So you can, say, refuse to give your diabetic kid insulin because you think nettle soup is more effective, and it doesn't legally count as neglect of some sort?
Initially YES (nobody can see what people are doing in their own Honmes after all)
However, when the child goes into a diabetic coma it's quite probable the hospital would call in social services and possibly section the parents under the mental health act.
Were the child to dio the parents would be facing criminal charges.
All situations are different. What put's me on the side of the parents here is that conventional NHS treatment seems not to be able to offer a cure for Ashya so I don't see what's to be lost by trying something else.
The parents probably went about it the wrong way, but now the authorities have tracked them down and made sure the boy is OK (as OK as it's possible to be when your terminally ill) they should be left alone and wished well for their Son's treatment.
Seems about right. Though as ever we don't know the full facts.
As an aside, strange how people on teh interwebs can take a side and argue it with increasing passion / anger about, literally, anything
And how long will this child be delayed from getting the Proton Beam treatment in Czechia? This whole heavy-handedness could cost this child his life.
Having seen a few interviews with experts, they are saying that this Proton treatment may not be appropriate for the tumour location. It is a new form of treament and there are several medical test trials going on at the moment in the US.
But I accept that the parents should have more say on what happens to their child, than an NHS Doctor who is only offering one option i.e death. If the parents can gain expert treatment elsewhere it is their choice as parents.
The parents, understandably, are driven by the need for hope. They may well not be acting rationally. They may merely be making this child's final weeks more uncomfortable. We don't know without having medical details, and such should of course remain confidential.
I suggest it should be the duty of a healthcare system to support the parents' or patient's decision-making, including advising against therapies that may offer hope, but don't offer any realistic probability of actually helping.
I've been involved in some research in this area (see Grunfeld EA, Maher EJ, Browne S, Ward P, Young T, Vivat B, Walker G, Wilson C, Potts HW, Westcombe AM, Richards MA, Ramirez AJ (2006). Advanced breast cancer patients' perceptions of decision making for palliative chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24(7), 1090-8). It is a difficult area to find a right answer. It is not an area where I think politics or social media commentary are very well-informed.
It's interesting, because since inflation targeting set in, what happens is that when demand goes too far past capacity in the frenzy, we raise interest rates and apply the breaks early, before too much debt is accumulated. This worked very well for a while. However what we did in the UK was to import large numbers of poor people at the same time, which kept wages down and held down prices. Interest rates continued to stay low, causing debt to pile up much more than it should have done.
So you can, say, refuse to give your diabetic kid insulin because you think nettle soup is more effective, and it doesn't legally count as neglect of some sort?
Child neglect is a law of which you are guilty when it can be shown you have not met your child's basic needs as part of your duty of care. If your kid goes into, or is about to go into a diabetic coma then the police can show that is evidence of neglect. However, disagreement with doctors is not enough to show that. Taking your kid abroad for medical treatment certainly doesn't constitute neglect.
They did not take him abroad for medical treatment. They had none organised, had not organised the money for it, and they fled to a country at the other side of Europe from their supposed destination.
Can we be sure that, the feeding tube aside, that the child was getting full and proper care?
It's madness. It's probably madness brought on by fear and compassion, but madness nonetheless.
They had not organised the money for it: their plan was to sell the place in Spain to get the money. That's why they were in Spain. You seem to be deliberately obtuse on listening to this point.
As for full and proper care, legal guardians of children don't need to prove their capabilities as parents. If we have evidence that they are failing in their duty of care, then you have reason to intervene, but there was absolutely no evidence of that. You seem to be arguing for an assumption of neglect.
It's interesting, because since inflation targeting set in, what happens is that when demand goes too far past capacity in the frenzy, we raise interest rates and apply the breaks early, before too much debt is accumulated. This worked very well for a while. However what we did in the UK was to import large numbers of poor people at the same time, which kept wages down and held down prices. Interest rates continued to stay low, causing debt to pile up much more than it should have done.
10:58: Clare Woodling Newsreader, BBC Radio Oxford In the news at 11:00: The North Oxfordshire MP Sir Tony Baldry has announced he will stand down at the next General Election. The 64-year-old has been telling BBC Radio Oxford "no-one can go on forever".
He was first elected to the Commons in 1983 GE. He leaves a nice 32.4% majority
It's interesting, because since inflation targeting set in, what happens is that when demand goes too far past capacity in the frenzy, we raise interest rates and apply the breaks early, before too much debt is accumulated. This worked very well for a while. However what we did in the UK was to import large numbers of poor people at the same time, which kept wages down and held down prices. Interest rates continued to stay low, causing debt to pile up much more than it should have done.
And how long will this child be delayed from getting the Proton Beam treatment in Czechia? This whole heavy-handedness could cost this child his life.
Having seen a few interviews with experts, they are saying that this Proton treatment may not be appropriate for the tumour location. It is a new form of treament and there are several medical test trials going on at the moment in the US.
But I accept that the parents should have more say on what happens to their child, than an NHS Doctor who is only offering one option i.e death. If the parents can gain expert treatment elsewhere it is their choice as parents.
The parents, understandably, are driven by the need for hope. They may well not be acting rationally. They may merely be making this child's final weeks more uncomfortable. We don't know without having medical details, and such should of course remain confidential.
I suggest it should be the duty of a healthcare system to support the parents' or patient's decision-making, including advising against therapies that may offer hope, but don't offer any realistic probability of actually helping.
I've been involved in some research in this area (see Grunfeld EA, Maher EJ, Browne S, Ward P, Young T, Vivat B, Walker G, Wilson C, Potts HW, Westcombe AM, Richards MA, Ramirez AJ (2006). Advanced breast cancer patients' perceptions of decision making for palliative chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24(7), 1090-8). It is a difficult area to find a right answer. It is not an area where I think politics or social media commentary are very well-informed.
