that the information Southampton Hospital had was almost entirely consistent with the normal behaviour of people who say "I don't want my child treated at all" and very much inconsistent with the normal behaviour of people who say "I don't want my child treated by you."
If Mr. King hadn't turned uncommunicative after the miscommunication, but had tried to work out what was going on this wouldn't have happened. If he had properly prepared in advance and had the patient discharged into the care of another medical professional none of this would have happened. If he hadn't disappeared his son none of this would have happened.
To put things another way, in some states in America you have the right to open carry of assault rifles. You also have the right to withdraw money from your bank account. You have the right to wear a balaclava. On the other hand if you walk into a bank wearing a balaclava and carrying an assault rifle and ask to make a withdrawl the response is going to be inevitable and not what you want. It might sound like an absurd example - but Mr. King's actions have been around that level of absurdity and triggering warning bells when it comes to normal practice.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I might as well also add, while I'm here munching on breakfast, how striking it's been that the argument 'against' the proton beam therapy never seems to have risen any higher than "it's more expensive and it won't improve his chances".
Fine. Are those reasons for him not to have it? No.
On the other hand they, combined with the excessive cost, are reasons for him not to have it on the NHS. Which is why his doctors would not recommend the child for it on the NHS. Saying "I have investigated the options for private treatment which I am willing to pay for and would like a referral to this clinic for Proton Beam Therapy" would have taken a level of communication that he himself has said he simply wasn't doing.
The doctors should not, based on their diagnosis, have of their own initiative referred him for Proton Beam Therapy. You don't refer to the private sector for a hideously expensive treatment when it hasn't met NICE approval.
There is however one huge question. What happened to the letter Mr. King says he wrote Dr. Nicolin that said he was willing to pay for the treatment himself? (Once that specific combination arises then unless the hospital is e.g. homeopathic) If he received it and ignored it then he deserves a major disciplinary at the very least. And the entire fiasco follows from his malfeasance. If it was not received that too needs an investigation. I hope that Southampton are one of the trusts that scan all the letters they receive.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Absolutely agree that "you can't have this treatment on the NHS" is different. Relational statements again. Guard your prepositions, people.
I've just been reflecting on my time working on a tribunal, and how a couple of cases had spiralled into mutual distrust and accusations of lying because of the wrong assumptions people made. I remember one case where an employee and supervisor both ended up accusing the other of lying because the employee claimed he'd been told something at a meeting and the supervisor denied that had been said at the meeting. Looking at the papers a year or two later, I worked out they were talking about 2 different meetings.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The problem is that the information Southampton Hospital had was almost entirely consistent with the normal behaviour of people who say "I don't want my child treated at all" and very much inconsistent with the normal behaviour of people who say "I don't want my child treated by you."
If Mr. King hadn't turned uncommunicative after the miscommunication, but had tried to work out what was going on this wouldn't have happened. If he had properly prepared in advance and had the patient discharged into the care of another medical professional none of this would have happened. If he hadn't disappeared his son none of this would have happened.
I think the behaviour is just more consistent with someone who's scared of the hospital. Exactly why he was scared is the question. He might have been scared because he already had the impression a court order was in the making.
If anyone had mentioned court in any way, he might well have interpreted that fairly badly, particulary as Jehovah's Witness. And the hospital might have already been interpreting things in a certain light because of a suspicion about Jehovah's Witnesses. Let's face it, JWs and the medical profession don't exactly encounter each other from a warm, friendly starting point.
I don't think anywhere I've said that the parents didn't contribute to this. But it seems likely that the hospital did as well. And it's the hospital that has to look now at its processes and ask what happened. It's the hospital that chose the response which is raising the systemic concern. Ashya's parents only affect one patient. Health and legal bureaucracy affect every patient.
No-one (or at least, not me) is arguing that the hospital should have just ignored Ashya's departure, sat back and said "oh well, another patient gone, cross him off the list". It's the choice of response that is at issue: why was the sledgehammer of a parental arrest warrant arrived at so quickly?
[ 05. September 2014, 02:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracie
Shipmate
# 3870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There is however one huge question. What happened to the letter Mr. King says he wrote Dr. Nicolin that said he was willing to pay for the treatment himself? (Once that specific combination arises then unless the hospital is e.g. homeopathic) If he received it and ignored it then he deserves a major disciplinary at the very least. And the entire fiasco follows from his malfeasance. If it was not received that too needs an investigation. I hope that Southampton are one of the trusts that scan all the letters they receive.
Yes, indeed, that's what I've been trying to get at all along.
--------------------
When someone is convinced he’s an Old Testament prophet there’s not a lot you can do with him rationally. - Sine
Posts: 1090 | From: En lieu sûr | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Absolutely agree that "you can't have this treatment on the NHS" is different. Relational statements again. Guard your prepositions, people.
What kind of relationship do you think is implied by such a statement? i.e. what is the relationship between a service provider and a service user?
In the case under discussion there will be a network of relationships involving the NHS, the doctors, the patient and the patient's parents. There may be conflicting interests and wishes between any of them.
Discussion of the doctor/patient relationship figured strongly in the Michael Jackson case. It was clearly not that of employer and employee because the doctor had a duty of care which meant he had to act in his patient's best interests which may not be in accordance with his patient's wishes.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Absolutely agree that "you can't have this treatment on the NHS" is different. Relational statements again. Guard your prepositions, people.
