family with 4 month baby forced to disembark

[speedo]

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/loca...old-baby-was-too-young-to-be-on-ship_34565173


Not sure how the family was allowed on the ship in Miami, except that they had a reservation before the policy change. I love Disney cruise line, but it doesn't look like Disney handled this situation well at all. The picture of the motel Disney put the family in looked awful!

 

[goofyintoronto]

That is absolutely dispicable. Wow. That poor family. I am really surprised at how Disney handled the situation.

I wonder what the reason is for them to kick them off the ship? I understand the age policy. But surely they knew the baby's age when they boarded the ship!

 

[KristiMc]

I know they had a change to the minimum age starting Jan. 1st but I thought people who had already booked were grandfathered in.

 

[speedo]

The baby was sick, turned out just to be gas. But I guess it was the combination of the baby's age and potentially being sick. But even still the family said they understood and cooperated with being asked off the ship until they were put up in accommodations that felt unsafe and dirty. There are probably not many options in the Bahamas, but it sounded like a pretty awful experience. There is no comment in the article from Disney because Disney said the situation was medical.

 

[wallawallakids]

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.

 

[IBelieveInTheMagic]

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 as I read this too. I don't think we'll ever know the "rest of the story" due to the medical issues and privacy related concerns (understandable). I'm a major DCL supporter, however if handled as sadly as it appears, then yikes - very sad.

Also the articles mentioned they were grandfathered in which I remember they were doing, but we don't know if that's 100% true or not. I don't remember reading the family mentioned this, just the person who wrote the article. Not placing blame one way or the other, but I wonder if there is more to that aspect as well.

Hope all is well with the baby now and it all gets worked out!

Heather

 

[Marypoppins14]

Strange to me that they did not have their own car seat. I hauled my sons car seat for flights and other travel until he didn't require it any longer. It was a PITA but I never depended on others to keep him safe. As for the rest, on the surface, it stinks for the family, but these types of stories leave me full of questions.

 

[MaleficentRN]

When the decision is made for medical reasons, a guest’s age and overall condition might play a factor if medical personnel on board do not feel they are equipped to handle the guest, the representative said.

Moak said her daughter was checked out at a Bahamian hospital, where staff said the baby just had gas.

It sounds like the baby was ill and the doctor onboard felt she needed further medical evaluation and may need treatment that they are not able to comfortably provide. So the decision was made to have her evaluated at a hospital.
Maybe the doctor suspected she had a virus and had the potential to become dehydrated, something that can happen quickly with infants and can be very serious. A hospital is a much better place for treatment. Not a cruise ship, no matter how nicely equipped it is.
It stinks, it really does. I think everyone wanted the best for the baby. I don't know how Disney figured out what hotel to send them to or how they would know what kind of hotel it is. I would have tried to get into a nice resort, personally. This is a great example of why trip insurance and a good travel agent are important.

 

[speedo]

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.

Agreed, troubling if true as reported, but we won't ever know the full story. Either way at least it is out there and we can be aware of what could happen. I know I will definitely be prepared with travel insurance and an emergency budget just in case something happens and I can't rely on Disney. At least that is my lesson learned from reading this article.

 

[wallskm]

This makes me nervous for our cruise at the end of the month. We booked it last February when we knew we were pregnant with a baby TBA booked at that time. She was born in September, and we added her to our reservation then. When we noticed the rule change for ages we called DCL and their rep told us we would be grandfathered in and even showed us the fine print where it says so. Still, it makes me very nervous to have spent the money we did, and hear that staff are saying things like "the baby wasn't supposed to even be on the ship." I have a recurring nightmare of getting to the port and being told we can't embark due to her age.

 

[cjsmith]

Strange to me that they did not have their own car seat. I hauled my sons car seat for flights and other travel until he didn't require it any longer. It was a PITA but I never depended on others to keep him safe. As for the rest, on the surface, it stinks for the family, but these types of stories leave me full of questions.

They didn't have their car seat on the cruise with them because it was left in their car at the port. Coming from Naples, it's only a 2 hour drive from there to the port. They were looking for a car seat for the ride to the hotel.

 

[JimGA]

. This is a great example of why trip insurance and a good travel agent are important.

