Sick Child-Familythrown off ship (merged)

[nrdsb4]

Obviously this is assuming that there was indeed a misdiagnosis. My bad for not having mentioned that previously. My assessment is based solely on the facts presented in the article.

 

If the ship's doctor made a correct diagnosis and the hospital was the one who misdiagnosed the condition, then RCCL would have zero liability and the credit for the cruise would be a sign of RCCL going above and beyond as travel insurance is generally responsible when such situations occur.

 

Regarding the post about them not having travel insurance. If RCCL's doctor did indeed misdiagnose the condition, RCCL should be held responsible. Travel insurance or not, RCCL must take responsibility for the doctors they employ or contract.

 

If the family did have travel insurance, this could have been a tricky situation as well. The travel insurance provider could have come back and declared that had RCCL's doctor made a correct diagnosis, the medical and flight expenses would not have occurred, thus making RCCL responsible. Insurance companies always look for a way to defend themselves against being liable, and this is a clear situation where the insurance company had a ground to stand on.

 

It all goes back to the liability factor:

1. If RCCL's doctor was incorrect = RCCL is responsible
   
2. If RCCL's doctor was correct = family (or travel insurance) is responsible

It would be very difficult at this point to prove which doctor was right or wrong. The only thing the family can do at this point is accept the RCCL credit and just take this as an expensive learning experience.

 

We don't even KNOW what the RCI doctor "diagnosed." The parents admit in the article to their infant's diarrhea and vomiting. According the article, the ship doctor referred them to a hospital for further treatment and evaluation. All he has to write in the diagnosis square is "vomiting and diarrhea of unknown cause with potential for severe dehydration" and he is perfectly within normal medical standards of practice to refer the child for further evaluation to a specialist. NO misdiagnosis. Simply acknowledgement of symptoms and recommendation as to further course. Hardly actionable.

 

It's amazing to me how many people with absolutely no medical knowledge or training are soooo quick to jump to conclusions of BLAME. If I am a ship doctor, I am going to be very conservative when dealing with an infant with vomiting/diarrhea. Things can go very wrong very fast and consequences of being overly cautious and sending the child on to a specialist are: no harm to the child, financial and logistical inconvenience to the family. Consequences of ignoring a potentially serious problem in an infant by refusal to send the child to an actual medical facility (vs. a ship infirmary) simply so that the family's cruise is not disrupted: possible death of an infant on the high seas. Not a hard choice, imo.

[Little Elm]

There is a lot of the story left to be told.

 

My suggestion is that maybe RCCL think about putting someone on board more knowledgeable in pediatric care. There are a lot of families on board, and some illnesses in adults do not present the same way in children.

 

As far as the doctor on the ship, maybe he was hurrying to make a diagnoses before the ship left port. The child was brought to him late, and he knew the next port with medical facility would be about 48 hours away. He was in a tough situation.

[Ohunion Cruzers]

RCI's policy states that if a passenger is or has had gastrointestinal illness 72 hours or less prior to boarding, they must advise the ship's medical staff immediately. If they do not, they may be disembarked at the next port.

 

Why put 2000 plus passengers at risk because of one?

[Ocean Boy]

If the ship's doctor made a correct diagnosis and the hospital was the one who misdiagnosed the condition, then RCCL would have zero liability and the credit for the cruise would be a sign of RCCL going above and beyond as travel insurance is generally responsible when such situations occur.

 

Regarding the post about them not having travel insurance. If RCCL's doctor did indeed misdiagnose the condition, RCCL should be held responsible. Travel insurance or not, RCCL must take responsibility for the doctors they employ or contract.

 

If the family did have travel insurance, this could have been a tricky situation as well. The travel insurance provider could have come back and declared that had RCCL's doctor made a correct diagnosis, the medical and flight expenses would not have occurred, thus making RCCL responsible. Insurance companies always look for a way to defend themselves against being liable, and this is a clear situation where the insurance company had a ground to stand on.