What kind of relationship do you think is implied by such a statement? i.e. what is the relationship between a service provider and a service user?
In the case under discussion there will be a network of relationships involving the NHS, the doctors, the patient and the patient's parents. There may be conflicting interests and wishes between any of them.
Discussion of the doctor/patient relationship figured strongly in the Michael Jackson case. It was clearly not that of employer and employee because the doctor had a duty of care which meant he had to act in his patient's best interests which may not be in accordance with his patient's wishes.
Saying that you can't have this treatment on the NHS is not the same as saying you can't have this treatment at all.
The relationship implied is that having treatment "on the NHS" means you are having a service that is NHS approved, and (as far as I understand) paid for by the NHS, and provided by people that the NHS considers qualified.
That the NHS does all these things doesn't necessarily mean that it's unlawful to have or supply treatment that the NHS hasn't approved, that it's unlawful to have treatment paid for by other means, or that it's unlawful for anyone not approved as a treatment provider by the NHS to provide treatment (the last point being particularly relevant to overseas treatment providers). You would need quite distinct rules to provide that the NHS has a monopoly on approving treatments, approving payment for treatments, or approving treatment providers.
This is not unlike a point that was made earlier about education: there is a requirement for parents to have their children educated, but it isn't a requirement to have their children educated by a state-run school and a state-accredited teacher.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
[If you think that a parent can take their child out of one school and put them in another school, you think the parent controls the teacher/pupil relationship.
No I don't. Because the kind of relationship under discussion places a legal duty of care on the professional party. That duty of care is controlled by legislation, guidelines and professional practice, not by parents.
The existence of the relationship. I thought it was perfectly clear we were talking about deciding to either start or end the relationship, not what goes on while the relationship is in place.
Yes, but there are some major safeguards around the way in which such a relationship can be terminated. Once a parent entrusts a child to an educational establishment, within the scope of the law the school is allowed to do things that the parent disagrees with.
My fiancé is a teacher in a rather rough middle school where there have been some major problems with the management. For the start of the new school year, a crack team has been sent in by the Rectorate to sort things out.
Punctuality has been a persistent problem in the school. Yesterday, as part of the new shock and awe tactics, the deputy head was on the front gate at 8:15 to meet the kids who turned up late (school starts at 8 o’clock). Once there was a decent crowd of latecomers, they were handed over to a school counsellor and herded off to a room, thus making them completely miss the lesson they had arrived late for. At this point, the heads called the parents and told them that their child had arrived late for school and would consequently be kept half an hour later at the end of the day.
When, as they expected, the parents kicked up a fuss and told the headteachers they had no right, the headteachers (who had a paper in front of them with the relevant legal texts on it) told them “according to article bla bla bla of the Civil code, you have entrusted the education of your child to the National Education. We are therefore responsible and are entitled to impose sanctions on your child if they don’t obey the internal rules of this school. If you don't want this to happen again, please ensure your child arrives on time in future.” There was nothing the parents could do. At the end of the day, the kids were indeed kept late and given a stern half-hour lecture by the new head. (They looked terrified. The teaching staff OTOH thought it was hilarious. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif) )
The parents have absolutely no recourse under the law if the school imposes an appropriate sanction (being kept late) for not following the school’s internal procedures. They have handed over responsibility for that part of their child’s wellbeing (their education) to the school. If the parents don’t like it, they can make alternative arrangements for their children’s education. But they can’t decide that they’re not sending their child to school today because they don’t like the punishment the child got yesterday. They may not unilaterally end the relationship with the school by withdrawing their child until they can demonstrate that suitable alternative arrangements are in place.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
Something this case highlights, at least to me with the evidence so far available, is the paternalism that too often infuses the relationship between the 'medical profession' and 'ordinary people'.
It illustrates the reality that to a large extent we have allowed so called 'professionals' (medical/legal/...) to 'own' the area of life they apply their knowledge in, rather than acting as 'servants'. That 'ownership' can and does often extend to an ownership of those who are receiving that professional's service.
In other words, people become dis-empowered (horrible word), are stripped of personal/social responsibility and become 'children' under the guardianship of the professionals---who clearly know what's best because they have laid claim to authority in that area of life.
It is an insidious and corrosive progression. Instead of 'service' to others we have a tendency to 'control' of others, which at it's worst is heading towards de-humanisation---the treating of human beings as though they are merely objects, subject to the will of the one who claims authority over them.
The case in question seems to offer an example of what can happen when overweening authority feels thwarted and threatened and then completely fails to retain any sense of proportionality or balance in the relationship: 'Quick, our property has been stolen, our reputations are threatened. We must act decisively to recover both!'---completely forgetting that these are human beings, who are neither slaves nor prisoners, who are, on the face of what we know, people who have proven themselves over time to be entirely concerned for the well being of their child.
Just to finish, on a slightly transcendent note: we are all going to die, sooner or later, it is the natural way of things. In my experience, working in a hospital as I do, what matters most to most people is not so much whether they will be cured (although that is naturally often hoped for), but whether they will be 'looked after', i.e. cared for, treated with respect and compassion, even loved (if institutional care is capable of such a thing, which it is given wise and encouraging leadership and example).
This whole case went off the rails long before the family hit the road for Spain, and the failure that occurred back down the line was clearly not addressed properly, leading directly to the tragic farce that has been played out in the media.
Will the right lessons be learned, or will the implicit professional paternalism merely dig in with stubborn self-justifications?