My thoughts exactly.. I hoped they had trip insurance

 

[HookedOnDCL1]

It sounds like the baby was ill and the doctor onboard felt she needed further medical evaluation and may need treatment that they are not able to comfortably provide. So the decision was made to have her evaluated at a hospital.
Maybe the doctor suspected she had a virus and had the potential to become dehydrated, something that can happen quickly with infants and can be very serious. A hospital is a much better place for treatment. Not a cruise ship, no matter how nicely equipped it is.

Exactly!

If your baby (or anyone in your party) gets or appears sick and Disney does not feel they are equipped to deal with it, is it Disney's responsibility to put you up in a hotel and pay your hospital bill?
Two words: TRAVEL INSURANCE

I feel for this family, I really do, but I think there is more to this story than they are telling.... Perhaps the media is playing up the age factor when in reality it is age combined with illness. As mentioned above infants can take a turn for the worst very quickly.

 

[Bree]

I'm not understanding why the child's grandfather was asked to leave the ship. I could understand the child and her parents, but the article states that the doctor requested the grandfather, child's parents and the child to disembark.

ETA: Not that we know the whole story, but they are fortunate that Disney paid for the hotel and flights (after some back and forth per the article). They did not have to.

 

[Dug720]

Exactly!

If your baby (or anyone in your party) gets or appears sick and Disney does not feel they are equipped to deal with it, is it Disney's responsibility to put you up in a hotel and pay your hospital bill?
Two words: TRAVEL INSURANCE

I feel for this family, I really do, but I think there is more to this story than they are telling.... Perhaps the media is playing up the age factor when in reality it is age combined with illness. As mentioned above infants can take a turn for the worst very quickly.

That is my thought exactly. Granted, as in every situation, there are three sides to a story - Side A (family), Side B (DCL), and the truth. BUT yes, infants can go downhill very rapidly, particularly when excessive spitting up is involved (and yes I am assuming excessive, but for a visit to the ship's doctor I would think that people aren't going to go running there for one episode unless it is totally a ridiculous amount), so my GUESS is as Hooked on DCL said, that it is in reality a combination and the age only came into play because of the danger of an infant going downhill.

As for accommodations, I don't think DCL should bear the burden of paying for those - again, trip insurance. But a couple of other things to keep in mind about where they "were put" - winter is peak travel time to warmer climates so the places like we in the US are accustomed to are likely going to be booked pretty solid so it's likely grab what you can and then also keep in mind that accommodations vary depending on where you are traveling. People in the US are very spoiled to hotels that in most other parts of the world would be close to the top of luxury properties as just a common everyday thing.

 

[wallawallakids]

That is my thought exactly. Granted, as in every situation, there are three sides to a story - Side A (family), Side B (DCL), and the truth. BUT yes, infants can go downhill very rapidly, particularly when excessive spitting up is involved (and yes I am assuming excessive, but for a visit to the ship's doctor I would think that people aren't going to go running there for one episode unless it is totally a ridiculous amount), so my GUESS is as Hooked on DCL said, that it is in reality a combination and the age only came into play because of the danger of an infant going downhill.

As for accommodations, I don't think DCL should bear the burden of paying for those - again, trip insurance. But a couple of other things to keep in mind about where they "were put" - winter is peak travel time to warmer climates so the places like we in the US are accustomed to are likely going to be booked pretty solid so it's likely grab what you can and then also keep in mind that accommodations vary depending on where you are traveling. People in the US are very spoiled to hotels that in most other parts of the world would be close to the top of luxury properties as just a common everyday thing.

You bring up a lot of great points. I agree 100%

 

[MakiraMarlena]

I believe from what I am reading that they were grandfathered in with their booking, but the baby got sick. They're not going to publish what the baby had or possibly had, and maybe they felt they could not effectively treat a very young baby, but it's interesting that the entire party was disembarked.

From the way this story was reported I got the impression that they were unceremoniously thrown off the ship the second it was discovered that they had a baby under 6 months, that's not the full story though.

 

[sweetpee_1993]

First and foremost, the media usually seeks to vilify someone in every story. Makes for good reading/ratings.

