Sick Child-Familythrown off ship (merged)

[Jade13]

The family was just on Fox News. Although RCCL has reimbursed them for their entire cruise as well as hotel in Nassau and flights home, they still want reimbursement for their passports and hospital visit. They declined to purchase RCCL travel insurance when they booked the cruise.

 

From the statement posted it looks like they called in the morning but did not go to the ships doctor until right before departure at about 11:30pm that evening, and had agreed to disembark. RCCL told them they would be on their private Island the next day with no hospital facilities. They didn't know they needed a passport to get home???

 

I agree with the cruiseline on this one. Plus, if still trying to negotiate with RCCL for more money it wasn't smart to state on National television this am they would cruise again but just not with RCCL. The cruiseline should not reimburse their hospital or passports. I don't understand traveling to foreign countries without one (which they didn't want to pay for in the beginning) and RCCL can't set a precedent and pay for medical when the family did not have insurance.

[Lyncruiser]

I'm confused. There was a time when shipping companies were touting the advanced medical equipment and excellent care available on board ship. I've read articles about how ship doctors can now interact real time via computer hook ups with some of the best hospitals in the U.S. Now, all of a sudden, ships can't get sick passengers off the ships fast enough.

 

I, for one, would much rather be treated on-board ship than forced into the health care system of some third-world country. One reason I've been attracted to cruising is that there is reasonably good care available on board ship, without having to resort to local hospitals, with all that implies.

 

We always buy cruise insurance, including ship evacuation that is primary, in the case of an emergency. But, I worry that the mere fact of insurance wouldn't change what happened -- RCCL wanted the sick baby off the ship. They didn't care what happened to it after that. We travel as a family and my parents are nearly 80 and do have some managable health problems. I'd be furious if they were forced into a local medical care system just so the shipping company could avoid liability.

 

We are Diamond cruisers but for a number of reasons, we're doing a family vacation on land this year. This story (not to mention all the comments from the posters -- who must be among the nastiest posters on the web) confirms we've made the right decision. We're staying in the U.S., and if my parents have a problem, a terrific hospital is close by. I can't imagine what I would do if my parents were forced off the ship and into a third-world health system because RCCL didn't want the liability of stabilizing them in the ship's infirmary.

 

If cruise companies have decided that the only way to deal with illness aboard ship is to get rid of the problem as quickly as possible, we may well have taken our last family cruise. I can't take the chance of having a sick parent forced off the ship late at night with no alternatives but an island hospital and a hope that they'll get home somehow.

[Ocean Boy]

it was stated earlier that maybe a language barrier....

 

One thing is for sure, after seeing the family on Fox News it is clear that there was no language barrier. They speak the language quite fluently.

[sas80]

IF this account is completely accurate, as a stockholder in RCL, I am UNHAPPY that the company is paying for their airfare home! It obviously is too late as a PR move, since the &$%# passengers have already gone to the media, and it's contrary to good business practices!

 

:mad:

 

Too bad RCI buckled. It seemed they did everything right, yet still had to pay out.

 

:rolleyes:

 

The Cortes did everything wrong, yet got rewarded.

 

Dont worry Merion Mom - While I am in the same "boat" that you are, RC was doing "damage control" which is actually really good for the stock and the company image as far as the public perceives them. For the people whom can actually think critically, we already understand what really went on. for the rest of the people, they will think the company at least recompensed the family, so "at least" they have been financially compensated. that's all that really matters to the non-critical thinkers anyways.....

[Ocean Boy]

I'm confused. There was a time when shipping companies were touting the advanced medical equipment and excellent care available on board ship. I've read articles about how ship doctors can now interact real time via computer hook ups with some of the best hospitals in the U.S. Now, all of a sudden, ships can't get sick passengers off the ships fast enough.

 

I, for one, would much rather be treated on-board ship than forced into the health care system of some third-world country. One reason I've been attracted to cruising is that there is reasonably good care available on board ship, without having to resort to local hospitals, with all that implies.