[ 05. September 2014, 10:09: Message edited by: Alisdair ]
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've not seen a link to this on this thread: http://www.uhs.nhs.uk/aboutthetrust/newsandpublications/latestnews/2014/latest-statement-in-relation-to-ashya-king,-2-septemb er-2014.aspx
No particular dog in this fight, but thought this should be in there.
Is there a misprint in that statement? Because when Ashya went missing, the hospital said that he'd had "extensive surgery" seven days earlier i.e. 21 August. But the statement says that the tumour was successfully removed on 24 July. There's no mention of the 21 August "extensive surgery" in that statement.
Plus, the statement says that for best results chemo / radiotherapy should start within 4-6 weeks of the original 24 July surgery. But the treatment hadn't started on 28 Aug, 5 weeks after the original surgery.
The biggest gulf appears to be between what the hospital understood Mr King to be saying, and what Mr King understood the hospital to be saying, but there also seems to be a gulf between what the hospital said then and what it's saying now. (I accept Data Protection might explain this.)
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've not seen a link to this on this thread: http://www.uhs.nhs.uk/aboutthetrust/newsandpublications/latestnews/2014/latest-statement-in-relation-to-ashya-king,-2-septemb er-2014.aspx
No particular dog in this fight, but thought this should be in there.
Is there a misprint in that statement? Because when Ashya went missing, the hospital said that he'd had "extensive surgery" seven days earlier i.e. 21 August. But the statement says that the tumour was successfully removed on 24 July. There's no mention of the 21 August "extensive surgery" in that statement.
Plus, the statement says that for best results chemo / radiotherapy should start within 4-6 weeks of the original 24 July surgery. But the treatment hadn't started on 28 Aug, 5 weeks after the original surgery.
The biggest gulf appears to be between what the hospital understood Mr King to be saying, and what Mr King understood the hospital to be saying, but there also seems to be a gulf between what the hospital said then and what it's saying now. (I accept Data Protection might explain this.)
Can you provide a link to the statement on 28 August where the hospital says the surgery was 7 days earlier?
The reason the treatment hadn't started 5 weeks later was that the parents wouldn't consent to it, isn't it?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The parents have absolutely no recourse under the law if the school imposes an appropriate sanction (being kept late) for not following the school’s internal procedures.
...
If the parents don’t like it, they can make alternative arrangements for their children’s education.
You've just set out the recourse.
Can you not see that. I specifically said I was talking about the existence of the relationship - the ability to either start or end the relationship - and you've just proved my point, two sentences after claiming the parents "had no recourse". You've just identified precisely the same recourse I've been talking about.
[ 05. September 2014, 10:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
Yes but the relationship has to be formaly with a new one in place first that is the point.
Who knows what other forces/personalities were involved, but the hospital did offer the Kings a second opinion which they never took up.
The authorities have to go with the information that they had – it might be known now that the Kings had the food and had a way of charging the feeder – they didn’t know then.
Interestingly before this happened I saw a lot in the internet news about schools being asked to look out for and report non returners to school in September. Particularly in the case of young girls from certain cultures, might have been taken abroad to be married young and without their consent.
They were being asked not to assume that the children might have just gone to another school without the parents informing their current school.
There was an element of blame for schools who had allowed children such as this to disappear off the registers without checking up as to where they were now in the past.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Yes but the relationship has to be formaly with a new one in place first that is the point.
And it says that, where?
Are you proposing that when a family moves interstate, the school that the family is leaving has some power over the enrolled children until the family identifies the name of the school that the children will attend in their new location?
We've already established there is no obligation to have a child enrolled in a school at all. There is only an obligation to have a child EDUCATED.
There are millions of conceptual miles between the idea that the old school would like to have information about the new arrangements if they are known, and the notion you're proposing that the new relationship "has to be formally in place". The latter cannot possibly be true if home schooling is permitted.
[ 05. September 2014, 10:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Saying that you can't have this treatment on the NHS is not the same as saying you can't have this treatment at all.
This is true. Good.
quote:
The relationship implied is that having treatment "on the NHS" means you are having a service that is NHS approved, and (as far as I understand) paid for by the NHS, and provided by people that the NHS considers qualified.
Not so. You misunderstand a simple phrase.
If I say "have a drink on me" I don't mean have a drink I approve of at your own expense, I mean have a drink at my expense.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The parents have absolutely no recourse under the law if the school imposes an appropriate sanction (being kept late) for not following the school’s internal procedures.
...
If the parents don’t like it, they can make alternative arrangements for their children’s education.
You've just set out the recourse.[...] You've just identified precisely the same recourse I've been talking about.
You're cherrypicking what I wrote. The point is that there are a number of significant hoops that must be jumped through before the recourse becomes effective. The parents cannot decide that they just aren't sending their children to school today or they will be in considerable trouble with the authorities.
In the same way, you can't just remove your child from a hospital. If so requested, you need to be able to show that you have already made viable alternative arrangements, not just that you're planning to make them some time in the future.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Saying that you can't have this treatment on the NHS is not the same as saying you can't have this treatment at all.
This is true. Good.
quote:
The relationship implied is that having treatment "on the NHS" means you are having a service that is NHS approved, and (as far as I understand) paid for by the NHS, and provided by people that the NHS considers qualified.
Not so. You misunderstand a simple phrase.
