Nice People 12: Nice in Nice

chewmylegoff

PasturesNew wrote: »

I've never understood the sheer waste of time/manpower/money. Parents remove child from a hospital ... shouldn't be an Interpol on High Alert situation.

There are 000s of higher priority issues that they should be acting on with the same swiftness.

The parents did nothing wrong, there are no charges, but because of the rules they've been locked up.

Compare that to murderous/vicious crook/terrorists who get their human rights because they've a cat to feed...... nuts it is. Nuts.

Let them be with the kid, even if they tag them..... they can sort out this bizarre squabbling in a year's time.

I don't disagree. Seems to me that this sort of nonsense happens because people are more worried about getting fired from their jobs for failing to follow "advice" than they are about the welfare of the kid.

neverdespairgirl

michaels wrote: »

I know some NP won't be able to comment but legally and morally the treatment of Aysha and his family is appalling. How can they keep the poor child away from his parents

:rotfl::rotfl::mad::mad::(:(

PasturesNew wrote: »

Compare that to murderous/vicious crook/terrorists who get their human rights because they've a cat to feed...... nuts it is. Nuts.

Cat thing - Daily Fail made it up, IIRC.

zagubov

michaels wrote: »

I know some NP won't be able to comment but legally and morally the treatment of Aysha and his family is appalling. How can they keep the poor child away from his parents

It's only a year ago we were discussing a similar child brain tumour situation. It's staggering how badly this is ending for a dying child. But a lot of boxes have been ticked and several bureaucracies will be be tickety-boo about the situation.

It's a good job we're here to make the paperwork right instead of the other way round. Imahgine how mad it would be if the systems were meant to serve us.:o

I worked with someone whose child disappeared and was later found to have been murdered. The police spent more effort in investigating the parents than they did in chasing the culprit. And all the time the parents who thought the police would help them find the culprit were being held and been put through hell by the police who then neglected to chase the murderer. When the one thing the parents knew was that it wasn't them. :mad:

Sounds like a similar situation here. The very people driven to protect the child are swept aside and prevented from doing what they can.

neverdespairgirl

It is a horrible but sad fact - the people most likely to harm a child are those closest to him.

zagubov

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It is a horrible but sad fact - the people most likely to harm a child are those closest to him.

That is probably true. I am left wondering how, if parents have a child in duress, they can trust the authorities to pursue the culprits instead of themselves if the parents already know it isn't themselves. :mad:


I have often thought that parents who kill a child should be treated more severely - simply because of what they inflict on non-murderous bereaved parents. Thank goodness we don't have a word for living parents of dead children analogous to "orphan"


I know you cannot answer this and I will stop now.

Generali

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It is a horrible but sad fact - the people most likely to harm a child are those closest to him.

There was a terrible story over here, the outcome of which is unclear still, where it appears that a couple paid a woman in Thailand be a surrogate mother. She had twins, one of which had Downs Syndrome so they took the 'normal' one and left the other one.

In a twist, it turns out that the Dad is a convicted !!!!!! (kids).

vivatifosi

Re Ashya King.. It's a horrible situation. Trying to look at it dispassionately I think it's what you get when there is a breakdown of communication between people who all think they have a child's best interests at heart leading to a conflicting duty of care.

It's hard. I have the utmost sympathy for the parents. In my own family I've seen an adult relative die of a brain tumour. At the time there was a promising potential alternative that wasn't available at the UK centre of excellence. It's a tough situation... the docs will say it's untested, won't work,etc, but ultimately you grasp at straws because it is a desperate time and you know that there is no way out and your relative will die otherwise.

To a different extent, it's a bit like what I went through with my own diagnosis... I didn't get one because it was too hard a call to make and by the time they sat me down and told me that my case had been to every specialist in the UK and discussed by panel after panel. They had done everything they could but I was in limbo. I couldn't get a job, couldn't get insurance, couldn't get on with life and had a death sentence over me. So DH and I set out to find an alternative. Our research led us to the world's leading expert on this particular form of cancer and got the answer finally. And it was a good answer, better still.

It wasn't as if the docs didn't care in either my or the relative's situation, it's just that the armoury of available options ran out. Unfortunately people are always going to come to this ethical crossroads, be it due to a lack of funding or a lack of available options. I don't for one moment think that the hospital doesn't want the best for Ashya too.

I have utmost sympathy for the family. Their son is dying. They should be with him, not in jail. Equally I don't want to chuck the hospital under the bus if they were worried about a terminally ill child going missing, nor the police for doing their job, it's just that the outcome of that coming together of people who care has so far resulted in the worst possible outcome. Rather than looking in the mirror and partitioning blame, what's needed is thinking about now, and what's truly best for a sick child. The rest can be done later.

lostinrates

The only difference between the child and an adult is that its a child.

When I dithered over the lumber puncture knowing extra risks in my particular situation the neurologist was condescending and frankly vile, and when I went in with questions based on my particular circumstance she was rude.

When I reconciled and went in the next year and said I am ready to take the risk and accept the consequence she said...well, that's nice, but its far too risky for some one in you circumstance.


(Edit fwiw I remembered they also cancelled on me en route the first year when I was very edgey and uncomfortable after her dressing down. In retrospect, I wonder if she had checked then and seen how unwise the course of action was really but didn't want to say then. Our relationship has always been difficult because she doesn't like my symptoms )


Not through genius, just through being the ones at the appointments, the ones living with the body for and I are often more aware of what is going on than consultants, and no which tests will come back negative and which things will probably come back positive. Also which things I feel uncomfortable about test results or treatment and later test the way I felt more likely. ConsultNts are far from infallible. But they are educated and experienced. Usually that's good. So e times that provides tunnel vision.


The fact is in so e circumstances patients ARE better informed about the alternatives and risks because they can spend much more time researching their own /their child's condition.


Children are a different ball game because they cannot make these decisions themselves, rightly they need protecting from parents who believe the power of prayer alone or rolling in dew drops under a full moon might be just the ticket.


But it should be allowed to seek alternative medical treatment if its demonstrated that's what you are doing.

silvercar

Foreign news is giving a different slant.

The initial impression was that the parents were Jehovah's witnesses and the implication was that they may not be fully consenting to treatment plans...and therefore didn't have the child's best interests at heart.

By yesterday it had jumped to the parents seeking better treatment that they were refused access to in the UK. Apparently the Czecks have offered to treat, but there is doubt whether they can get the boy over there.

lostinrates

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It is a horrible but sad fact - the people most likely to harm a child are those closest to him.

And it seems often those least likely to help or believe them in some areas the authorities there to do so.........