 

We always buy cruise insurance, including ship evacuation that is primary, in the case of an emergency. But, I worry that the mere fact of insurance wouldn't change what happened -- RCCL wanted the sick baby off the ship. They didn't care what happened to it after that. We travel as a family and my parents are nearly 80 and do have some managable health problems. I'd be furious if they were forced into a local medical care system just so the shipping company could avoid liability.

 

The physician felt that the issue could not be handled aboard ship and advised the family so. Now, what is it that you are confused about?

[sas80]

The family was just on Fox News. Although RCCL has reimbursed them for their entire cruise as well as hotel in Nassau and flights home, they still want reimbursement for their passports and hospital visit.

 

Of course they do. they lost sight of the fact that RCCL had the best interest of the BABY in mind once they had to incur expenses.

 

WHY would they get reimbursed for their hospital costs? RCCL didn't father their child.... Oh, they probably don't have medical insurance either....

[Ocean Boy]

So the family voiced their first concerns about the infant at 7:30 PM and didn't go to the infirmary until after 11PM. Thus they gave the child about 4 hrs. to become sicker and brought the ship's sailing time into play. Possibly, if they had acted promptly, they could have been checked at the hospital and returned in time for sailing IF the child's condition allowed.

 

RCI owes these people nothing. But maybe one thing the cruise lines should start doing is requiring passports no matter what the law states. Then they won't have the issue of people wanting reimbursement for the cost of passports when they are put ashore for whatever the reason might be.

[Mark_K]

RCCL wanted the sick baby off the ship. They didn't care what happened to it after that.

They didn't care after they got the baby off the ship, and yet they ...

... offered to assist Zoe’s parents if one of them would like to remain onboard and care for their two other children, while the other parent escorted Zoe to the hospital. The parents declined that offer and decided the entire family would escort Zoe to the hospital. The ship’s staff then asked the family to gather their belongings to go ashore.

 

... assigned a Guest Care specialist to contact the Cortes family in Nassau, to offer support and assistance, which included complimentary hotel accommodations in Nassau. The parents were also instructed to contact Royal Caribbean’s Corporate Guest Relations staff to coordinate a resolution to the unused portion of their cruise.

I, for one, would much rather be treated on-board ship than forced into the health care system of some third-world country.

This is the third-world hospital, the Cortes family was "forced" to take their child to. Tell me, if you were potentially seriously ill, you'd rather be treated in an infirmary on board the ship than here:

The 70+ bed privately operated

Doctors Hospital

deals with acute care. Medical specialties are emergency medicine, ear, nose and throat, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, internal medicine, family medicine, gastroenterology, urology, cardiology, cardiovascular surgery and pediatrics. There are three operating rooms, one with laminar flow, intensive care unit with eight beds, maternity suite with 14 beds, nuclear medicine, electroencephalography. Emergency doctors are on the premises 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

 

[threeofus]

First of all as a nurse I will tell you that a child that young could dehydrate very quickly - and the outcome would be very bad - VERY bad. Not to mention the fact that nobody really knew WHAT was wrong with the baby. The physician could not assume that those symptoms were because of a simple virus.

If they hadn't forced them to get emergency care they would be facing a different lawsuit.

 

Side note here: it cost thousands and thousands of dollars and extreme hard work to clean a ship that has become contaminated with norwalk virus. Not to mention hundreds of sick people and families with ruined vacations.

 

I feel for the family...but honestly, they should have purchased insurance. It would have cost them about 200 dollars for the whole family.

People must learn to take responsibility for themselves and also learn to see the big picture.

[Goldryder]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing if you can have it in advance.

 

I doubt very much that RCI would have been so accommodating in regards to the financial assistance given had they known that the family would throw it back in their faces in the way they did.

 

That family's actions will definately make RCI think twice before they do anything in future on compassionate grounds.

[FrancescaH]

I'm confused. There was a time when shipping companies were touting the advanced medical equipment and excellent care available on board ship. I've read articles about how ship doctors can now interact real time via computer hook ups with some of the best hospitals in the U.S. Now, all of a sudden, ships can't get sick passengers off the ships fast enough.