 

It all goes back to the liability factor:

 

1. If RCCL's doctor was incorrect = RCCL is responsible
    
   
2. If RCCL's doctor was correct = family (or travel insurance) is responsible
   

 

It would be very difficult at this point to prove which doctor was right or wrong. The only thing the family can do at this point is accept the RCCL credit and just take this as an expensive learning experience.

 

Since you previously stated "your legal opinion" I assume you are somehow related to the legal profession. So obviously you know that there is a huge difference legally between a misdiagnosis and acting negligently. Diagnoses can sometimes take days to make. This doctor, based on what I have read so far, seems to have acted quite apporpriately considering the clinical situation that he was dealing with. And that is my medical opinion.

 

Gotta love the legal profession with its 20/20 hind sight.

[negc]

There is a lot of the story left to be told.

 

My suggestion is that maybe RCCL think about putting someone on board more knowledgeable in pediatric care. There are a lot of families on board, and some illnesses in adults do not present the same way in children.

 

As far as the doctor on the ship, maybe he was hurrying to make a diagnoses before the ship left port. The child was brought to him late, and he knew the next port with medical facility would be about 48 hours away. He was in a tough situation.

 

And if the patient in the situation had suffered from a heart condition, you would suggest that the cruiseline should put a cardiologist onboard or, if the patient were elderly, a geriontologist? It appears that the doctor felt that it was in the best interest of the infant that it be seen at a local hospital where the facilities were better suited to accurately diagnose and treat him or her. Assuming that the doctor was hurried and made a misdiagnosis based on the sketchy and perhaps, one-sided account of the situation as provided in the article, is a dangerous thing to do. Just as doctors take an oath to "first do no harm", perhaps we should we refrain from making snap judgments especially when the evidence used for making them is flimsy or questionable.:rolleyes:

[VernRDH]

This is one of the more interesting threads I have read lately. I agree that the doctor on ship, when presented with the symptoms as reported by the parents, was wise to advise the family to seek medical treatment on shore. I cannot see misdaignosis by the ships doc if going on the symptoms given to him.

 

I believe that the child may have been ill prior to the cruise, or at least earlier in the day. Another thought that occured to me was sun stroke/poisoning. Those can also cause vomiting/diarrhea. Was the family out in the sun on the beach all day which exacerbated the problem? So they wait until late to seek medical attention. As the ships doc, I would want to get the baby to a fully staffed/equipped hospital ASAP, no matter what.

 

My 8 yo DD had Noro two weeks ago and she was very dehydrated quickly. And she can talk to me and tell me, unlike a 7 mo old. Fortunately, my DD has never had a virus like this before, but it freaked her out pretty good.

 

I feel RCI was more than generous with this family. As granny used to say:

 

Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

[songster2]

I have over 10 years as a Pediatric nurse. This baby did not have a "cold"

This baby had Gastroenteritis' date=' severe enough to need hospital care. Babies can dehydrate within 12 hours of vomiting and diarrhea and if not treated with IV fluids can die. This was a very serious situation that appears the parents did not fully understand. The staff at RCL did their job. Travel insurance people!:)[/quote']

 

It takes so little time for an infant who is vomiting and has diarrhea to become dehydrated. I would think that the ship's physician was considering that an IV was necessary, and not being a pediatrician, would prefer to give the care of the child to one. It is very difficult to thread the needle or catheter through small veins. As a nurse I have worked with pediatricians that prefer to allow their nurses to start IVs because the nurse's technique is better. I think the doctor made the correct decision regarding the care of the child in getting the infant to a facility that is better equipped to handle the situation.

 

Too bad that the parents made the decision to not have passports or travel insurance in place, but it was their decision and responsiblity, not RCI's.

[Merion_Mom]

............ I hope that the baby is okay and i think that the problem really is that they think its all the cruise lines fault and arent satisfied with the compensation because they probably never want to sail Royal caribbean again....when really its no ones fault and stuff happens! hopefully on their next vacation they will have trip insurance and hey, now they have passports!

 

I doubt that. From the news story it said they got emergency passports. I would think they are just good for re-entering the country but not the same as the regular passport.

 

If you watch the video that accompanies the print story, they show the Cortes' passports. They are the real thing.