It is also worth pointing out that this is certainly not a new form of treatment. It has been available in the US for decades having first been developed in the late 1950s. Given the extreme side effects that were presented for conventional radiation therapy I am completely sympathetic to the plight of the parents and their actions.
advising against therapies that may offer hope, but don't offer any realistic probability of actually helping.
Key word here - advising
The proton treatment may well not work, could well be a waste of £100,000... but the parents can try it if they wish to do so.
THere is an interesting question here - how much does the NHS value the child's life, and how much do the parents. To the parents I would suggest their son's life has an almost infinite monetary worth, and so even if the chances of survival are raised from 0.1% to 0.11% by the proton beam treatment which would value his life at £1Bn - that is a price worth paying for the parents. Clearly the NHS could not afford to value each life at (effectively) £1 Bn as it just doesn't have that much money.
The 0.1 and 0.11% chances I have made up (Perhaps it is 30%/35% ?) but there simply must have to be a value placed on people's lives in the NHS, as heartless as it sounds. It could be the marginal benefit of this treatment is simply not cost effective.
My mate whose Brother works at Manchester Airport, has said Falcao is arriving today to sign for United. Loan deal.
Your mates brother should be doing his job at the airport instead of reading twitter #oldnews
Incidentally, did TSE's mate's brother first hear about this story from his aunt's cousin's sister-in-law?
Nah. From his dog's vet's milkman who delivers to Carrington
My mate's been in touch. His cousin's postie has just seen a posh car outside Salford branch of Greggs, private number plate LE0 ME551. Make of that what you will.
Kelly going is further indication of morale in the Tory party falling apart,caught in a collective EU OCD-induced malaise.If it's true Tories have 2 states of being,complacency and panic,it's pretty clear which of the 2 will predicate the MO of the Tories from now on.
We are now getting extremely strong signals about what is going to happen on 18 September. A lot of votes have already been cast, and the Yes Scotland databases are looking good. Very good.
What sort of signals? If this is based on canvassing before people have voted, we know that's often unreliable. If this is based on how people have voted by post, aren't you in danger of breaking Section 66 of the Representation of the People's Act?
Labour and Ladbrokes* in cahoots?? Both gonna take a massive hit in Thurrock I reckon #ukip #wwc #16/1
Tim Aker MEP @Tim_Aker · 2m I always knew #Thurrock Labour were worried about #UKIP but they really hit a new low over the weekend. Story to follow...
Why the hell are Israel doing this, the West Bank is run by the moderatish Fatah party. Do they really want to drive more support to Hamas, to have Hamas as the party of Gov't in the West Bank ?
So you can, say, refuse to give your diabetic kid insulin because you think nettle soup is more effective, and it doesn't legally count as neglect of some sort?
Child neglect is a law of which you are guilty when it can be shown you have not met your child's basic needs as part of your duty of care. If your kid goes into, or is about to go into a diabetic coma then the police can show that is evidence of neglect. However, disagreement with doctors is not enough to show that. Taking your kid abroad for medical treatment certainly doesn't constitute neglect.
They did not take him abroad for medical treatment. They had none organised, had not organised the money for it, and they fled to a country at the other side of Europe from their supposed destination.
Can we be sure that, the feeding tube aside, that the child was getting full and proper care?
It's madness. It's probably madness brought on by fear and compassion, but madness nonetheless.
They had not organised the money for it: their plan was to sell the place in Spain to get the money. That's why they were in Spain. You seem to be deliberately obtuse on listening to this point.
As for full and proper care, legal guardians of children don't need to prove their capabilities as parents. If we have evidence that they are failing in their duty of care, then you have reason to intervene, but there was absolutely no evidence of that. You seem to be arguing for an assumption of neglect.
I did not know that they were planning to sell their place in Spain, I thought it was a place in England. If that's the case, then why not sell the place first? Why not get as many things as possible organised before removing their child from hospital?
Are you sure that the child is getting the treatment he needs whilst his parents were on the run? Was he getting suitable care?
I am not arguing for a assumption of neglect. I'm saying that there *may* have been neglect. But we're really discussing it without knowledge: either of us could be right.
Why the hell are Israel doing this, the West Bank is run by the moderatish Fatah party. Do they really want to drive more support to Hamas, to have Hamas as the party of Gov't in the West Bank ?
Does Israel want that - really ?!
Yes, they do. They want a pretext to create more Lebensraum for the Israelis, and drive out the impure. Just, were not allowed to say that because of the holocaust, man
We are now getting extremely strong signals about what is going to happen on 18 September. A lot of votes have already been cast, and the Yes Scotland databases are looking good. Very good.
What sort of signals? If this is based on canvassing before people have voted, we know that's often unreliable. If this is based on how people have voted by post, aren't you in danger of breaking Section 66 of the Representation of the People's Act?
He clearly states it is YES databases if you care to read the post
So you can, say, refuse to give your diabetic kid insulin because you think nettle soup is more effective, and it doesn't legally count as neglect of some sort?
Child neglect is a law of which you are guilty when it can be shown you have not met your child's basic needs as part of your duty of care. If your kid goes into, or is about to go into a diabetic coma then the police can show that is evidence of neglect. However, disagreement with doctors is not enough to show that. Taking your kid abroad for medical treatment certainly doesn't constitute neglect.
They did not take him abroad for medical treatment. They had none organised, had not organised the money for it, and they fled to a country at the other side of Europe from their supposed destination.
Can we be sure that, the feeding tube aside, that the child was getting full and proper care?
It's madness. It's probably madness brought on by fear and compassion, but madness nonetheless.
They had not organised the money for it: their plan was to sell the place in Spain to get the money. That's why they were in Spain. You seem to be deliberately obtuse on listening to this point.
As for full and proper care, legal guardians of children don't need to prove their capabilities as parents. If we have evidence that they are failing in their duty of care, then you have reason to intervene, but there was absolutely no evidence of that. You seem to be arguing for an assumption of neglect.