If I say "have a drink on me" I don't mean have a drink I approve of at your own expense, I mean have a drink at my expense.
.
Are you seriously suggesting that the word "on" automatically has a single meaning, applicable to both a government-run nationalised health service and your wallet?
"Have a drink on me. The drink is on the table."
EDIT: And you haven't even read what I said. I said the expense was paid by the NHS!
[ 05. September 2014, 11:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
The point is that there are a number of significant hoops that must be jumped through before the recourse becomes effective.
What hoops?
quote:
The parents cannot decide that they just aren't sending their children to school today or they will be in considerable trouble with the authorities.
So they have to tell the school at some point that the child isn't ever coming back. Okay then. What other hoops?
quote:
In the same way, you can't just remove your child from a hospital.
Yes you can. It's been established there was nothing unlawful about doing this.
quote:
If so requested, you need to be able to show that you have already made viable alternative arrangements, not just that you're planning to make them some time in the future.
It's been established there was nothing unlawful about removing the child without doing this.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've not seen a link to this on this thread: http://www.uhs.nhs.uk/aboutthetrust/newsandpublications/latestnews/2014/latest-statement-in-relation-to-ashya-king,-2-septemb er-2014.aspx
No particular dog in this fight, but thought this should be in there.
Is there a misprint in that statement? Because when Ashya went missing, the hospital said that he'd had "extensive surgery" seven days earlier i.e. 21 August. But the statement says that the tumour was successfully removed on 24 July. There's no mention of the 21 August "extensive surgery" in that statement.
Plus, the statement says that for best results chemo / radiotherapy should start within 4-6 weeks of the original 24 July surgery. But the treatment hadn't started on 28 Aug, 5 weeks after the original surgery.
The biggest gulf appears to be between what the hospital understood Mr King to be saying, and what Mr King understood the hospital to be saying, but there also seems to be a gulf between what the hospital said then and what it's saying now. (I accept Data Protection might explain this.)
He had a second surgery after the brain tumour was removed, I am guessing for a shunt or similar. It was being reported on several of the news sites, as I quoted earlier it was on the 22nd of August.
[ 05. September 2014, 11:24: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Saying that you can't have this treatment on the NHS is not the same as saying you can't have this treatment at all.
This is true. Good.
quote:
The relationship implied is that having treatment "on the NHS" means you are having a service that is NHS approved, and (as far as I understand) paid for by the NHS, and provided by people that the NHS considers qualified.
Not so. You misunderstand a simple phrase.
If I say "have a drink on me" I don't mean have a drink I approve of at your own expense, I mean have a drink at my expense.
.
Are you seriously suggesting that the word "on" automatically has a single meaning, applicable to both a government-run nationalised health service and your wallet?
"Have a drink on me. The drink is on the table."
EDIT: And you haven't even read what I said. I said the expense was paid by the NHS!
The phrase "on the NHS" is understood by everyone to mean the NHS is paying for it and by implication it's an appropriate treatment. Sometimes treatment is provided by someone else but if paid for from NHS funds it would be described as "on the NHS".
Clear enough? Does any UK resident disagree with this?
.
[ 05. September 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
But that is what I said. I said, paid for by the NHS. Why are you continuing to disagree with me by agreeing with me?
[ 05. September 2014, 11:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Yes but the relationship has to be formaly with a new one in place first that is the point.
And it says that, where?
Are you proposing that when a family moves interstate, the school that the family is leaving has some power over the enrolled children until the family identifies the name of the school that the children will attend in their new location?
We've already established there is no obligation to have a child enrolled in a school at all. There is only an obligation to have a child EDUCATED.
There are millions of conceptual miles between the idea that the old school would like to have information about the new arrangements if they are known, and the notion you're proposing that the new relationship "has to be formally in place". The latter cannot possibly be true if home schooling is permitted.
Well I have no idea about interstate or what happens over the pond, as I live in England – and I am not proposing anything, I was reporting to you was what I read on a news website.
And that was that English schools were being told to follow up on unexpected non returners, so that the authorities were satisfied that they knew where the children were.
Even home schooling has to be ok’d with the authorities too, yes people have the right to home school but they have to be able to tell the education authorities that is what they are doing. Children are not supposed to just go off the radar and schools were having their knuckles rapped because it was happening too often.
You cannot just remove a child from school and never go back, without evidencing where and how the child is getting its education.
Or you can find yourself in court for your child’s non attendance
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
orfeo: quote:
I go to school at Sunnydale High...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Yes but the relationship has to be formaly with a new one in place first that is the point.
And it says that, where?
Are you proposing that when a family moves interstate, the school that the family is leaving has some power over the enrolled children until the family identifies the name of the school that the children will attend in their new location?
We've already established there is no obligation to have a child enrolled in a school at all. There is only an obligation to have a child EDUCATED.
There are millions of conceptual miles between the idea that the old school would like to have information about the new arrangements if they are known, and the notion you're proposing that the new relationship "has to be formally in place". The latter cannot possibly be true if home schooling is permitted.
Well I have no idea about interstate or what happens over the pond, as I live in England – and I am not proposing anything, I was reporting to you was what I read on a news website.
And that was that English schools were being told to follow up on unexpected non returners, so that the authorities were satisfied that they knew where the children were.
Even home schooling has to be ok’d with the authorities too, yes people have the right to home school but they have to be able to tell the education authorities that is what they are doing. Children are not supposed to just go off the radar and schools were having their knuckles rapped because it was happening too often.