 

Obviously the problem with the news story is that the TV station has NO interest in telling the facts. None. The slightest bit of investigation of the facts would have changed the story from "poor, pathetic victims" to "here is a report of unhappy people and how they got that way".

 

The cruiseline does not automatically disembark a family for having Noro. They quarantine you. Since this was never mentioned, I am sure that no one at RC suggested it. They were SENT for advanced medical care for an apparently ill SEVEN MONTH OLD BABY.

 

The most pathetic thing about this story is that their concern is all about "their family vacation" and NOT about their child!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bubbie617]

It's not the DIAGNOSIS that is important. What is important are the SYMPTOMS. Who cares what it's called. If a baby is vomiting and has diarrhea, that baby could dehydrate quickly and die. At that point, would it matter whether he or she had a cold or a gastrointestinal upset? Obviously, the symptoms presented to the parents who thought it was important to have the ship's doctor see the baby as an emergency. The doctor agreed that this was, indeed, an emergency situation. Who cares whether it's a cold or a tummy ache?

 

These parents are using the media to make a case for them where no case exists. Again, they thought the baby was sick. It wasn't like a doctor walked by, looked their way and said, "That baby is sick. Get off the ship." So their trip was cut short. Ship happens. As others have said, it would be much worse if the doctor had done nothing and the baby had died.

 

The ship's doctor did absolutely the right thing. The Cortes family deserves no compensation. It's unfortunate the whole thing happened, but no one can predict when any one of us is going to be sick. Thus the need for trip insurance.

[PhoenixCruiser]

 

The most pathetic thing about this story is that their concern is all about "their family vacation" and NOT about their child!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

My thoughts exactly!! Not to mention traveling with an infant without travel insurance, just doesn't make sense!

 

Hope you had a wonderful cruise Carol :)

 

###

[Merion_Mom]

My thoughts exactly!! Not to mention traveling with an infant without travel insurance, just doesn't make sense!

 

Hope you had a wonderful cruise Carol :)

 

###

 

Absolutely wonderful. And I didn't vomit or have diarrhea at all. :D

[PennyAgain]

I think most of us would just leave our stuff (skip packing) and run as fast as we could if we had such an ill family member.

 

Most of us would run barefoot and half dressed if that's the way we were when the emergency struck.

 

Taking time to pack is just plain odd.

[bambidrummer]

This should serve as a reminder to all us travelers who get off the ship without our passports. The US Goverment charges this family a ton of money for a passport that the ship let them travel without. Get a passport and carry it with you when you leave the ship. I had a sister once get on a ship with no ID at all. I wonder what would have happened to her had she missed the ship.

[nrdsb4]

If you watch the video that accompanies the print story, they show the Cortes' passports. They are the real thing.

Obviously the problem with the news story is that the TV station has NO interest in telling the facts. None. The slightest bit of investigation of the facts would have changed the story from "poor, pathetic victims" to "here is a report of unhappy people and how they got that way".

 

The cruiseline does not automatically disembark a family for having Noro. They quarantine you. Since this was never mentioned, I am sure that no one at RC suggested it. They were SENT for advanced medical care for an apparently ill SEVEN MONTH OLD BABY.

 

The most pathetic thing about this story is that their concern is all about "their family vacation" and NOT about their child!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the expiration date is 10 yrs hence. I wonder if they are good for 10 years or if they were some sort of temporary thing.

[lovesublime]

I beg to differ. Our youngest daughter had both diarrhea and vomiting with a common cold. The excess mucus caused both. However you could see the mucus in both (sorry for the detail!), it irritates the stomach and can cause one or both of the symptoms to appear.

 

Nevertheless the ship's doctor could not be sure of the diagnosis and with such a young child it was better to err on the side of caution. It COULD have been something more serious in which case they would have been praising the cruiseline instead of criticizing them. Hey-ho! :rolleyes:

 

I have to say I agree with this. When my son was only 2 weeks old, he developed a fever, began vomiting, had one episode of diarrhea and refused to eat. I feared the worst and took him to the E.R. (BTW, I'm a long term R.N.) Guess what, he had a simple cold virus. Nothing more to it and he was well within 4 days or so. However, the doc said I did the right thing by taking him in because with babies you can't be too careful. It could have been something more serious.

