Brett King (Jehovah's Witness) Releases Video of why he removed his ill son, Ashya, from a UK hospital
by jwleaks 87 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Podobear
Whoop Whoop.... out with the bunting... They are free! My heart bursts for them...
100,000 and more signed a petition, and humanity has won the day!... it could be a tipping point in British Medical law and ethics.
Thank you for your understanding and COMMON humanity.
-
BluesBrother
I too am delighted that this family will face no more legal action and should be able to resume their quest to get better treatment for the boy.
Watching the story develop it is fascinating to see how it changed from that of "Wacky J W father steals boy and he will die after a day !" scare story instigated by the hospital , to one of universal support for the family, even from the Prime Minister . How musch higher can you get? It was all down to their eldest son and his "adept use of social media" (WT take note) in putting their story out direct to the people and gaining that support by proving the hospital's claims to be falsehoods.
Incidentally, this gives the lie to the persecution mentality that the WTS fosters. They would have them believe that they are a hated religion and everything is biased against them. Instead, their religion has been ignored, thousands petitioned for their release and they have received universal media support these last few days. Dwell on that, J W's !
Incidentally Americans may not appreciate that this story has been huge over here...
-
not bitter
Not seen the video and not read any all of this thread yet.
It pisses me off because the parents and rightly so are going to all this trouble to prolong the life of their child. But if the childed needed a blood transfusion they'd probably allow him to die.
-
jgnat
Kind of obvious, but it seems to me that the hospital failed at a deep level. They did not engage the parents and honor them in a way to lead to a mutually trusting environment.
-
steve2
krejames, actually the responses on this thread have been far more measured than you give credit.
Slyly hurling the epithet of "mentally diseased" is a bit over the top.
Many posters here have expressed ambivalence, inlcuding me.
I think it was in this thread that I quoted the brief media release by UK Bethel that acknowledged this did not appear to be about blood-refusal.
Some of us have empathized with the parents whilst also questioning their "methods" which did appear to place their sick son at even greater risk. OKay, in hindsight it has worked out seemingly far better than many feared it would.
But even when you remove the JW connection, the notion of unilaterally removing your sick child from medical care and whisking them out of the country to go into hiding then starting a media campaign - you run the risk - certainly in the short term - of sparking high level concern about your competence as a fit parent and tellingly about your child's current welfare and wellbeing.
In the video the little boy looked terribly ill and limp. It did not look good - regardless of the parents' beliefs.
In accord with your sensible observations, many posters here had brought excellent balance to the discussion by noting the likely failure of communication (and respect??) by the hospital itself towards the parents. It does smack of a breakdown that could have been avoided with greater professionalism and adherence to medical ethics.
I like your Prime Ministers even-toned empathizing with the boy and his family. But make no mistake: Your Prime Minister would not have spoken this way had the child suffered any serious health risk or worse when taken away from the hospital.
-
wizzstick
Good op-ed piece in the Standard:
-
wizzstick
But even when you remove the JW connection, the notion of unilaterally removing your sick child from medical care and whisking them out of the country to go into hiding then starting a media campaign - you run the risk - certainly in the short term - of sparking high level concern about your competence as a fit parent and tellingly about your child's current welfare and wellbeing.
In the video the little boy looked terribly ill and limp. It did not look good - regardless of the parents' beliefs.
But they didn't go out of the out of the country to go into hiding and then starting a media campaign. The hiding and You Tube video (not exactly a media campaign, uploadinf a video) came as a result of being hospital calling in the Police!
I can't say I would have done what those parents did, but I would always do what was right for my child's long term health. That, frankly, is all that matters here.
I hope a full investigation of this event reveals what exactly went wrong.
-
cofty
It is clear that the relationship and trust between doctors and the family broke down.
What is not yet clear is how the blame for that failure should be apportioned. The hospital is at a disadvantage since it must adhere to rules of confidentiality and professional ethics. The family can tell their version to the world on YouTube.
The only important thing right now is that the child gets the best treatment for his condition. I would leave judgement on blame to those who are able to hear both sides.
-
Gadget
I'm wondering about the timeline, and what was going on when the parents made their decision to take the child away.
This wasn't a heat of the moment decision of a parent wanting the best for his child. He went online, researched what was needed, and bought the medical supplies he would need online to be able to go. This takes time, especially for delivery over the bank holiday weekend. This would put the timing of the families decision to go about the time of the operation, and the discussions with the Dr where he threatened to make him a ward of court to be around the time of the operation.
Given that over a week after the operation the planned chemo and radiotherapy had not yet started, I would bet that the disagreement wasn't about a future treatment but the immediate dangers of operating without blood.
Some things about it all don't add up to me. If it was so important to get the treatment, why did they not drive straight to the czech replublic after the ferry crossing? Obviously the parents would have had to go to Spain at some point to sign the papers for the house sale but this could have been done after the treatment was started. Looking at the map it actually seems a shorter journet to the Czech republic than to southern Spain. The eldest son has expressed the families shock that they were being looked for. They were found by someone spotting them rather than being able to track use of a credit/debit card, which must have needed a substantial cash withdrawl instead of the convenience of using plastic. The timing of leaving the hospital to catching the ferry mean that they must have left straight away, drove as fast as they could, and only just caught the ferry in time. That's not the actions of someone who doesn't think they'll be chased, that's the actions of someone trying to run before they're caught.