You cannot just remove a child from school and never go back, without evidencing where and how the child is getting its education.
Or you can find yourself in court for your child’s non attendance
Sure.
The problem is equating the particular school with "the authorities". It is entirely correct to say that you are answerable to "the authorities" for the education of your child. But that is not the school. In fact you're telling me that the school tended to get in trouble with "the authorities" for not getting information on the fate of the child.
This seems to me to be one of the fundamental problems with this discussion. People are turning the duty of the school or the hospital to take an interest and get some information into an obligation on the parents to tell the school or the hospital some information. An obligation that I still don't think exists.
To put it briefly, a need to know is not the same as a need to tell. The fact that a school or hospital wants to know something, or is even required to know something, is not the same thing as a duty upon a parent to provide that information. I'm quite sure that a school or hospital can ask for this information from the parent, and in fact it's a damn good idea to ask for it, but that simply doesn't mean, without more, that the parent is then obliged to fulfil the request.
People are continually asserting that Ashya's parents HAD to tell the hospital they were removing him and where they were taking him. I've yet to see any evidence this is true. SHOULD they have? Of course, but you don't issue arrest warrants on the basis of people not following best practice.
It remains the case that no-one can find any legal requirement that would forbid them taking their child from the hospital - if there was, they would face charges of child abduction. I've seen one article pointing out that removing him when he was a ward of the Court would be illegal, but he wasn't a ward of the Court. The same article observed that obtaining the ward order afterwards was very much a case of shutting the door after the horse was bolted.
Nor was there anything lawful about not telling that particular hospital where they were going. It is not the case that having an obligation to treat a child means you have an obligation to satisfy a particular hospital that you are treating a child. It is not the case that having an obligation to educate your child means you have to satisfy a particular school that you are educating a child. You have to satisfy the education authorities. That's not the same thing. You are perfectly entitled to make different arrangements. You are not required, when moving to a different location, to tell your current medical practitioners or school teachers who your new medical practitioners or school teachers will be, for the incredibly obvious reason that you might not know yet.
[ 05. September 2014, 13:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that is what I said. I said, paid for by the NHS. Why are you continuing to disagree with me by agreeing with me?
Because you're not right. You said:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The relationship implied is that having treatment "on the NHS" means you are having a service that is NHS approved, and (as far as I understand) paid for by the NHS, and provided by people that the NHS considers qualified.
You talked about approval as being the determining factor, with costs being secondary. I said "on the NHS" means they're paying, with approval being implicit.
Approval of forms of medical treatment is the responsibility of a body called NICE which considers efficacy as well as cost. The NHS usually provides treatment but may arrange private treatment and cover the bill, in which cas it's still "on the NHS". It doesn't provide unapproved (by NICE) treatments which may be experimental or unduly costly compared with likely quality of life improvements.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
orfeo, you began this thread by asking 'who knows best - the state or the parents? What many of us have been trying to explain is that it isn't a simple either/or situation. The answer could be both and neither.
Nor is it primarily about power and control. It is about children's rights, their best interests and the responsibilities of both parents and state to act in accordance with those rights and best interests.
In the case we're talking about is a young child whose rights and interests are safeguarded by laws and procedures which are informed by, among other things, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Ashya's parents and state institutions are obliged to comply with laws and procedures when decisions are being made about his medical treatment. The way the parents removed him from hospital put the medical staff under a legal obligation to take immediate action. They had no discretion to choose to do nothing. In such a situation power and control can be seen as ultimately with the child because his rights and best interests dictate what happens. In practical terms the court is now in control. The judge will decide, not on the basis of his or her personal views but on how best to secure the child's rights and provide medical treatment in accordance with his best interests. It may be that the court has appointed a Guardian ad Litum to represent Ashya's wishes because the judge must also try to determine what his wishes would be if Ashya was able to express them.
When it comes to education UK law requires parents to provide for this either by attendance at school or otherwise. If they choose a state school parents must ensure the child attends the school regularly. Failing to do this is an offence for which parents can be fined or even imprisoned. They can of course withdraw their child from any school by notifying the school or education authority and asking for the child's name to be removed from the register. In this case the education authority can make enquiries to satisfy themselves that the child is going to another school or is being home educated. The former school has no remit to make any enquiries about future education and if this is home education the local authority must proceed according to Department for Education guidelines - [URL]=https://www.gov.uk/govehechild rnment/publications/elective-home-education]elective home education[/URL]
You are right in saying that parents continually make decisions for their children however some decisions may be open to enquiry, challenge and possibly control by statutory bodies acting to safeguard children.
[ 05. September 2014, 13:24: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
The reason the treatment hadn't started 5 weeks later was that the parents wouldn't consent to it, isn't it?
No. The parents were under the impression that they had to consent to treatment, or have their parental rights taken away, and be banned from their child's bedside. They believed that not consenting wasn't an option. Hence the reason they removed him from the hospital secretly.
They may (and I hope they did) have completely misunderstood what the hospital were telling them. But they hadn't refused consent because of what they understood the implications of refusal to be.
The question I would like to know the answer to is - what had the hospital said to them which resulted in that understanding, or misunderstanding? (I understand that patient confidentiality might be preventing the hospital from ever being able to clarify this.)
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
orfeo, you began this thread by asking 'who knows best - the state or the parents?