 

I, for one, would much rather be treated on-board ship than forced into the health care system of some third-world country. One reason I've been attracted to cruising is that there is reasonably good care available on board ship, without having to resort to local hospitals, with all that implies.

 

We always buy cruise insurance, including ship evacuation that is primary, in the case of an emergency. But, I worry that the mere fact of insurance wouldn't change what happened -- RCCL wanted the sick baby off the ship. They didn't care what happened to it after that. We travel as a family and my parents are nearly 80 and do have some managable health problems. I'd be furious if they were forced into a local medical care system just so the shipping company could avoid liability.

 

We are Diamond cruisers but for a number of reasons, we're doing a family vacation on land this year. This story (not to mention all the comments from the posters -- who must be among the nastiest posters on the web) confirms we've made the right decision. We're staying in the U.S., and if my parents have a problem, a terrific hospital is close by. I can't imagine what I would do if my parents were forced off the ship and into a third-world health system because RCCL didn't want the liability of stabilizing them in the ship's infirmary.

 

If cruise companies have decided that the only way to deal with illness aboard ship is to get rid of the problem as quickly as possible, we may well have taken our last family cruise. I can't take the chance of having a sick parent forced off the ship late at night with no alternatives but an island hospital and a hope that they'll get home somehow.

 

Ships have very good facilities but does not have specialists. That baby needed the care of a pediatrician used to the various degrees of how illness affects an infant. The conditions she had can go from bad to deadly at the drop of a hat and wouldn't you want her with a team of doctors where there is an option to quickly medevac her back to the states if necessary? We're not talking about a broken arm or leg.. we're talking about intense vomiting and diarrhea that can lead to dehydration and if severe enough, death. Leaving the ship was the right choice for the baby even if it meant losing the rest of their family cruise because all parents should put the welfare of their children first. And remember, this family waited hours from their call asking about medical care on board to the time they took their child to the doctor. The doctor had a short amount of time to judge the severity of the child's illness knowing other land-based facilities would be days away once they left port less that an hour away. The family took risks and lost, but with all this fuss they won't learn their lesson and will probably continue to cruise without passports or the very important insurance because they've managed to get RCCL to pay their bills.

[sas80]

Our first trip insurance expenditure was when DH was 26 weeks gestated. It costs us an extra $100-$125 each trip, 7 night, but it just makes such practical sense...

 

We never cruise without it now.

[Moeve]

MarkK

yes NASSAU is not a problem (have see this one from the inside too) but some of us were also discussing another case which mean't the Princess Margret on Dominica and THAT is a different case altogether!!!!!

[kinggartk]

All I can say is while I personally have loved every cruise I've taken with RCL, just knowing this happened to one passenger is enough for me to never cruise with them again.

 

This is inarguably, INarguably, the behavior of a company that does not value its passengers nor care about them beyond the boarding gates.

 

It's not just how insulting the ship's behavior was, which was insanely cruel, but not even taking the courtesy to reimburse them for the charges they accrued as a result of trying to get home I find, well, frighteningly indifferent on a human rights level.

 

Sorry to sound so dramatic, but this really struck a cord with me, because I was on a cruise with 30+ family for a reunion, and my close cousin had a 9 month old with her, and it could have easily happened to her.

 

This should never be tollerated, esp. in cruising circles.:mad:

 

http://www.wftv.com/news/15998021/detail.html

 

 

A couple of problems here...I know some folks do it, but not very smart to Cruise with a 7 month old..In my opinion.

 

Also...why would you cruise with a 7 month old and NOT get the insurance.

 

I am sure RCCL could have been a bit more diplomatic in this situation, but I don't find them at fault here.

[sueb]

Before you read this let me tell you one thing about me...My cruises from San Juan and Puerto Rico itself are two of my favorites. Love the culture.