 

I also believe the cruise line did the right thing. You just don't fool around with things like this. I don't see how the cruise line has any liability. The cruise line is not the evil villain here. It's time people started to take responsibilty for their own selves and quit blaming everyone else for their problems. Bottom line-family takes cruise, baby gets sick, no insurance, family has to pay. Suck it up and be glad your baby is okay. Next time, buy insurance and quit whinning about how you are being 'wronged' by everyone else.

[nrdsb4]

I have to say I agree with this. When my son was only 2 weeks old, he developed a fever, began vomiting, had one episode of diarrhea and refused to eat. I feared the worst and took him to the E.R. (BTW, I'm a long term R.N.) Guess what, he had a simple cold virus. Nothing more to it and he was well within 4 days or so. However, the doc said I did the right thing by taking him in because with babies you can't be too careful. It could have been something more serious.

 

I also believe the cruise line did the right thing. You just don't fool around with things like this. I don't see how the cruise line has any liability. The cruise line is not the evil villain here. It's time people started to take responsibilty for their own selves and quit blaming everyone else for their problems. Bottom line-family takes cruise, baby gets sick, no insurance, family has to pay. Suck it up and be glad your baby is okay. Next time, buy insurance and quit whinning about how you are being 'wronged' by everyone else.

 

How true, and when you think about it, it really doesn't matter whether or not the cause of the n/v/d was a cold or another virus. The result can be the same, dehydration and severe consequences.

[dirtgirl]

My son also used to vomit when he was first getting a cold when he was a baby. It was never to the point of dehydration, though; just to the point where I had to rebathe him and change the sheets.:rolleyes:

[lovesublime]

Obviously this is assuming that there was indeed a misdiagnosis. My bad for not having mentioned that previously. My assessment is based solely on the facts presented in the article.

 

If the ship's doctor made a correct diagnosis and the hospital was the one who misdiagnosed the condition, then RCCL would have zero liability and the credit for the cruise would be a sign of RCCL going above and beyond as travel insurance is generally responsible when such situations occur.

 

Regarding the post about them not having travel insurance. If RCCL's doctor did indeed misdiagnose the condition, RCCL should be held responsible. Travel insurance or not, RCCL must take responsibility for the doctors they employ or contract.

 

If the family did have travel insurance, this could have been a tricky situation as well. The travel insurance provider could have come back and declared that had RCCL's doctor made a correct diagnosis, the medical and flight expenses would not have occurred, thus making RCCL responsible. Insurance companies always look for a way to defend themselves against being liable, and this is a clear situation where the insurance company had a ground to stand on.

 

It all goes back to the liability factor:

1. If RCCL's doctor was incorrect = RCCL is responsible
   
2. If RCCL's doctor was correct = family (or travel insurance) is responsible

It would be very difficult at this point to prove which doctor was right or wrong. The only thing the family can do at this point is accept the RCCL credit and just take this as an expensive learning experience.

 

I think everyone has missed the point here. It was never stated that the ship's doctor made ANY diagnosis. The family was only speculating as to what they thought the doctor was thinking. Obviously the ship's dr. felt the child needed more attention than the ship could provide. That baby could have been sick with anything. I don't think ships have labs for blood tests, or diagnosing different types of pneumonia, strep, or congenital disorders. As someone else already noted, ships clinics are basically well stocked first aid centers. Lay off the ship's doc.

[Robb]

I am sorry, but throwing up and loose bowels is not a cold.

[pauline664]

"Royal Caribbean told Eyewitness News late Friday they were concerned because the child is so young and they didn't want to take any chances. The company said they will give the family a credit to use on another Royal Caribbean trip, but they will not reimburse them for the passports and plane tickets because they didn't pay for trip insurance."

 

That is the key line there. I would never travel with a child with out some sort of insurance, whether trip or medical. Also, I wonder if they had passports in the first place. They probably just used birth certificates to board. I really find it hard to believe the RCI would let them leave without their passports. Maybe with out packing, but not with out proper form of identification.

