family with 4 month baby forced to disembark

[sayhello]

Wow. Instead of the headline reading "Disney Cruise Officials say 4 month old baby was too young to be on ship, family forced off ship", it should read more like "Disney Cruise officials medically evacuate sick 4 month old, possible saving its life, and even pay for hotel and airfare accommodations for family even though they have no obligation do to so (and strongly recommend trip insurance for such scenarios)."

I guess that is a bit too long to be a headline so the reporter chose the former version instead.

Makes me wonder about this newspaper and their reporters, honestly.

This.

Sayhello

 

[ColoradoDisneyFreaks]

Kicking them off the ship because of medical reasons for a four month old baby, okay fine I get that, but not putting them in an equivalent accommodations (especially since the reservation qualifiers changed after booking) and doing so without hassle, way to miss the boat (no pun intended) Disney. You could have had a PR win but failed both the customer and your reputation.

DCL isn't under any obligation to pay for either a room, or transportation home after someone is asked to leave the ship. Considering it was New Year's Eve in Nassau, a major tourist destination, I would imagine that all of the rooms were pretty well booked up, DCL did find them a room, and pay for their flights home. If they didn't like either, they were free to pay for their own.

 

[MinnesotaMouseketeers]

Hmm. If this is true it is very sad and wrong. But it is a thin pancake that doesn't have two sides. I wonder if more was going on with the baby's illness than is stated? And because of privacy laws they can't really comment on that. I am not taking DCL's side, before I get flamed for being a "supporter". I just don't know how much of this story to take at face value. Like I said, if it is true, and reported 100% truthfully, then it is wrong. I agree, they should have been treated better, regardless. Given amore appropriate hotel and a carseat for the baby etc, but there may be more to the story then is being reported. As a pediatric RN, the whole "baby was sea sick and gassy thing" ... doesn't really fit for me. JMO.

My thoughts exactly. Let's condemn Disney with only one side of the story.

 

[TheLanes]

DCL isn't under any obligation to pay for either a room, or transportation home after someone is asked to leave the ship. Considering it was New Year's Eve in Nassau, a major tourist destination, I would imagine that all of the rooms were pretty well booked up, DCL did find them a room, and pay for their flights home. If they didn't like either, they were free to pay for their own.

But this family was asked to leave the ship because of Disney's decision to not want a sick kid on their ship. At that point, they did resume responsibility for getting the sick kid medical attention and the family home safely.

If the family had been kicked off for violating a major rule, then they should be on their own for any expenses.

What if Disney started kicking off anyone that was "too sick" in their opinion?

 

[NCPAWPAW]

I seriously doubt they were removed from the ship because of the age of the baby. I am sure Disney was advised of the age of the baby prior to boarding, so I doubt that was the issue. If Disney told me they were removing me for such a small reason, I would advise them they would have to physically remove me from the ship in front of the other passengers while being recording. I suspect they were advised to disembark for the safety of the baby. Again travel insurance needed, and the first flight to the states for me.

 

[PrincessShmoo]

But this family was asked to leave the ship because of Disney's decision to not want a sick kid on their ship. At that point, they did resume responsibility for getting the sick kid medical attention and the family home safely.

If the family had been kicked off for violating a major rule, then they should be on their own for any expenses.

What if Disney started kicking off anyone that was "too sick" in their opinion?

There are people medically evacuated from cruise ships all the time. Sometimes actually airlifted from ships, other times the ship will be diverted to a nearby port to evacuate them.

That's why you need travel insurance to cover these incidents. If you read the cruise contract, the cruise line (read that as the Captain) has to right to remove anyone from the ship as he deems necessary (whether for medical reasons or other issues). In those cases the person/people being removed are responsible for their housing/return to home.

If an onboard doctor determines that the onboard facility cannot adequately supply proper medical care to someone, then they will be evacuated (removed) from the ship.

