The Ashya King saga: why we should thank the authorities

I write this as a father who has seen both his children lie helpless in an NHS paediatric intensive care unit, working with medical staff to keep them alive.

As things fall quiet after the recent frenzy surrounding the Kings, let us put all the emotion to one side and put the facts and evidence to people.

There has been a rush to blame the apparently overbearing forces of the state from many people in this case – many of whom are no doubt quick to slam doctors and social workers and the same state for failing to protect our most vulnerable in other areas of childcare.

Evidence

Ashya having disappeared from hospital, the state had to make a call on the evidence – not the emotion.

The evidence was:

– he was incapable of feeding himself
– his parents were not medically trained to handle the feeding apparatus should it be compromised
– Ashya’s medical condition required round the clock supervision by medically trained people
– he had undergone very recent brain surgery (22 August)
– he could not eat or speak
– his swallow reflex was seriously inhibited
– his parents did not have any  specialist nutrition required to keep him alive
– the power supply for his feeding apparatus would soon run down

That was the medical evidence available to the state, in the shape of the CPS, from the hospital in Southampton, to see if a possible offence of criminal neglect of a child had been committed.

The CPS concluded on this available evidence that it had and the warrant for arrest was duly issued.

It therefore follows that, upon arrest of the parents, the child was rightly and immediately removed to hospital and the parents were questioned.

On the evidence to hand does anyone seriously question either the motive or action of police, hospital and CPS?

Dropped charge

Now – upon questioning it became clear that the Kings had, in fact, acquired specialist nutrition. They had been able to recharge the feeding equipment from their car battery.

This was enough – after urgent review – to drop a charge of wilful neglect.

Two independent medical advisors also gave evidence at this stage that Ashya’s condition might not have been quite as critical as originally thought. But hindsight is 20-20 vision is it not?

However, in the judgement of the court the Kings had exposed the life of their son to great risk in taking him on a 1,300 mile car and ferry journey in this condition.

Their reasons may offer a degree of mitigation, their emotions, less so – however harsh that may sound.

What matters are the risks they exposed Ashya to, in deciding to do what they did and the British state’s immediate and pressing obligations in that regard.

Ward of court

That is why at the first opportunity after review by the CPS they were free to see their son and rightly so. But not take him away for hospital and again, rightly so, as a ward of court.

They did this once. They could do it twice.

The interests of Ashya’s wellbeing have been well served in reuniting  the family, but they were also well served parting the family too until the full picture emerged.

The Kings are evidently at liberty – in law – to gamble with their son’s life. The state does not enjoy that luxury.  The interests of wider justice in the duty of care the state must have to protect its most vulnerable must also be underpinned and they were in this sad case.

State was right

Yes, with hindsight, carting Mr and Mrs King off to custody in Madrid looks to have been a mistake. Yes, it could have possibly been resolved even sooner than it was.

But did the state do the right thing? Emphatically yes.

The breakdown in communication between this family and the hospital is another, different, issue – but for their actions once Ashya disappeared the British public should be thanking Southampton University Hospital, Hampshire Police and the CPS – instead of hounding them.

Follow @alextomo on Twitter