I did not know that they were planning to sell their place in Spain, I thought it was a place in England. If that's the case, then why not sell the place first? Why not get as many things as possible organised before removing their child from hospital?
Are you sure that the child is getting the treatment he needs whilst his parents were on the run? Was he getting suitable care?
I am not arguing for a assumption of neglect. I'm saying that there *may* have been neglect. But we're really discussing it without knowledge: either of us could be right.
So you can, say, refuse to give your diabetic kid insulin because you think nettle soup is more effective, and it doesn't legally count as neglect of some sort?
Initially YES (nobody can see what people are doing in their own Honmes after all)
However, when the child goes into a diabetic coma it's quite probable the hospital would call in social services and possibly section the parents under the mental health act.
Were the child to dio the parents would be facing criminal charges.
All situations are different. What put's me on the side of the parents here is that conventional NHS treatment seems not to be able to offer a cure for Ashya so I don't see what's to be lost by trying something else.
The parents probably went about it the wrong way, but now the authorities have tracked them down and made sure the boy is OK (as OK as it's possible to be when your terminally ill) they should be left alone and wished well for their Son's treatment.
Seems about right. Though as ever we don't know the full facts.
As an aside, strange how people on teh interwebs can take a side and argue it with increasing passion / anger about, literally, anything
LOL! Are you saying we're all a load on wind-bags?
I've got more interested in the patient/doctor set-up since I had a pre-cancerous lesion in my mouth last year.
I did quite a bit of research at the time and discovered oral cancer often provides a fair amount of difficulty between patients and doctors as the main treatment is invasive surgery (sometimes total removal of the tongue or large parts of the jaw/floor of mouth, etc..) and radiotherapy - Chemotherapy tends to be ineffective for this form of cancer, but a lot of people don't want their faces/mouth/tongues being cut up so tend to refuse surgery and ask for chemotherapy instead.
Doctors know this treatment isn't recommended and it can cause all sorts of problems between doctors and patients with patients sometimes being left without any treatment at all.
Why the hell are Israel doing this, the West Bank is run by the moderatish Fatah party. Do they really want to drive more support to Hamas, to have Hamas as the party of Gov't in the West Bank ?
Does Israel want that - really ?!
The Israelis have the weapons to win a war with the Palestinians, so provoking conflict makes sense.
Labour and Ladbrokes* in cahoots?? Both gonna take a massive hit in Thurrock I reckon #ukip #wwc #16/1
Tim Aker MEP @Tim_Aker · 2m I always knew #Thurrock Labour were worried about #UKIP but they really hit a new low over the weekend. Story to follow...
Mr. 56, the parents should've informed the hospital.
I fail to see why you're criticising the view that it's insane more police action has been taken to arrest two parents taking their own child than over 1,400 cases of sexual abuse against children.
Mr. Sulphate, quite. The pasty bullshit got more sustained attention, as did the yacht nonsense.
Mr Dancer, I merely comment on what strikes me as a superficially inconsistent stance until one realises that the protagonist merely seeks the opportunity to push an agenda, namely that anything to do with the EU is to be criticised whatever the context. To be fair, this is consistent with Farage's response to the question why he never votes in the EP.
As a hypothetical, it would be interesting to see the response should the European arrest warrant be used to extradite a suspect in a Rotherham child sexual exploitation investigation...
Are you really saying that wanting the police to investigate child rape is inconsistent with not wanting them to use an international arrest warrant to pursue a family with a sick child? On what bizarre mental plane is this inconsistent?
Not been following the news closely this morning but I am confused as to the grounds for the Spanish arresting the parents. As far as I know they have broken no law so what would the grounds be for extradition?
People trying to appear concerned over Israeli actions to friends and family whilst being rather more coy about their interest in revealing Jennifer Lawrence pictures ?
BBC Most shared 1: Israel to take over West Bank land
Most Popular Read 1: Naked photos of celebrities leaked
Quite telling of the human condition to my mind...
Labour and Ladbrokes* in cahoots?? Both gonna take a massive hit in Thurrock I reckon #ukip #wwc #16/1
Tim Aker MEP @Tim_Aker · 2m I always knew #Thurrock Labour were worried about #UKIP but they really hit a new low over the weekend. Story to follow...
Not been following the news closely this morning but I am confused as to the grounds for the Spanish arresting the parents. As far as I know they have broken no law so what would the grounds be for extradition?
Not been following the news closely this morning but I am confused as to the grounds for the Spanish arresting the parents. As far as I know they have broken no law so what would the grounds be for extradition?
The British have asked for it ?
Does the Spanish judge need to consider the facts or are those relevant when the parents are back in England - and the fact the Brits have asked for it is enough (And so will go through the relevant legal procedures back in England...)
I suspect that Chris Kelly's generation (born in the 70s, achieved adulthood in the early 90s, before the "sleaze" campaign tainted the body politic) is the last with a romanticised view of public service/what it means to be an MP
Anyone politically interested born in the 80s and achieving maturity under Blair knows full well what is expected of an MP.
So what we are seeing is a one-time effect as people's illusions are cruelly shattered. A number of those individuals will be brave enough to say: it's not for me.
Labour and Ladbrokes* in cahoots?? Both gonna take a massive hit in Thurrock I reckon #ukip #wwc #16/1
Tim Aker MEP @Tim_Aker · 2m I always knew #Thurrock Labour were worried about #UKIP but they really hit a new low over the weekend. Story to follow...
They had not organised the money for it: their plan was to sell the place in Spain to get the money. That's why they were in Spain. You seem to be deliberately obtuse on listening to this point.
As for full and proper care, legal guardians of children don't need to prove their capabilities as parents. If we have evidence that they are failing in their duty of care, then you have reason to intervene, but there was absolutely no evidence of that. You seem to be arguing for an assumption of neglect.
I did not know that they were planning to sell their place in Spain, I thought it was a place in England. If that's the case, then why not sell the place first? Why not get as many things as possible organised before removing their child from hospital?
