In the wake of the Ashya King episode, clinicians at the hospital where he was originally treated speak out. Thing is, they still don’t get it. The responsibility for a child’s welfare is the parents, not the state.
Paediatric oncology consultant Dr Ramya Ramanujachar, who was involved in Ashya’s treatment, warned the case could set a worrying precedent.
She said: “I don’t think the parents can look after their own child with a brain tumour and be not only the carers but also the professionals directing, managing and dictating their child’s treatment.”
Dr Wilson said the case had led to an “impossible situation” for clinicians faced with families in the same situation.
This sums it up – the state knows best and the state will decide, not the patient – or in this case, his parents. Yes, the patient or his parents should be the ones dictating treatment – being the ones paying for it, after all. The doctor may advise, but in the end, it is the patient who makes the final decision and in the case of a minor, the parents, having weighed up the options. It is not – or it damned well should not be – about the clinicians dictating anything. Their role is to provide the healthcare we pay for, not to tell us what to do. So, far from setting a worrying precedent, it set a good one. It put the machinery of the state firmly in its place – that of subservient to those who pay huge sums of money for the service it provides. And, like the Kings, I would reject chemotherapy. I’d sooner die with some dignity.
“That is deeply unfair when the NHS is always supposed to be about equal healthcare for all,” he added.
And if that means it is equally shit, we are supposed to put up with it…
“The responsibility for a child’s welfare is the parents, not the state”
Yes but not exclusively. A child is not the property of its parents and if the parents act in ways that are counter to the child’s safety or well being then the state has a duty to act. That’s the principle and it is a good one. I don’t know enough about the case to know whether the doctor’s concerns here are reasonable or not. It might be that they are being heavy handed or it might not.
I am surprised that you make this a point of principle since I am sure that you have written against parents having the right to impose male genital mutilation on their infants. If you think that how can you maintain your position here?
Neither are they the property of the state. When it comes to healthcare, the final decision about whether to proceed with something as invasive as chemotherapy – or pursue another option must rest with the parents. Circumcision is not -in most cases – a healthcare decision, it is an invasion of another’s body for cultural or religious purposes. So, different.
All the indicators are that they were heavy handed. They took exception to parents daring to contradict them and went overboard, whereas, the parents were doing what any reasonable parent would do – they were acting in the best interests of the child. They still are.
“When it comes to healthcare, the final decision about whether to proceed with something as invasive as chemotherapy – or pursue another option must rest with the parents”
So if the parents don’t believe in modern medicine and deny their child life saving medication, they should be allowed to effectively kill their child? I am afraid that the world isn’t as simple as libertarians think it is and that banishing big bad government will not bring about a utopia.
I didn’t say this, nor have I suggested it. It depends on the treatment and the prognosis. We have a cult of quantity of life above all else, which all too often means enduring months of barbaric cancer treatment in order to live a few extra months. In this case, denying treatment would be the right thing to do.
If they refuse reasonable treatment and consequently actively cause harm, then they are in breach of their common law duty of care. It’s fairly straightforward.
The Kings decided that the treatment on offer was not in their child’s best interests. They wanted to go abroad to seek an alternative and were prepared to fund it. The staff at the hospital tried to stop them, claiming child abuse. The only abuse going on was the abuse of power on the part of nasty little officials who decided that it was their place to usurp parental responsibility. Having been put firmly back in their place and having been demonstrated to be in the wrong, they are still whining about it.
There are some in the medical profession who are absolutely opposed to private practice. It would not be beyond the realms of possibility that the real objection was not about the child’s welfare, but about the fact that the parents wanted to go to a private practitioner. It has happened before.
When has it happened before?
It’s rather embarrassing to note that outward health tourism far outstrips inwards. After a recent punch-up at the bowls club we saw that most of the teeth we picked up were “made in Poland”.