Brain Tumour Child Ashya King,Parents Take Him From Hospital,Government Caves

[S.Shorland]

His parents took him from the hospital without the doctors' permission.There was a wide police search and then an international arrest warrant.The kings were found in Spain and imprisoned,Ashya was taken to hospital.It turns out that the Kings removed Ashya because they wanted Proton Therapy for him abroad which is not available in Britain at all (which suffers under the National Health Service). I knew the media would not touch on the issue of who has responsibility for the child: The parents or the state.Politicians got involved quickly and pumped the family angle.The police backed down and the hospital claimed they had been wronged.The curtain was in danger of being pulled back and causing thought - Couldn't be allowed.

Video by Mr King explaining his side:

[mosquitobite]

I made the same argument earlier. When the state owns the child, we're primed for tyranny.

[Origanalist]

without the doctors' permission.

Kind of says it all right there doesn't it? I don't have time today to listen to the tube but good for the parents.

[jjdoyle]

From the video's description, it says the police took the boy, is that still the case?

[S.Shorland]

They took a look at the Proton Therapy centre in the Czech Republic where Ashya has been offered free treatment in a childish section going into tedious detail of the process but not a peep about the substantive underlying principle.

Edit: Looks like they've been reunited but there are still forces deciding if they will be allowed to take him to the Czech Republic or not.Mr King accused the hospital of trying to kill his son or turn him into a vegetable: The hospital acted hurt and denied the 'kill' hyperbole while not mentioning the horrendous side effects of current treatment.This could cause a stampede of parents abroad and expose this Socialist Hell Service but it won't be covered,I predict.

[jmdrake]

I made the same argument earlier. When the state owns the child, we're primed for tyranny.

I recall someone in the "Adrian Peterson" case saying "Parent's don't have rights. They have privileges". So....who do these people thing will dole our or rescind these "privileges?"

[moostraks]

I recall someone in the "Adrian Peterson" case saying "Parent's don't have rights. They have privileges". So....who do these people thing will dole our or rescind these "privileges?"

Yet to argue against the parental privileges crowd means you support child abuse and rape because dontcha know that's what happens when parents have rights instead of privileges.

[brushfire]

Hmmm... Obviously these people dont want the "village" in their business. "It takes a villiage" can go take a hike.

[jmdrake]

Yet to argue against the parental privileges crowd means you support child abuse and rape because dontcha know that's what happens when parents have rights instead of privileges.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to moostraks again.

[S.Shorland]

The Kings are not coming back to Britain until after the enquiry over Aysha is concluded. TRANSLATION: We revealed the iron fist behind the State's velvet glove.We'll wait until a sacrificial victim is nominated while making it less likely to be ourselves.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...y-wont-4502246

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Just curious since people are bringing up the Adrian Peterson case.

So, what do you do if a parent is sexually abusing their kid.
What do you do if a parent is literally beating their kid.
What do you do if a parent is severely neglecting their kid.

I mean in this reality, not in fantasy theory world.

Most sexual abuse against kids is done by the parents, a close relative or friend,

Quick search:Retrospective research indicates that as many as 1 out of 4 girls
and 1 out of 6 boys will experience some form of sexual abuse before the age of 18.

Even if it's 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 20. That is millions.

So, what is the proposed solution for that. It's really easy to focus on these types of situations as outlined in the OP story. Sure, the government shouldn't be restraining experimental medical procedures if the prognosis is terminal. Yeah, duh, obvious is obvious, but people are extending that to Andrian Peterson and parental abuse in this thread, like they are in the same category. So, I'd like a real criteria people use to determine "intervention", or is it. "Sorry kid your daddy and mommy are sick $#@!s, you just got to take it." I'd like to hear this proposed better method, if people are doing more than just complaining to the choir.

I'm sincerely curious, when and how does a government or group of individuals take action? How is that decided? Who is the decider? Why are they the decider? I mean all I hear is no involvement. If that is indeed the case. Well, you are saying people can do whatever they want to their kids. That's pretty screwed.

[Wooden Indian]

Just curious since people are bringing up the Adrian Peterson case.

So, what do you do if a parent is sexually abusing their kid.
What do you do if a parent is literally beating their kid.
What do you do if a parent is severely neglecting their kid.

I mean in this reality, not in fantasy theory world.

Most sexual abuse against kids is done by the parents, a close relative or friend,

Quick search:Retrospective research indicates that as many as 1 out of 4 girls
and 1 out of 6 boys will experience some form of sexual abuse before the age of 18.

Even if it's 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 20. That is millions.