I didn't begin the thread.
quote:
What many of us have been trying to explain is that it isn't a simple either/or situation. The answer could be both and neither.
I know. I never suggested otherwise.
quote:
Nor is it primarily about power and control. It is about children's rights, their best interests and the responsibilities of both parents and state to act in accordance with those rights and best interests.
ISSUING ARREST WARRANTS is primarily about asserting power.
quote:
In the case we're talking about is a young child whose rights and interests are safeguarded by laws and procedures which are informed by, among other things, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Agreed.
quote:
Ashya's parents and state institutions are obliged to comply with laws and procedures when decisions are being made about his medical treatment.
Agreed.
quote:
The way the parents removed him from hospital put the medical staff under a legal obligation to take immediate action. They had no discretion to choose to do nothing.
Yes. In fact, I've explicitly stated on more than one occasion that sitting back and doing nothing wasn't an option.
The gulf between the obligation to do something and the wisdom of pursuing an arrest warrant is so wide, you could drive a Channel ferry through it.
quote:
In such a situation power and control can be seen as ultimately with the child because his rights and best interests dictate what happens.
I don't think that means the child has the power and control, but I agree his best interests control what happens.
quote:
In practical terms the court is now in control. The judge will decide, not on the basis of his or her personal views but on how best to secure the child's rights and provide medical treatment in accordance with his best interests. It may be that the court has appointed a Guardian ad Litum to represent Ashya's wishes because the judge must also try to determine what his wishes would be if Ashya was able to express them.
Agreed. Completely irrelevant, though, to what happened on the day that Ashya's parents removed him from hospital.
quote:
When it comes to education UK law requires parents to provide for this either by attendance at school or otherwise. If they choose a state school parents must ensure the child attends the school regularly. Failing to do this is an offence for which parents can be fined or even imprisoned.
Agreed. Never suggested otherwise.
quote:
They can of course withdraw their child from any school by notifying the school or education authority and asking for the child's name to be removed from the register. In this case the education authority can make enquiries to satisfy themselves that the child is going to another school or is being home educated. The former school has no remit to make any enquiries about future education and if this is home education the local authority must proceed according to Department for Education guidelines - elective home education
Which appears to be entirely consistent with what I've been saying, yes. It's not consistent with what some people appear to think I've been saying, but I'm not responsible for the fact that people keep adding and removing relational clauses so that something I say in relation to a particular school becomes a general proposition, or vice versa.
quote:
You are right in saying that parents continually make decisions for their children however some decisions may be open to enquiry, challenge and possibly control by statutory bodies acting to safeguard children.
Agreed. And explicitly said by me before to deny the notion that "children are property".
Enquiry and challenge are not the same thing as pursuing an arrest warrant. An arrest warrant is a legal sledgehammer. My problem is not with the hospital taking an interest in Ashya's welfare. My problem is with the hospital getting everyone into an enormous tizzy about the immediate, doomsday risk to the child such that it was necessary to remove all legal control from the parents (a pointless exercise if he's not in the country) and issue an arrest warrant.
If they'd put out a call across the media saying they had concerns for Ashya's welfare and urging the family or anyone else with information to get in contact, we would not be having this conversation.
[fixed link]
[ 05. September 2014, 13:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But that is what I said. I said, paid for by the NHS. Why are you continuing to disagree with me by agreeing with me?
Because you're not right. You said:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The relationship implied is that having treatment "on the NHS" means you are having a service that is NHS approved, and (as far as I understand) paid for by the NHS, and provided by people that the NHS considers qualified.
You talked about approval as being the determining factor, with costs being secondary. I said "on the NHS" means they're paying, with approval being implicit.
Approval of forms of medical treatment is the responsibility of a body called NICE which considers efficacy as well as cost. The NHS usually provides treatment but may arrange private treatment and cover the bill, in which cas it's still "on the NHS". It doesn't provide unapproved (by NICE) treatments which may be experimental or unduly costly compared with likely quality of life improvements.
RIGHT. Thank you. So when you suggested I had said "at your own expense", you were in fact completely wrong and were pointing at the wrong part of what I'd said entirely.
I don't know where you got the idea that I said 3 things in a particular order, with commas between them, meant that I was setting up a priority and labelling one of them 'the determining factor'. If I'd meant that I would have said it.
I will happily accept that the treatments are not approved by the NHS. And will amend my statement to say that they are approved treatments, without saying who they are approved by.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
It illustrates the reality that to a large extent we have allowed so called 'professionals' (medical/legal/...) to 'own' the area of life they apply their knowledge in, rather than acting as 'servants'. That 'ownership' can and does often extend to an ownership of those who are receiving that professional's service.
In other words, people become dis-empowered (horrible word), are stripped of personal/social responsibility and become 'children' under the guardianship of the professionals---who clearly know what's best because they have laid claim to authority in that area of life.
I think this used to be true 20 years ago. Since then it has become an excuse for anti-intellectualism.
It's a pendulum swing. Yes, doctors are fallible. They make mistakes. They can be insufferably arrogant. But there is still good reason to believe that someone who has spent a good part of their life studying medicine knows a bit more about the field than someone, even a parent, who has not. There are good reasons for listening to medical professionals, even the insufferably arrogant ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
Just to finish, on a slightly transcendent note: we are all going to die, sooner or later, it is the natural way of things. In my experience, working in a hospital as I do, what matters most to most people is not so much whether they will be cured (although that is naturally often hoped for), but whether they will be 'looked after', i.e. cared for, treated with respect and compassion, even loved (if institutional care is capable of such a thing, which it is given wise and encouraging leadership and example).