Are you sure that the child is getting the treatment he needs whilst his parents were on the run? Was he getting suitable care?
I am not arguing for a assumption of neglect. I'm saying that there *may* have been neglect. But we're really discussing it without knowledge: either of us could be right.
I don't know why they did things in a particular order, but they don't have any need to justify their raising of money to me, or to the UK authorities.
I also do not know with certainty whether any child in the country is getting the treatment they need. But I have no reason to believe this child wasn't, and the authorities haven't provided any evidence that he wasn't. The child had already been released to their on a shorter timeframe, so it seems highly likely that they knew what he needed after this experience and they continued to provide it. This is what the child's uncle has claimed.
The term "may" has no place in arrest and extradition proceedings. What you (should) need is *evidence*. We have seen no evidence of neglect so far. Without such evidence it is frankly oppressive of the state to take a child away from his parents.
One of the things I have found surprising, since I of course take all that is said on here by Yes campaigners as gospel, is how few of the people I have been canvassing have been spoken to by the Yes campaign. There were 2 yesterday.
...There was some suggestion recently that BT had in fact contacted a greater percentage of the electorate than Yes.
Waiting for Populus- Should be our first real guide to where public opinion stands since "The Rights" decided it was going to destroy itself.
Expecting Labour to go above 40% in the polls this week.
If any poll were to show Labour on 40%+ it would be an obvious outlier.
Tend to agree - I didn't see any signs of significant movement canvassing at the weekend and think things are still drifting around. As Tim Montgomerie observed, the polling average in EVERY month this year had had Labour within a point of 36 and Tories within a point of 33. I'd be surprised if Populus showed another Tory lead, and assume it will swing back to Lab +2 or whatever.
The Ashya King case is really proxy for the argument of who has the final say on whats best for children, the parents or the state?
As I linked to earlier, its bordering on communism to charge the parents with neglect for doing what they thinks is best
Given the latest scandals in Yorkshire I find it surprising so many are siding with the state
People in this thread really need to wake up and consider the utterly ridiculous orwellian un-logic their devotion to the 'mainstream' is making them espouse.
Have you seen The Times today? They've named the whistleblower [a qualified solicitor who was suspended for *gross misconduct* after sending her report to the HOffice anyway] and the two people who intimidated her - one was a director of services, the other the borough commander from SYPolice.
An aside: compare and contrast the police action over the Kings to that of South Yorkshire over the Rotherham disgrace. Seeking medical treatment for a child (albeit without informing the hospital first) seems to get more attention than raping children in care.
The lack of media follow-up to the Rotherham disgrace is also depressing.
The Ashya King case is really proxy for the argument of who has the final say on whats best for children, the parents or the state?
As I linked to earlier, its bordering on communism to charge the parents with neglect for doing what they thinks is best
Given the latest scandals in Yorkshire I find it surprising so many are siding with the state
It's the NHS that needs prosecuting. Trying to force the child back here to die while they sit on their hands. That, or being scrapped and replaced with something that isn't a load of 40s Labour wet dream.
The Ashya King case is really proxy for the argument of who has the final say on whats best for children, the parents or the state?
As I linked to earlier, its bordering on communism to charge the parents with neglect for doing what they thinks is best
Given the latest scandals in Yorkshire I find it surprising so many are siding with the state
People in this thread really need to wake up and consider the utterly ridiculous orwellian un-logic their devotion to the 'mainstream' is making them espouse.
So you can, say, refuse to give your diabetic kid insulin because you think nettle soup is more effective, and it doesn't legally count as neglect of some sort?
Child neglect is a law of which you are guilty when it can be shown you have not met your child's basic needs as part of your duty of care. If your kid goes into, or is about to go into a diabetic coma then the police can show that is evidence of neglect. However, disagreement with doctors is not enough to show that. Taking your kid abroad for medical treatment certainly doesn't constitute neglect.
They did not take him abroad for medical treatment. They had none organised, had not organised the money for it, and they fled to a country at the other side of Europe from their supposed destination.
Can we be sure that, the feeding tube aside, that the child was getting full and proper care?
It's madness. It's probably madness brought on by fear and compassion, but madness nonetheless.
They had not organised the money for it: their plan was to sell the place in Spain to get the money. That's why they were in Spain. You seem to be deliberately obtuse on listening to this point.
As for full and proper care, legal guardians of children don't need to prove their capabilities as parents. If we have evidence that they are failing in their duty of care, then you have reason to intervene, but there was absolutely no evidence of that. You seem to be arguing for an assumption of neglect.
I did not know that they were planning to sell their place in Spain, I thought it was a place in England. If that's the case, then why not sell the place first? Why not get as many things as possible organised before removing their child from hospital?
Are you sure that the child is getting the treatment he needs whilst his parents were on the run? Was he getting suitable care?
I am not arguing for a assumption of neglect. I'm saying that there *may* have been neglect. But we're really discussing it without knowledge: either of us could be right.
... Even more traumatised will be Labour. The prospect of a majority Labour government at Westminster after 2016 will be remote. The party in Scotland will likely go into meltdown, with a Podemos-style left emerging among the pro-independence Labour camp, the Greens and the progressives around groups like Common Weal.
Thought for the day. Given it's increasingly obvious that Cameron is the problem for the Tories in Parliament, will a yes vote and his resignation save the party, and stop Ed? Unite the right,
So you can, say, refuse to give your diabetic kid insulin because you think nettle soup is more effective, and it doesn't legally count as neglect of some sort?
Child neglect is a law of which you are guilty when it can be shown you have not met your child's basic needs as part of your duty of care. If your kid goes into, or is about to go into a diabetic coma then the police can show that is evidence of neglect. However, disagreement with doctors is not enough to show that. Taking your kid abroad for medical treatment certainly doesn't constitute neglect.
They did not take him abroad for medical treatment. They had none organised, had not organised the money for it, and they fled to a country at the other side of Europe from their supposed destination.