 

I've been following both of the threads on this subject and would like to add an observation now that RCCL has made their statement. I, for one, am not surprised that they offered the extra good will offer of paying for their plane fare home. (Not that I agree with any settlement for this family as I do believe rccl acted appropriatly and the family involved did not plan for a possible mini disaster as commonly happens with kids).

 

Facts, This family is local to the area and is of what appears to be hispanic decent. I, too, originally thought that there may have been a language barrier, but that does not seem to be an issue after seeing the tape. With gas and living expenses so high now ,cruising at the last minute (or at all) is out of reach for many of us in the u.s. These deals ARE available , but travel is costly. The ships out of Miami and FLL (at least the last 3 I have been on in the last 10 months..including spring break) have had an obviously heavy hispanic speaking population on them. Now...I am going on an assumtion that these folks are likely local and drove to the port.

 

I am thinking that RCCL is making this move because they would like to appease a general local demographic (largely hispanic, obvioulsy not all) as they are well aware of where their 'bread is being buttered' from right now.

 

I am also curious if this was the families first cruise. I did not see that brought up anywhere.

 

Ok, My door is open for flaming if you feel the need, I just couldn't keep these observations to myself any longer.

[moknits]

So, you think they should have let the baby and the family stay on the ship and taken the risk that the baby would DIE on the cruise? I bet you would boycott the cruise line then too.

 

What I want to know is, what kind of people say "Oh, our baby could easily die? No, that's ok, I'd rather stay on the ship, don't make me leave!" Ridiculous.

[mohavemommy]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352991,00.html

 

Statement from RCI....and I know which one I believe, and it isn't the family's version.

 

Now this one I believe. :) Why some people feel it necessary to twist stories to get sympathy is beyond me.

[alwayshappytocruise]

Wow, took them from 7:30 to 11pm to get the baby to the infirmary....also remember they said they were wearing their pajamas!!! Sounds like they weren't planning to take the baby but then maybe her condition got worse?? How great that RCCL reimbursed them cruise and airfare but IMO it wasn't necessary. Guess that squeaky wheel got greased, huh?

[dkal95]

Yeah, that side of the story sounds a lot more believable. I think it was MORE than generous for RCCL to give them a refund AND refund their travel expenses back home. That was above and beyond anything they had to do. They didn't have to do any of that.

[Goldryder]

As I said on the other thread, RCI will think twice before they help anyone out financially in future. They sorted this family out as a goodwill gesture and the family threw it back in their faces by running RCI down.

 

The family should look very closely at their conduct and although harsh, I think that they should be banned from all cruiselines unless they can prove they have sufficient insurance and passports.

[cruisemamma99]

A couple of problems here...I know some folks do it, but not very smart to Cruise with a 7 month old..In my opinion.

 

Also...why would you cruise with a 7 month old and NOT get the insurance.

 

I am sure RCCL could have been a bit more diplomatic in this situation, but I don't find them at fault here.

 

 

I agree infants do not belong on ships, not smart to begin with among everything else wrong that they did. Also sad, that Fox and other news stations do not investigate their stories first BEFORE they report.

[Moeve]

Perhaps the most important thing that should be learned from this case however is that small children and babies should get medical help sooner than adults when signs of illness appear. They are more fragile - this is something the many parents world wide often underestimate.

 

A good dose of common sence on everyones behalf could have possibly saved the day.

[Desertbelle]

I have always thought of the ship's infirmary as being like a Quick Care type of facility. A good place to go if you have something simple wrong with you but not where you would want to be if something serious is happening.

 

If you don't want to end up in a "third world" hospital then I would suggest you never go to the "third world" on vacation!! Americans can be so arrogant sometimes, it embarrasses me.

[Moeve]

Desertbelle I am not american and I made that remark based on what I saw. If that is the way the cruiselines want so proceed well then they will have no option but to avoid most island in the carribbean. By the way Celebrity obviously already had complaints about this hospital since the Capt. told me that headoffice had already had someone inspect this very hospital (the one on Dominica)the week before.

[lady_cruiser]

Now we knew both sides of the story. Here it is straight from Cruise Critic's news pages:

http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=2546