 

[Melissa S]

I too thought Disney was all rainbows, butterflies, and pixie dust until they cancelled a cruise three days before we were to set sail (the day before we were supposed to fly out). Then I saw the real ugly side of DCL. They are cold and heartless and don't care about you. They didn't refund the family the cruise fare. So the whole "Disney doesn't owe them anything" is not a fair argument. If you are going to keep my 5 grand you can pay a couple hundred dollars for a decent hotel room. Yes we continue to cruise because we have a four year old, we are stuck for a few years before we can sail on RCCL. But don't think DCL actually cares about you- they care about making money. Like others mentioned get travel insurance.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

A cruiser posted on the CB thread (post 34) that a medical emergency was declared/announced necessitating the ship to travel quickly to Nassau on New Year's Eve rather than waiting until the following morning. I think age may only be relevant as it placed the infant more at risk than an older passenger.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=3366013&page=3

 

[princessmommyx3]

I too thought Disney was all rainbows, butterflies, and pixie dust until they cancelled a cruise three days before we were to set sail (the day before we were supposed to fly out). Then I saw the real ugly side of DCL. They are cold and heartless and don't care about you. They didn't refund the family the cruise fare. So the whole "Disney doesn't owe them anything" is not a fair argument. If you are going to keep my 5 grand you can pay a couple hundred dollars for a decent hotel room. Yes we continue to cruise because we have a four year old, we are stuck for a few years before we can sail on RCCL. But don't think DCL actually cares about you- they care about making money. Like others mentioned get travel insurance.

Are you implying that DCL should have refunded them their cruise fare? Maybe you aren't but if so, that is ridiculous. If that was how DCL handled the situation, can you imagine how many cruisers would suddenly become "ill" on the last day of the cruise and insist to be removed from the ship for medical reasons so that they could have their cruise fare refunded?

And nowhere, anywhere does DCL promise to pay for your hotel room if you become ill during the cruise and need to leave the cruise to seek medical treatment on shore. They do, as a courtesy, help you make the arrangements for a hotel but have never promised to pay for it.

And this family even agrees in the article that it was in the best interest of their child to leave the ship and seek further treatment at a hospital.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I too thought Disney was all rainbows, butterflies, and pixie dust until they cancelled a cruise three days before we were to set sail (the day before we were supposed to fly out). Then I saw the real ugly side of DCL. They are cold and heartless and don't care about you. They didn't refund the family the cruise fare. So the whole "Disney doesn't owe them anything" is not a fair argument. If you are going to keep my 5 grand you can pay a couple hundred dollars for a decent hotel room. Yes we continue to cruise because we have a four year old, we are stuck for a few years before we can sail on RCCL. But don't think DCL actually cares about you- they care about making money. Like others mentioned get travel insurance.

RCCL offers programming for young children. There is no need to wait if you find DCL so cold and heartless.

But I am afraid you will find the same "attitude" when it comes to medical evacuation.

Travel insurance helps you to recover any losses you experienced from a trip being cut short as well as medical expenses incurred.

 

[Adelle Dazeem]

I too thought Disney was all rainbows, butterflies, and pixie dust until they cancelled a cruise three days before we were to set sail (the day before we were supposed to fly out). Then I saw the real ugly side of DCL. They are cold and heartless and don't care about you. They didn't refund the family the cruise fare. So the whole "Disney doesn't owe them anything" is not a fair argument. If you are going to keep my 5 grand you can pay a couple hundred dollars for a decent hotel room. Yes we continue to cruise because we have a four year old, we are stuck for a few years before we can sail on RCCL. But don't think DCL actually cares about you- they care about making money. Like others mentioned get travel insurance.

Yet, you are still excited to continue traveling with them...

Bottom line is that DCL is a business. They are there to make money. As a stockholder, that makes me happy.

 

[cjsmith]

If you watch a clip from our local news, you will see that there is more to the story that the article from the Naples Daily News. The doctor was worried about caring for the young infant and felt that they would be better off in the hospital and that the child should never have been allowed on.

Here is a link to the news:

http://www.abc-7.com/story/27776666...-apologize-for-cruise-experience#.VKyKsMY-C9Y

 

[HappilyEverAfter80]

Of course DCL knew the age of the baby, the fact they embarked and were enjoying their cruise when this happened speaks for itself. The age might have been a contributing factor when the decision was made to interrupt their cruise.
I doubt its the whole story, but thats media for you -" Disney threw a family off the ship and put them up in ghetto Bahamas all because the baby was too young and gassy.... " Yeah right.
The most important thing is the baby is healthy, it sucks the family is out $ but hopefully they had travel insurance.

 

[PrincessTrisha]

Speculation on my part but when DCL changed their infant policy, they may have also changed the insurance they keep for the doctors. The doctor may have been at risk for personal liability for caring for the young infant not fully covered by the malpractice insurance.

My opinion is, if DCL wasn't prepared by having their medical staff okay to treat such a young infant, they should have made a hard and fast rule when they changed the policy; refunded the money of those who were booked with infants under the age of their new policy and moved forward with the new policy and no infants under 6 months sailing.