Can we be sure that, the feeding tube aside, that the child was getting full and proper care?
It's madness. It's probably madness brought on by fear and compassion, but madness nonetheless.
They had not organised the money for it: their plan was to sell the place in Spain to get the money. That's why they were in Spain. You seem to be deliberately obtuse on listening to this point.
As for full and proper care, legal guardians of children don't need to prove their capabilities as parents. If we have evidence that they are failing in their duty of care, then you have reason to intervene, but there was absolutely no evidence of that. You seem to be arguing for an assumption of neglect.
I did not know that they were planning to sell their place in Spain, I thought it was a place in England. If that's the case, then why not sell the place first? Why not get as many things as possible organised before removing their child from hospital?
Are you sure that the child is getting the treatment he needs whilst his parents were on the run? Was he getting suitable care?
I am not arguing for a assumption of neglect. I'm saying that there *may* have been neglect. But we're really discussing it without knowledge: either of us could be right.
Mr. Woolie, obvious? Not to centre voters. Cameron's lost the right, at least partly, but is stronger than Miliband in the centre. If the Conservatives ditch him and go right they'll likely lose the centre rather than regain the right.
And how long will this child be delayed from getting the Proton Beam treatment in Czechia? This whole heavy-handedness could cost this child his life.
Having seen a few interviews with experts, they are saying that this Proton treatment may not be appropriate for the tumour location. It is a new form of treament and there are several medical test trials going on at the moment in the US.
But I accept that the parents should have more say on what happens to their child, than an NHS Doctor who is only offering one option i.e death. If the parents can gain expert treatment elsewhere it is their choice as parents.
The parents, understandably, are driven by the need for hope. They may well not be acting rationally. They may merely be making this child's final weeks more uncomfortable. We don't know without having medical details, and such should of course remain confidential.
I suggest it should be the duty of a healthcare system to support the parents' or patient's decision-making, including advising against therapies that may offer hope, but don't offer any realistic probability of actually helping.
I've been involved in some research in this area (see Grunfeld EA, Maher EJ, Browne S, Ward P, Young T, Vivat B, Walker G, Wilson C, Potts HW, Westcombe AM, Richards MA, Ramirez AJ (2006). Advanced breast cancer patients' perceptions of decision making for palliative chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24(7), 1090-8). It is a difficult area to find a right answer. It is not an area where I think politics or social media commentary are very well-informed.
Mr. Woolie, obvious? Not to centre voters. Cameron's lost the right, at least partly, but is stronger than Miliband in the centre. If the Conservatives ditch him and go right they'll likely lose the centre rather than regain the right.
It's not about position. It's about his inability to project substance and belief. He stands for nothing. He's Blair. There is nothing to rally round, nothing to champion, nothing to believe in. He has to go.
Edit - you can unite right and centre right quite comfortably and carry the increasingly right wing electorate with you.
I don't know why they did things in a particular order, but they don't have any need to justify their raising of money to me, or to the UK authorities.
I also do not know with certainty whether any child in the country is getting the treatment they need. But I have no reason to believe this child wasn't, and the authorities haven't provided any evidence that he wasn't. The child had already been released to their on a shorter timeframe, so it seems highly likely that they knew what he needed after this experience and they continued to provide it. This is what the child's uncle has claimed.
The term "may" has no place in arrest and extradition proceedings. What you (should) need is *evidence*. We have seen no evidence of neglect so far. Without such evidence it is frankly oppressive of the state to take a child away from his parents.
"The child had already been released to their on a shorter timeframe,"
A few hours, not for days and/or weeks. That's totally different if the child was on a drugs regime.
"We have seen no evidence of neglect so far."
The state is under no obligation to provide numpties on the Internet with the evidence on which they are basing their current actions at this time. Just because they have not shared it with you yet, does not mean there is not any. Perhaps your assumption is right and they do not have any evidence; perhaps you are wrong. If you are right then they are bang out of order.
This poor child was seriously ill, and was apparently on a feeding tube. This throws up a whole load of questions about whether the parents are capable (even if willing) of caring for him in a proper manner and not causing him further pain and distress.
To reiterate: as far as I'm concerned and from what I've seen, the hospital and police did the right thing in trying to track the boy down once his parents had removed him from hospital. This includes the publicity and tracking him through France. I cannot see what else they could have been expected to do.
I'm a lot less certain about their current actions and court case; I can see it both ways.
advising against therapies that may offer hope, but don't offer any realistic probability of actually helping.
Key word here - advising
The proton treatment may well not work, could well be a waste of £100,000... but the parents can try it if they wish to do so.
THere is an interesting question here - how much does the NHS value the child's life, and how much do the parents. To the parents I would suggest their son's life has an almost infinite monetary worth, and so even if the chances of survival are raised from 0.1% to 0.11% by the proton beam treatment which would value his life at £1Bn - that is a price worth paying for the parents. Clearly the NHS could not afford to value each life at (effectively) £1 Bn as it just doesn't have that much money.
The 0.1 and 0.11% chances I have made up (Perhaps it is 30%/35% ?) but there simply must have to be a value placed on people's lives in the NHS, as heartless as it sounds. It could be the marginal benefit of this treatment is simply not cost effective.
I think your analysis of the financial perspective is sound, and why healthcare services always face cost pressures. What is apparent, however, is that parents and patients, driven by an understandable desperation, are not good at judging those chances.
In many cases -- I don't know about the specifics of this one -- the alternative therapy that isn't available doesn't offer a 0.11% chance compared to a 0.1% chance, or a 35% chance versus a 30% chance. Rather, the standard approach offers a 0.01% chance and the alternative approach offers a 0.01% chance, but with additional side-effects that reduce the individual's quality of life in the final days/weeks/months. Indeed, sometimes the alternative approach actually offers a 0.0095% chance.