This sounds lovely, but particularly in the case of a desperately ill child, it's really rubbish. I'm sorry, but a parent of a seriously ill child would certainly prefer that their child be loved and cared for by compassionate health care professions, but first and foremost they DO want their child cured. End stop. That is their one and only desire and everything else-- including all those lovely soft intangibles-- is a very very distant second.
Many years ago I found myself in a high-risk pregnancy, having lost 3 already thru miscarriage. My OB was really more of an SOB-- the epitome of arrogance, zero bedside manner, very hard to nail down to get him to answer questions (would have one hand on the doorknob of the examining room ready to bolt the whole time)-- everything one rightly complains about re: the medical community. He also was extremely qualified in the field. Sure, I would have loved it if he had been a bit more approachable, a bit less hurried and rushed. But I was willing to deal with it, because I knew (having researched it a bit) he was my best chance of carrying this pregnancy to term (as I did). For my 2nd pregnancy, I went back to the same arrogant SOB, for the exact same reasons.
Hospice/ end of life care is another matter, and fits your description, of course.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by justlooking:
orfeo, you began this thread by asking 'who knows best - the state or the parents?
I didn't begin the thread.
Sorry about that - it was seekingsister.
quote:
What many of us have been trying to explain is that it isn't a simple either/or situation. The answer could be both and neither.
I know. I never suggested otherwise.
I have the impression from many of your posts you've been arguing that the parent is, or should be, in control.
quote:
Nor is it primarily about power and control. It is about children's rights, their best interests and the responsibilities of both parents and state to act in accordance with those rights and best interests.
ISSUING ARREST WARRANTS is primarily about asserting power.
Yes,and this is an instance of the state acting in accordance with the child's rights and best interests - the power is asserted on behalf of the child.
quote:
The way the parents removed him from hospital put the medical staff under a legal obligation to take immediate action. They had no discretion to choose to do nothing.
Yes. In fact, I've explicitly stated on more than one occasion that sitting back and doing nothing wasn't an option.
The gulf between the obligation to do something and the wisdom of pursuing an arrest warrant is so wide, you could drive a Channel ferry through it.
The arrest warrant was IMO the best way of ensuring Ashya could be taken to a hospital as soon as he was found. This case in the US has some similar features
parents arrested
You have been arguing that parents are in control of the doctor/patient relationship when the child is the patient. I have been seeking to show that there is a network of relationships which operate to safeguard the child, including if necessary from the actions of the parents.
Ashya's parents have achieved a great deal of publicity and offers of funding but they have also delayed his continued treatment and caused considerable alarm.
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by justlooking quote:
Ashya's parents have achieved a great deal of publicity and offers of funding but they have also delayed his continued treatment and caused considerable alarm.
1. I don't think this child's parents were after publicity, I think they were trying to achieve the best possible treatment for their son. In any case, what they have got is notoriety.
2. Do you really begrudge them the money to pay for treatment for their child? Yes, I know what was on offer from the NHS would be free, but that is not what they wanted - and whether or not it was the best treatment for their son is open to question.
3. They have not delayed their son's treatment at all: the minimum time from surgery to radiotherapy - of any kind - would be 5 weeks and since the child had another procedure (in late August) it is likely that radiotherapy (even the kind they don't want) would not be started until at least 3 weeks after that procedure - so not by now.
Furthermore, even if the NHS had recommended PBT the average lead time for this within the NHS is a minimum of 15 weeks: 4 weeks to go before the panel that decides whether or not to sanction the funding then a further 9 to arrange for further tests and scans, hotel accommodation, flights, visas, etc.
You seem to assume that because the parents disagreed with the treatment as proposed by the UK hospital it is reasonable to use legal force to coerce/force them into complying with that judgement. Far from seeking to stop treatment, these parents were seeking to get the best possible for their child. To put people like this in prison is grotesque.
Moreover, it can be argued that forcing a situation where a child is deprived of his parents, the company of his siblings, or of being in an environment where people speak his language constitutes abuse - and that situation came about through the combined efforts of Portsmouth City Council and Hampshire Constabulary, aided and abetted by selective release of accurate information by Southampton General Hospital.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Is it worth pointing out that at the point that the search started and the IAW were issued, all that was known by the hospital and the police was that a seriously ill child had vanished from the hospital without explanation?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it worth pointing out that at the point that the search started and the IAW were issued, all that was known by the hospital and the police was that a seriously ill child had vanished from the hospital without explanation?
That's inaccurate. The IAW took a while to be issued. Earlier, at least by the time the search had hit the UK media, the police knew the child had been removed from the hospital* by his father. Later, by the time the search IAW had been issued, they were sure they had crossed the Channel to Cherbourg, having declared a "passenger with medical needs" to Brittany Ferries.
*I still can't get over this "without the consent of the hospital" terminology. Can somebody point to where that expression has grounds in law?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
I have the impression from many of your posts you've been arguing that the parent is, or should be, in control.
I have been arguing that this is the default position. Departure from that position requires some kind of legal rule that alters the default position.
As I've said, the alternative is that parents would constantly require some kind of court order or other official approval to go about their daily life as parents. When a child is born, they go home with their parents and those parents start 'parenting'. There is no extra legal action required to bring this about.