I can tell you firsthand that the media will take bits of stories and weave them as needed to create something interesting to garner more readership/ratings. Take what you read/hear in the media with a grain of salt. Always. They're going to make any story into something that will get you going because if they don't, especially in this day & age, nobody will pay attention.

As to this story.... I read it that the family was disembarked for possible medical risks to the infant. It's likely Disney chose to change their minimum age limit due to the medical staff's ability to care for infants under the specified age. If a sick child who was grandfathered onboard shows any signs that they might even possibly be ill I can easily see why liability dictates the family be disembarked. It's not pretty but this is the world we live in. Had they stayed onboard and the baby gotten very sick and dehydrated they may not have had the ability to save it. Babies go down so fast. It could happen. Then the world would be screaming foul because the baby didn't make it. Seems like there's no winning.

Another piece of info that points to this family being disembarked for medical reasons is the fact that the doctor informed the family that they needed to pack up & leave the ship. If it had been a policy thing I think it would've come from an officer who represents DCL.

Like others have stated, TRAVEL INSURANCE! It's nice that Disney even assisted this family with hotel, transportation, etc. to get them home. It's certainly not their responsibility. If you go on a cruise you have to know and prepare for illness, injury, etc. I personally don't think leaving my family's wellbeing up to what Disney may or may not elect to do for us in the time of illness or emergency as proper planning. My family is my responsibility, nobody else's. This is EXACTLY why I cruise with travel insurance. I think particularly with family members who are more at risk (elderly, youth, known health problems, etc.) it would be even more paramount in the planning process. Correct me if I'm wrong but every time I've played with the booking engine on DCL's website I've had to push the travel insurance off the reservation to see the final tally without it. Is that right? I'm not sure. Either way, the travel insurance is not something easy to miss.

Not judging this family. I'm sorry for their experience. I do think there's a strong likelihood that there's more to the story. We've only heard 1 side retold in the media. We won't hear anything from Disney for privacy reasons.

Moral of the story: Travel Insurance and planning!

 

[tinkerone]

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.

i think you have hit the nail on the head. i'll probably be called a disney lover (which i am) but the story is one sided. while some will say then why doesn't disney tell their side i know they can't. its a privacy issue and it ties their hands. can't tell you the number of times clients would go to the media for the company i worked for but we could never respond and were seldom in the wrong.

i don't really like the bit about the hotel either. they say the hotel was 'not up to the standards of the $1,000 nightly rate they had paid to go on the cruise' so i wonder if they got a hotel room and expected a hotel suite. can't say but it sounds like they were expecting something above the norm. would love it if they mentioned what hotel they were put up in. can't help but notice that isn't mentioned.

the other thought i have is on the second visit to the ships doctor. his first question should have been if the child was still spitting up. spitting up sounds innocent enough but probably was more along the lines of vomiting and can be very dangerous to anyone never mind a child. if the answer to the question was yes, she is still sick, then the doctor would have been right in suggesting they leave the ship, IMO. dehydration can turn nasty quick. taking the child to the Bahamian hospital was the right thing to do, again IMO, and its what the parents did.

we will never know the whole story, ever. i hope and pray it was not disney just being mean to a family. the family wants disney to 'find some way to make it up to them' but what does that mean, what do they want. travel insurance should take care of the loss of trip and hospital bills. no one can change the fact the family did not get the experience they hoped for unfortunately. should disney apologize? not sure as i don't know what they did or did not do wrong. not saying they shouldn't, just saying i don't know.

and before anyone asks, yes, i drink the kool-aid.

 

[sayhello]

Reading the article, I definitely got the impression that the family was upset because of the way things were handled in the Bahamas, not because they were asked to leave the ship. Which points, to me, to it being likely the issue really was age/illness, not just age. And Disney really *isn't* responsible for that. As others have said, that's what trip insurance is for. DCL paying for their accommodations and flights was really nice on their part.

*IF* (and I think that's a big if) they really were put off just because the baby was too young, then yes, I'd say Disney owed them big time, because the baby should never have been allowed on the boat in the first place, and it would be DCL's fault for allowing them to leave the port. Things would have been infinitely easier if they'd been denied boarding from the get-go. Again, that's another reason I think it was the medical issue, not the new age policy.

Sayhello