I am all for patients becoming empowered and looking for new solutions themselves. But when facing imminent mortality, parents and patients need a lot of help to make what are very difficult choices. It is very easy to be attracted by the possibility that something out there will save your life or you child's life when doctors say there is nothing more that can be done. But it's rarely true.
Mr. Woolie, he lacks Blair's Messiah complex. I concur entirely that he should've had some serious red meat for his own side, the lack of it is insignificant. He was also wrong to cut Defence.
For all that, he's still the best realistic candidate for the job by a distance.
It's well and good dreaming of Trajan or Aurelian, but we've got the choice between someone worthy of a shrug, and two other chaps worthy of rather more offensive gestures.
People trying to appear concerned over Israeli actions to friends and family whilst being rather more coy about their interest in revealing Jennifer Lawrence pictures ?
BBC Most shared 1: Israel to take over West Bank land
Most Popular Read 1: Naked photos of celebrities leaked
Quite telling of the human condition to my mind...
Mr. Woolie, obvious? Not to centre voters. Cameron's lost the right, at least partly, but is stronger than Miliband in the centre. If the Conservatives ditch him and go right they'll likely lose the centre rather than regain the right.
Don't confuse him with polling evidence! Like the Yessers the Tory right prefer "truth" to "facts"!
O/T - but do we know if the Tories are planning on moving the writ for Clacton today as had been supposed? By my reckoning, under the new 'extended' campaign period the one bit that appears to have been shortened is moving of the writ to Close of Nominations (being 4pm on Day 3, Day 0 being move of the writ). This makes it Thursday, for a writ moved today which gives them precious little time to find and select a candidate.
(As an aside, it is also problematic for minor parties who may wish to contest the election, but have no base in the seat to crank up into action - if the writ is indeed moved quickly, it will be interesting to see how many minors actually contest it)
[I don't see the point of pretending it's 'separatists' doing the fighting. It's clearly Russian soldiers and tanks making the difference. The EU continues to flop about impotently, and Obama's only brave decision in the last few years was to wear a rather questionable jacket].
So you can, say, refuse to give your diabetic kid insulin because you think nettle soup is more effective, and it doesn't legally count as neglect of some sort?
Child neglect is a law of which you are guilty when it can be shown you have not met your child's basic needs as part of your duty of care. If your kid goes into, or is about to go into a diabetic coma then the police can show that is evidence of neglect. However, disagreement with doctors is not enough to show that. Taking your kid abroad for medical treatment certainly doesn't constitute neglect.
They did not take him abroad for medical treatment. They had none organised, had not organised the money for it, and they fled to a country at the other side of Europe from their supposed destination.
Can we be sure that, the feeding tube aside, that the child was getting full and proper care?
It's madness. It's probably madness brought on by fear and compassion, but madness nonetheless.
They had not organised the money for it: their plan was to sell the place in Spain to get the money. That's why they were in Spain. You seem to be deliberately obtuse on listening to this point.
As for full and proper care, legal guardians of children don't need to prove their capabilities as parents. If we have evidence that they are failing in their duty of care, then you have reason to intervene, but there was absolutely no evidence of that. You seem to be arguing for an assumption of neglect.
I did not know that they were planning to sell their place in Spain, I thought it was a place in England. If that's the case, then why not sell the place first? Why not get as many things as possible organised before removing their child from hospital?
Are you sure that the child is getting the treatment he needs whilst his parents were on the run? Was he getting suitable care?
I am not arguing for a assumption of neglect. I'm saying that there *may* have been neglect. But we're really discussing it without knowledge: either of us could be right.
English law presumes "Not guilty"...
Well, duh. And your point is?
Evidence of neglect is needed, no "may" about it.
It's not me who has asked for court action. The *may* refers to my uncertainty on the issue, as is clear from the sentence that followed.
It's perfectly possible that the authorities have evidence of neglect, or at least good reason to believe that there was neglect. If they have not, then they're stupid for taking them to court.
[I don't see the point of pretending it's 'separatists' doing the fighting. It's clearly Russian soldiers and tanks making the difference. The EU continues to flop about impotently, and Obama's only brave decision in the last few years was to wear a rather questionable jacket].
The EU has no ability to send in the tanks. Sanctions are not going to stop the Russians.
[I don't see the point of pretending it's 'separatists' doing the fighting. It's clearly Russian soldiers and tanks making the difference. The EU continues to flop about impotently, and Obama's only brave decision in the last few years was to wear a rather questionable jacket].
The West seems to have adopted a new doctrine of allowing countries to invade their neighbours for territorial gain so long as they don't put their troops in marked uniforms. Churchill would be rolling over in his grave.
Mr. Woolie, obvious? Not to centre voters. Cameron's lost the right, at least partly, but is stronger than Miliband in the centre. If the Conservatives ditch him and go right they'll likely lose the centre rather than regain the right.
You post like 'the centre' is a fixed marker, not what it is, a moveable feast. What the centre is is changing before our eyes.
The King case sounds like a case of bad (or no) communication. With a terminal child, the hospital will be happy for the child to be taken in or taken out on demand as long as they don't believe the child could be being harmed or neglected. They can advise, but doctors are often parents too and will be very sympathetic.
I don't blame the police for their action - they can only go on what they are told.
Cameron enabled me to join the Tories, despite his misplaced views on climate change. Given I've voted for everyone in the middle ground - I think you're spot on. Labour are unelectable for me. EdM as PM? No way. Their policies? Are there any?
I hope that come May 2015, most other centre voters choose the Tories in greater numbers than 2010.
Mr. Woolie, obvious? Not to centre voters. Cameron's lost the right, at least partly, but is stronger than Miliband in the centre. If the Conservatives ditch him and go right they'll likely lose the centre rather than regain the right.
"Let’s assume that Farage is behaving rationally. Logic suggests why he wants Labour to win. It is that his real ambition is to reshape Britain’s political Right. He wants the Tories to lose, tear themselves apart as the different wings blame each other for defeat, and then split over the best way forward. Farage would be waiting in the wings, offering to join forces with Conservative eurosceptics – so that, before long, he could take them over."