 

[Iamaplanner]

The fact that the baby is described as "spitting up" and then finally being diagnosed with "having gas", makes me suspicious of the entire article..... Doesn't fit.

 

[cjsmith]

If this hadn't happened on a Disney ship, this may not have made news. It happens that Naples Daily News likes to publish these home town stories and the writer is a young local girl.

If the family was so concerned about the hotel that Disney put them up in, I'm not quite sure why they didn't move themselves to another hotel.

As they have the quote that they are looking for Disney to do the right thing and give them a Disney ending, the story clearly isn't simply about feeling unsafe. Is it a family trip to Disney World that they are looking for and then it will all be okay? Judging from the interview that took place down at Bayfront, it sounds like that is what they are looking for.

 

[Snowwhyt]

But this family was asked to leave the ship because of Disney's decision to not want a sick kid on their ship. At that point, they did resume responsibility for getting the sick kid medical attention and the family home safely. If the family had been kicked off for violating a major rule, then they should be on their own for any expenses. What if Disney started kicking off anyone that was "too sick" in their opinion?

On the Magic cruise last week 4 separate individuals ended up in the hospital at a few of our ports. Some returned to the ship after the hospital visit some stayed at the port hospital to take care of serious health issues. I can't be sure but I believe all of them are back in the states now, some before we arrived at Port Canaveral. After we left Jamaica an individual became so ill Capt. turn the ship around so that we could get is quickly back to the Jamaica Hospital as possible. Capt. explained that his primary concern was for the health and safety of his crew and passengers. It appeared initially as though we would make it late to Castaway Cay even though we had a full day at sea for our intended arrival date. I didn't hear anyone complain that night or all through the next day. There was a concern by one person on the full value of the cabana they had rented at CC.
If there is a risk and the medical team can not handle it with their limited supplies I can see why they would be cautious and pass a person off to a hospital. The riskiest time for any child is the first year of life. I was terrified to have my 72-year-old parents on the cruise with limited healthcare available to them last week. And that was before I found out that so many of our cabin mates have been taken to the hospital during our trip. A four-month-old baby should be sick in the hospital gas or not. The other members of her family are just happy the baby is safe.

 

[bumbershoot]

The fact that the baby is described as "spitting up" and then finally being diagnosed with "having gas", makes me suspicious of the entire article..... Doesn't fit.

That's what gets me thinking that there is merit. I wonder if the doctor saw the baby, sent them away, then realized that the baby was younger than currently allowed, and freaked. I wonder if it was, in fact, inappropriate on dcl's part. Someone forgot about the grandfathering. That's what I wonder.

 

[ILovePixieDust]

That's what gets me thinking that there is merit. I wonder if the doctor saw the baby, sent them away, then realized that the baby was younger than currently allowed, and freaked. I wonder if it was, in fact, inappropriate on dcl's part. Someone forgot about the grandfathering. That's what I wonder.

Actually, that is what lends the article less merit in my opinion. WHO would bring their baby to a doctor for "spitting up"? That is not uncommon or need for concern in general unless there was a reflux issue also and that would not be something that just started. I think it is a pseudonym for "vomiting" which is much more serious for a 4 month old who could dehydrate quite quickly. When it comes to an infant it is best to get treated at a proper hospital. The doctors on the ship are not equipped or meant to be taking care of all levels of medical issues. If he or she felt he couldn't support the infant on board the ship or complete all the necessary medical investigations to ensure the infant was safe and healthy then of course he needs to recommend evacuation to a better equipped medical facility. Heck, most adult hospitals in general aren't best equipped (with equipment nor knowledge nor skills of the doctors for pediatric specific issues) to treat a sick infant; that's why pediatric hospitals exist.

 

[Speechphi]

That's what gets me thinking that there is merit. I wonder if the doctor saw the baby, sent them away, then realized that the baby was younger than currently allowed, and freaked. I wonder if it was, in fact, inappropriate on dcl's part. Someone forgot about the grandfathering. That's what I wonder.

Or maybe, like many babies (well, at least mine!), he had "spit up" that was more like projectile vomiting. And, I'm just assuming here, that these were first time parents since I don't remember reading about any siblings, so maybe they DID bring their baby to the doctor for spit up, but called it vomiting. And it happened more than once. So the onboard doc had only the new parents description of "vomiting" and sent them to the hospital, where the doctor was able to observe the baby and tell the idiot parents that it was just gas & normal spit up. So now the parents are pissed at Disney when they should be pissed that no one in their party of 30 could tell the difference either.