So, what is the proposed solution for that. It's really easy to focus on these types of situations as outlined in the OP story. Sure, the government shouldn't be restraining experimental medical procedures if the prognosis is terminal. Yeah, duh, obvious is obvious, but people are extending that to Andrian Peterson and parental abuse in this thread, like they are in the same category. So, I'd like a real criteria people use to determine "intervention", or is it. "Sorry kid your daddy and mommy are sick $#@!s, you just got to take it." I'd like to hear this proposed better method, if people are doing more than just complaining to the choir.

I'm sincerely curious, when and how does a government or group of individuals take action? How is that decided? Who is the decider? Why are they the decider? I mean all I hear is no involvement. If that is indeed the case. Well, you are saying people can do whatever they want to their kids. That's pretty screwed.

I just woke up and kinda sleepy here- but I'll try to answer this in a semi-coherent way

Sexual and physical assault are already crimes, and do not require any extra government regulation. Period.
Parent, neighbor, stranger... doesn't matter. Who is saying these kids should be afforded human rights to not be beaten and sexually assaulted? Where did you even get that from this thread?

Neglect you mentioned too, and I have to ask you this- What constitutes neglect in your view? You know it varies wildly depending on who you ask and what generation you ask. Giving the gubmit the authority to make up a definition for neglect is frickin' insane. Instead, follow the same basic rule of thought as with any other crime.
Has their been any violations of the person's (child or not) basic human rights? Yes or no. If there has been, charge the guilty party. If not, stay the hell out of their business. Why is this so hard?

Seeking a different treatment from a different doctor is no violation of any right. None. Nada. Trusting a bureaucrat with the life of a child over a parent is absolutely absurd. The same government that will send that child across the globe to kill brown folks that talk funny, put him/her in great physical danger, and leave them to die... yeah, I want that government looking out for the welfare of our children... not so much.

[Ender]

I just woke up and kinda sleepy here- but I'll try to answer this in a semi-coherent way

Sexual and physical assault are already crimes, and do not require any extra government regulation. Period.
Parent, neighbor, stranger... doesn't matter. Who is saying these kids should be afforded human rights to not be beaten and sexually assaulted? Where did you even get that from this thread?

Neglect you mentioned too, and I have to ask you this- What constitutes neglect in your view? You know it varies wildly depending on who you ask and what generation you ask. Giving the gubmit the authority to make up a definition for neglect is frickin' insane. Instead, follow the same basic rule of thought as with any other crime.
Has their been any violations of the person's (child or not) basic human rights? Yes or no. If there has been, charge the guilty party. If not, stay the hell out of their business. Why is this so hard?

Seeking a different treatment from a different doctor is no violation of any right. None. Nada. Trusting a bureaucrat with the life of a child over a parent is absolutely absurd. The same government that will send that child across the globe to kill brown folks that talk funny, put him/her in great physical danger, and leave them to die... yeah, I want that government looking out for the welfare of our children... not so much.

Beat me to it-

If it is already a crime and unlawful, then it is punishable. If not, it is family business and no one else's.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

I just woke up and kinda sleepy here- but I'll try to answer this in a semi-coherent way

Sexual and physical assault are already crimes, and do not require any extra government regulation. Period.
Parent, neighbor, stranger... doesn't matter. Who is saying these kids should be afforded human rights to not be beaten and sexually assaulted? Where did you even get that from this thread?

Neglect you mentioned too, and I have to ask you this- What constitutes neglect in your view? You know it varies wildly depending on who you ask and what generation you ask. Giving the gubmit the authority to make up a definition for neglect is frickin' insane. Instead, follow the same basic rule of thought as with any other crime.
Has their been any violations of the person's (child or not) basic human rights? Yes or no. If there has been, charge the guilty party. If not, stay the hell out of their business. Why is this so hard?

Seeking a different treatment from a different doctor is no violation of any right. None. Nada. Trusting a bureaucrat with the life of a child over a parent is absolutely absurd. The same government that will send that child across the globe to kill brown folks that talk funny, put him/her in great physical danger, and leave them to die... yeah, I want that government looking out for the welfare of our children... not so much.

Okay, so people spanking their kids should be arrested under that criteria.

Also, to add, the reason, it is different for kids, is because kids the younger the more it applies that they don't have the cognitive ability to report abuses or even realize they are being abused.

[green73]

Surprise, surprise:

Ashya King’s parents say he is cancer-free after proton therapy

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...py-say-parents

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ings-park.html

[S.Shorland]

http://news.sky.com/story/1512622/br...rns-to-britain Picture shows him standing up by himself and able to follow events.Thank God.The NHS relented and funded his treatment (they know how their bread is buttered and how far they can push it). -- I wish I could know if this affair has changed peoples' views on ownership of a child at all.If the government leaves them alone from now on,we can assume not.If revenge is taken (probably under another pretext),we can assume it has.