NO they did not have passports the article said they had to go to the embassy to get help and was issued emergency passports for $455.00 just to get home

[Little Elm]

And if the patient in the situation had suffered from a heart condition, you would suggest that the cruiseline should put a cardiologist onboard or, if the patient were elderly, a geriontologist? It appears that the doctor felt that it was in the best interest of the infant that it be seen at a local hospital where the facilities were better suited to accurately diagnose and treat him or her. Assuming that the doctor was hurried and made a misdiagnosis based on the sketchy and perhaps, one-sided account of the situation as provided in the article, is a dangerous thing to do. Just as doctors take an oath to "first do no harm", perhaps we should we refrain from making snap judgments especially when the evidence used for making them is flimsy or questionable.:rolleyes:

 

 

I wasn't making any judgments. I wasn't even talking about this case, but in general. If a person is having a heart attack, that is pertty easy to determine most times. It is hard for some doctors, with no pediatric background, to make the correct diagnoses. I think it would be good for RCCL to have someone with a pediatric background in their medical office. There are hundreds of kids on board any given cruise.

[Merion_Mom]

"Royal Caribbean told Eyewitness News late Friday they were concerned because the child is so young and they didn't want to take any chances. The company said they will give the family a credit to use on another Royal Caribbean trip, but they will not reimburse them for the passports and plane tickets because they didn't pay for trip insurance."

 

That is the key line there. I would never travel with a child with out some sort of insurance, whether trip or medical. Also, I wonder if they had passports in the first place. They probably just used birth certificates to board. I really find it hard to believe the RCI would let them leave without their passports. Maybe with out packing, but not with out proper form of identification.

 

NO they did not have passports the article said they had to go to the embassy to get help and was issued emergency passports for $455.00 just to get home

 

Actually, the article is not clear on whether they:

 

a. never had passports in the first place

 

or

 

b. left them on the ship

[nrdsb4]

I wasn't making any judgments. I wasn't even talking about this case, but in general. If a person is having a heart attack, that is pertty easy to determine most times. It is hard for some doctors, with no pediatric background, to make the correct diagnoses. I think it would be good for RCCL to have someone with a pediatric background in their medical office. There are hundreds of kids on board any given cruise.

 

I think most of the cruise lines try to get doctors with emergency medicine experience, which should cover most common pediatric complaints as well as the typical adult maladies. But they can only choose from the pool of applicants, and let's face it, the best in the business are usually not able to live the lifestyle of a cruise ship doctor. The cruise lines do the best they can with the talent available, and we have to understand and accept that fact. Remember also that you are talking many, many ships on the seas with all of the different cruise lines. It's a major undertaking, I'm sure, to lure talented docs away from the land based facilities. These guys leave medical school with astronomical debt and private practice is the way most of them are going to go. Add to the fact that a lot of med school graduates are married with young families and a cruise ship job is just not going to work for these people.

[crusinmama06]

What a long day and the thread continues...lol.

 

I just wanted to add that in our case, there were two doctors on the ship. Since we got to spend alot of time with them waiting to get back to PC, I had a chance to talk to them.

 

The one doc had been an emergency room doctor in Australia for 20 years before he started working on ships. The other doctor was a trauma doctor, also from Australia, also with 20+ years experience.

 

The doctors were wonderful and very caring....better than the ER doctor we ran into when we got on land. :rolleyes:

[jlp20]

I am sure there are more than a few posters here from the medical community. At the MOMENT the ship doctor made his decision, in his view the child was dehydrated (from whatever cause). I have very little experience in the field of medicine, but even I know the treatment for extreme dehydration is an IV. From the medical experts here, how difficult is it for a non pediatric doctor or nurse to start an IV in an infant.

 

As I posted before, reading between the lines, the family was told to leave the ship for medical reasons. Instead they returned to their cabin and the mother got ready for bed.

 

This is a non story. Stupid parents doing stupid things are not sympathetic subjects for the 6 o’clock news.