Mr. 1000, too late now, but the US should've sent in soldiers to man the Ukraine border. Would've stopped the Russians getting in without having the US do any fighting.
I also would've not had the EU 'High Representative' dick about with a situation and bugger it up so horrendously. Soft power's all well and good, but there's a reason Britannia carries a trident as well as an olive branch.
Mr. 1983, I concur the centre moves but I don't think it happens especially rapidly. Anyway, maybe we'll get to find out.
This reminds me of a piece in Private Eye taking the pee out of the Telegraph and its obsession with Liz Hurley. Some wag totted up how many nonsense stories they'd published = IIRC it was 84 at the time. Someone clearly had a crush on her.
O/T - but do we know if the Tories are planning on moving the writ for Clacton today as had been supposed? By my reckoning, under the new 'extended' campaign period the one bit that appears to have been shortened is moving of the writ to Close of Nominations (being 4pm on Day 3, Day 0 being move of the writ). This makes it Thursday, for a writ moved today which gives them precious little time to find and select a candidate.
(As an aside, it is also problematic for minor parties who may wish to contest the election, but have no base in the seat to crank up into action - if the writ is indeed moved quickly, it will be interesting to see how many minors actually contest it)
If I was David I would move the writ immediately and not even bother putting a candidate up. That would make the whole campaign utterly irrelevant..
Unlike Farage, I'm a sceptic who wants to leave, not a politician hunting for glory. Farage is putting his party and himself before what was his political raison d'etre. Carswell likewise.
Comments
As an aside, strange how people on teh interwebs can take a side and argue it with increasing passion / anger about, literally, anything
I suggest it should be the duty of a healthcare system to support the parents' or patient's decision-making, including advising against therapies that may offer hope, but don't offer any realistic probability of actually helping.
I've been involved in some research in this area (see Grunfeld EA, Maher EJ, Browne S, Ward P, Young T, Vivat B, Walker G, Wilson C, Potts HW, Westcombe AM, Richards MA, Ramirez AJ (2006). Advanced breast cancer patients' perceptions of decision making for palliative chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24(7), 1090-8). It is a difficult area to find a right answer. It is not an area where I think politics or social media commentary are very well-informed.
As for full and proper care, legal guardians of children don't need to prove their capabilities as parents. If we have evidence that they are failing in their duty of care, then you have reason to intervene, but there was absolutely no evidence of that. You seem to be arguing for an assumption of neglect.
He was first elected to the Commons in 1983 GE. He leaves a nice 32.4% majority
World's gone mad
Nice bloke.
The proton treatment may well not work, could well be a waste of £100,000... but the parents can try it if they wish to do so.
THere is an interesting question here - how much does the NHS value the child's life, and how much do the parents. To the parents I would suggest their son's life has an almost infinite monetary worth, and so even if the chances of survival are raised from 0.1% to 0.11% by the proton beam treatment which would value his life at £1Bn - that is a price worth paying for the parents. Clearly the NHS could not afford to value each life at (effectively) £1 Bn as it just doesn't have that much money.
The 0.1 and 0.11% chances I have made up (Perhaps it is 30%/35% ?) but there simply must have to be a value placed on people's lives in the NHS, as heartless as it sounds. It could be the marginal benefit of this treatment is simply not cost effective.
Ashya Kings parents are in a Madrid court awaiting extradition proceedings... if they resist they will be in custody, possibly for weeks or months
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29008045
That should help calm tensions in the region.
No supporter threw a chair at my eight-year-old son, claims Yes campaigner
http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/no-supporter-threw-chair-eight-year-old-4143236
Rafa Benitez made his milkman famous
Meet John the Milkman, the man at the centre of Rafa Benitez's barmy outburst
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8074570/Meet-John-the-Milkman-the-man-at-the-centre-of-Rafa-Benitezs-barmy-outburst.html
Tim Aker MEP @Tim_Aker · 2m
I always knew #Thurrock Labour were worried about #UKIP but they really hit a new low over the weekend. Story to follow...
*EDIT it was Paddy not Ladbrokes apols to @Shadsy
Does Israel want that - really ?!
Are you sure that the child is getting the treatment he needs whilst his parents were on the run? Was he getting suitable care?
I am not arguing for a assumption of neglect. I'm saying that there *may* have been neglect. But we're really discussing it without knowledge: either of us could be right.
Everyone knows God's own country is Yorkshire.
I've got more interested in the patient/doctor set-up since I had a pre-cancerous lesion in my mouth last year.
I did quite a bit of research at the time and discovered oral cancer often provides a fair amount of difficulty between patients and doctors as the main treatment is invasive surgery (sometimes total removal of the tongue or large parts of the jaw/floor of mouth, etc..) and radiotherapy - Chemotherapy tends to be ineffective for this form of cancer, but a lot of people don't want their faces/mouth/tongues being cut up so tend to refuse surgery and ask for chemotherapy instead.
Doctors know this treatment isn't recommended and it can cause all sorts of problems between doctors and patients with patients sometimes being left without any treatment at all.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-tory-eurosceptics-to-defy-cameron-with-manifesto-pledges-in-next-years-general-election-9702683.html
BBC Most shared
1: Israel to take over West Bank land
Most Popular
Read
1: Naked photos of celebrities leaked
Quite telling of the human condition to my mind...
The girl in Hornchurch Paddys couldn't find the price and just took my word for it at 16/1! Wish I'd asked for 20s now
£125 invested, would have been 10 times that a year ago but times is tough
As I linked to earlier, its bordering on communism to charge the parents with neglect for doing what they thinks is best
Given the latest scandals in Yorkshire I find it surprising so many are siding with the state
Does the Spanish judge need to consider the facts or are those relevant when the parents are back in England - and the fact the Brits have asked for it is enough (And so will go through the relevant legal procedures back in England...)