The point of what I'm arguing is that it's absolutely vital to identify the precise outline of whatever rule alters the default position, and carves out an area where there is a different rule from the default one.
Obviously my professional training as a drafter comes into play here, but I find any kind of statement that "X has power" tends to be a bit useless. Power to do what? In relation to what or whom? In what circumstances? With what preconditions? And so on and so on.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is not a rule of the kind that would answer those questions. It's a broad general convention that requires countries to PUT more specific rules in place to ensure certain kinds of outcomes. International laws of that kind are quite notorious for not nailing down just who has to do what and when.
Yes, the law imposes a duty on the parents to ensure medical treatment, but what it doesn't do is prescribe precisely what that medical treatment must be or where it must take place. It would actually be tremendously difficult to draft a law imposing such a duty, because of the enormous variety of circumstances it would have to cover.
The law focuses on the outcome - treatment (and in the other analogy we've been discussing, education) - in much the same broad general way that the CRC does. But who treats the child, and how, and where, are questions of process. The law doesn't usually take those decisions about process away from the parents, because the process needed to achieve the required outcome is going to be different in every case, and the parent is usually the person best placed to understand the specific circumstances. They have the most information about the particular child.
There's no doubt that making Ashya a ward of the court is an exercise of one of the more specific sets of rules designed to ensure CRC outcomes. No doubt there are specific legal criteria for making such an order. One issue is whether those criteria were in fact satisfied - the court obviously found that they were, but that's dependent on the evidence presented to the court. In this case, the evidence only came from one side.
Another issue is whether there was any point in this action in the circumstances. Even if it was legally authorised, what did it achieve when Ashya was believed to be at large somewhere in Europe (hence the arrest warrant)?
But the bigger issue is, even if it was legally in power, was it a good idea? And even if an arrest warrant was validly obtained, was that actually a good use of the power to obtain an arrest warrant?
That, I suppose, is where the "should" part of the equation comes in. What justification was there from departing from the usual position?
And I still maintain that the parents were indeed in control up until court action was taken. Before the court order, there was no legal reason why they couldn't leave the hospital with their son. Before the court order, I still can't see any legal duty to inform the hospital that is what they were doing (even though informing the hospital would have been objectively smarter and might not have triggered the hospital's own duties to follow up on the removal of a patient).
So yes, I do think that the parent has control unless and until it's taken away by some rule or in accordance with some mechanism set out in a rule, and I also think that this is entirely sensible. The law sets some limits on the scope of parental authority, but inside those limits it pretty much says "it's up to you how you go about this, so long as you ensure that some essential outcomes are achieved".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
*I still can't get over this "without the consent of the hospital" terminology. Can somebody point to where that expression has grounds in law?
The Daily Mail has an updated article which refers to the legal situation in Spain:
Ashya King can't be moved from Malaga hospital without High Court permission
quote:
If no agreement can be reached, lawyers for the parents and the NHS trust will appear before the judge on Monday and the court will make the final decision over the five-year-old’s treatment.
But today, Spanish local officials also insisted that if an agreement cannot be reached, Ashya's future will be determined by the doctors treating him in Malaga - and not the High Court.
Andalucia's regional Health Minister said medics looking after Ashya at the Hospital Materno-Infantil in Malaga would have 'the last word' under a 2005 regulations governing healthcare for minors in southern Spain.
They guarantee that the interests of the child should always prevail. Regional Health Minister Maria Jose Sanchez Rubio said: 'Whoever has the child's custody, the rights of that child are determined by the laws of the country the child is presently in. The child is here and so the rules here apply. 'Every decision about his future is adopted in conjunction with the local State Prosecution Service to guarantee that from a judicial and protection point of view, the interests of the child always prevail.'
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Oh, and I agree with L'Organist that there is no evidence whatsoever that Ashya's treatment has been delayed. Last I heard, he is sitting in a known location in a hospital bed in Spain, and no-one is delivering him chemotherapy or radiotherapy.
That's precisely one of the reasons why the arrest warrant, with its flavour of screaming urgency, seems so utterly inappropriate.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
*I still can't get over this "without the consent of the hospital" terminology. Can somebody point to where that expression has grounds in law?
The Daily Mail has an updated article which refers to the legal situation in Spain:
Ashya King can't be moved from Malaga hospital without High Court permission
quote:
If no agreement can be reached, lawyers for the parents and the NHS trust will appear before the judge on Monday and the court will make the final decision over the five-year-old’s treatment.
But today, Spanish local officials also insisted that if an agreement cannot be reached, Ashya's future will be determined by the doctors treating him in Malaga - and not the High Court.
Andalucia's regional Health Minister said medics looking after Ashya at the Hospital Materno-Infantil in Malaga would have 'the last word' under a 2005 regulations governing healthcare for minors in southern Spain.
They guarantee that the interests of the child should always prevail. Regional Health Minister Maria Jose Sanchez Rubio said: 'Whoever has the child's custody, the rights of that child are determined by the laws of the country the child is presently in. The child is here and so the rules here apply. 'Every decision about his future is adopted in conjunction with the local State Prosecution Service to guarantee that from a judicial and protection point of view, the interests of the child always prevail.'
That's probably because he is now a ward. It has no relevance to the situation when he was removed from Southampton. Nor does a Spanish regulation tell you what the legal situation was in Southampton.
[ 05. September 2014, 15:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