Genuine question.
Edited extra bit: backed all of those, but cocked up forgetting to check the each/way box so had to make extra, smaller, bets for that. Bugger.
I also do not know with certainty whether any child in the country is getting the treatment they need. But I have no reason to believe this child wasn't, and the authorities haven't provided any evidence that he wasn't. The child had already been released to their on a shorter timeframe, so it seems highly likely that they knew what he needed after this experience and they continued to provide it. This is what the child's uncle has claimed.
The term "may" has no place in arrest and extradition proceedings. What you (should) need is *evidence*. We have seen no evidence of neglect so far. Without such evidence it is frankly oppressive of the state to take a child away from his parents.
On Topic
The Conservatives Jackie Doyle Price has first time incumbency in Thurrock yet seems to have no chance.... why is this in your opinion?
We shd expect a Ministerial statement in the Commons on Rotherham child abuse "fairly soon" No10 says. Tho not likely today.
Would explain you confusing God's country
It's just appalling. This is from 2002 IIRC.
That, or being scrapped and replaced with something that isn't a load of 40s Labour wet dream.
The South Yorkshire spokesman a few days ago apologised but did not announce any resignations nor any investigation. It's despicable.
Given it's increasingly obvious that Cameron is the problem for the Tories in Parliament, will a yes vote and his resignation save the party, and stop Ed?
Unite the right,
https://humanism.org.uk/2014/09/01/libel-tourist-nigerian-witch-hunter-self-styled-lady-apostle-helen-ukpabio-attempts-stifle-critics-suing-bha-half-billion-pounds/
He stands for nothing. He's Blair. There is nothing to rally round, nothing to champion, nothing to believe in. He has to go.
Edit - you can unite right and centre right quite comfortably and carry the increasingly right wing electorate with you.
Should Dave go before, or after the party conference?
A few hours, not for days and/or weeks. That's totally different if the child was on a drugs regime.
"We have seen no evidence of neglect so far."
The state is under no obligation to provide numpties on the Internet with the evidence on which they are basing their current actions at this time. Just because they have not shared it with you yet, does not mean there is not any. Perhaps your assumption is right and they do not have any evidence; perhaps you are wrong. If you are right then they are bang out of order.
This poor child was seriously ill, and was apparently on a feeding tube. This throws up a whole load of questions about whether the parents are capable (even if willing) of caring for him in a proper manner and not causing him further pain and distress.
To reiterate: as far as I'm concerned and from what I've seen, the hospital and police did the right thing in trying to track the boy down once his parents had removed him from hospital. This includes the publicity and tracking him through France. I cannot see what else they could have been expected to do.
I'm a lot less certain about their current actions and court case; I can see it both ways.
In many cases -- I don't know about the specifics of this one -- the alternative therapy that isn't available doesn't offer a 0.11% chance compared to a 0.1% chance, or a 35% chance versus a 30% chance. Rather, the standard approach offers a 0.01% chance and the alternative approach offers a 0.01% chance, but with additional side-effects that reduce the individual's quality of life in the final days/weeks/months. Indeed, sometimes the alternative approach actually offers a 0.0095% chance.
I am all for patients becoming empowered and looking for new solutions themselves. But when facing imminent mortality, parents and patients need a lot of help to make what are very difficult choices. It is very easy to be attracted by the possibility that something out there will save your life or you child's life when doctors say there is nothing more that can be done. But it's rarely true.
For all that, he's still the best realistic candidate for the job by a distance.
It's well and good dreaming of Trajan or Aurelian, but we've got the choice between someone worthy of a shrug, and two other chaps worthy of rather more offensive gestures.
He's blown it, basically.
Edit - unless he goes and there's a coronation. That's the only viable option. Then he can go tomorrow as far as I am concerned.
They're also looking for pictures of Kate Upton.
Anyway, the place in England visited by Jesus was Cornwall... so maybe that's the real God's country...
(As an aside, it is also problematic for minor parties who may wish to contest the election, but have no base in the seat to crank up into action - if the writ is indeed moved quickly, it will be interesting to see how many minors actually contest it)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29009516
[I don't see the point of pretending it's 'separatists' doing the fighting. It's clearly Russian soldiers and tanks making the difference. The EU continues to flop about impotently, and Obama's only brave decision in the last few years was to wear a rather questionable jacket].
It's perfectly possible that the authorities have evidence of neglect, or at least good reason to believe that there was neglect. If they have not, then they're stupid for taking them to court.
Sanctions are not going to stop the Russians.
What would you do?
I don't blame the police for their action - they can only go on what they are told.
I do blame then for Rotherham, though
A small shift from Con to UKIP, but nothing significant.
I hope that come May 2015, most other centre voters choose the Tories in greater numbers than 2010.
So he wants to subject us to 5 years of Labour just for party reasons - thanks Nige.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/01/farage-gambles-labour-win/
"Let’s assume that Farage is behaving rationally. Logic suggests why he wants Labour to win. It is that his real ambition is to reshape Britain’s political Right. He wants the Tories to lose, tear themselves apart as the different wings blame each other for defeat, and then split over the best way forward. Farage would be waiting in the wings, offering to join forces with Conservative eurosceptics – so that, before long, he could take them over."
Communism and the Family
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1920/communism-family.htm
I also would've not had the EU 'High Representative' dick about with a situation and bugger it up so horrendously. Soft power's all well and good, but there's a reason Britannia carries a trident as well as an olive branch.
Mr. 1983, I concur the centre moves but I don't think it happens especially rapidly. Anyway, maybe we'll get to find out.
Con 32 (-3) Lab 36 (+2) LD 9 (+1) UKIP 15 (+2)
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OmOnline_Vote_01-09-2014_BPC.pdf
Unlike Farage, I'm a sceptic who wants to leave, not a politician hunting for glory. Farage is putting his party and himself before what was his political raison d'etre. Carswell likewise.