family with 4 month baby forced to disembark

[5forDis]

We were cruising on Western Caribbean (Disney) when one of my daughters (age eight years)had a recurrence of some sort of stomach virus. She seemed better when we started the cruise but the first night of the cruise at dinner, she felt ill again & by bedtime she was vomiting again. We ended up staying in the room and after 24 hours of this, we saw the ship's doctor. They hydrated her as best as they could but their resources are limited. The doctor let me know if she was not better the next day by noon, we would have to get off the ship in the Cayman Islands & go to the hospital. She did get better and was cleared by medical (after my husband and older 2 kids had already left for the excursion). When my husband left that day, he was checking his phone to see what the status was. We had already made a plan that if she wasn't better, I would stay in the. Caymans with her & meet him back in the US after the cruise. It is medically appropriate for a vomiting 4 month old to be off the ship & evaluated at a hospital. I wouldn't bring my 4 month old to the doctor for simply spitting up, so the wording used in the article seems to minimize the infant's symptoms. It is unfortunate their child got sick...I can relate. If we had disembarked in the Caymans, all I would have expected is Disney to assist us in getting to a hospital. Travel insurance is completely necessary.

 

[wallawallakids]

I felt bad for them at first, but that video just makes me feel less so. Really, pleading with Disney for a "magical ending"!!? It now appears like they are trying to "get something" out of it, which makes me so sad. Their kid is ok...be happy! Disney paid for the hotel room AND the flight home! They didn't have to do any of that...even if it wasn't "magical".

It seems like when Disney is involved, people expect to get something for free and that annoys me. My daughter was sick on our cruise, we saw the doctor, we were quarantined to our room. Did I complain to Disney because our "vacation was destroyed"? NO!!! Things happen. It wasn't Disney's fault she got sick mid-way through. Should I have found a TV camera and claimed they didn't clean the kid's clubs well enough, that they should refund me for my room and make my ending "magical?" Give me a break. This family has lost my sympathy. Crap happens with kids, get used to it. It isn't always someone else's fault. It is called LIFE.

Honestly, the age thing is only being used here to get publicity. The baby was sick. She wasn't removed from the ship for her age, she was removed because she was vomiting. The age issue is there to "sell" the article and get more attention because if the headline said "Doctor removes sick infant from ship because he felt the child would be safer in a hospital on land then ill on a ship" then no one would look twice at it. There would be no controversy. If the parents, or the doctor, overreacted to the baby being sick, it doesn't matter. The doctor responded in the best way he saw fit. As a parent, I would prefer over reaction and safe to the opposite. Maybe I appreciate that more because I have had the unfortunate experience of having my infant son misdiagnosed shortly after birth, resulting in a horrifying Life flight to a hospital 3 hours away and a heartbreaking 4 day stint where we were not sure he would survive. Be thankful your kid is ok. Vacations come and go. Your child's life and health, is more paramount. IMO, they do not deserve any more than they have already received.

Ok. Off soapbox. Sorry. Had to "Let it Go".

 

[ColoradoDisneyFreaks]

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?

This isn't even remotely true. The cruise line doesn't assume responsibility for getting the family home safely, DCL did, but it wasn't their responsibility, they provided the family a little pixie dust.

DCL does have the ability to kick off anyone that they deem too sick to travel, no quotes needed, it's in the cruise contract, as well as in the form that you sign before you board that there's no one in your party experiencing gastrointestinal illness symptoms.

I interpret the doctor's comment that the baby should never have been allowed to board in light of that form, perhaps when he asked Mom or Dad how long baby had been throwing up, they said it started before the cruise, which, in that case, means family fudged the medical form to board the cruise.

Babies at 4 months old don't usually just start spitting up, with no episodes over the previous 16 weeks of life, babies spit up from day 1. Had it been spitting up perhaps due to allergies to something that Mom ate that she's never had before, then it's still possible that baby can get dehydrated and have serious medical consequences, so DCL still did the right thing.

The doctors on cruise ships are really more like paramedics, they're there simply to treat little things like seasickness and sprained ankles, but anything more serious is going to require a hospital's care, and with a 4 month old with possible dehydration, much better safe than sorry.

Honestly, DCL went above and beyond, they not only got them to a local hospital, arriving early and burning through hundreds of gallons of fuel to push that fast, they also arranged hotel stays on New Year's Eve and flights home, paying for both the hotel and flights.

Sounds to me like the Moak's got greedy based on their sense of entitlement.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

I seriously doubt they were removed from the ship because of the age of the baby.

They weren't. The child was sick. It appears they had to visit the ship's doctor several times because the baby was vomiting, and not just regular spitting up or they probably wouldn't have taken the kid to the doctor in the first place, maybe they figured it was just seasickness. Ship's doctors are to be avoided unless you really really need them. The doctors seem to have freaked out because the kid was so young, continuously vomiting on a cruise ship is a really bad sign especially in a very young child, and recommended that they be sent to a hospital in port. After that came the issues. Nassau isn't the greatest place to be put off a ship. From what I'm saying they did get the sick kid medical attention and they did get the family home, the family just doesn't like the way it was done. They didn't like the hotel, which may have been the best place they could get at the last minute on New Years Eve, who knows. I don't know if they had issues with the hospital. I assume they have a lawyer and all this will be hashed out in court, but apparently the story is not that they put this family off the ship just because DCL discovered that their baby was under 6 months old. ANd that's what almost everyone believes happened.

I'm assuming they want either a) money, or b) a free cruise. or both. maybe DCL paid for their hotel and airfare and they now want a refund on the cruise. Maybe they want something extra. I haven't seen anything that says exactly what they want, just that they want a "magical ending."

Also, a recent court ruling as of last month has given passengers the ability to sue cruise ship medical personnel and cruise lines for medical malpractice. You can bet those doctors (and DCL) knew about that ruling. Maybe it contributed to their reluctance to treat the baby onboard.

 

[KristiMc]

I felt bad for them at first, but that video just makes me feel less so. Really, pleading with Disney for a "magical ending"!!? It now appears like they are trying to "get something" out of it, which makes me so sad. Their kid is ok...be happy! Disney paid for the hotel room AND the flight home! They didn't have to do any of that...even if it wasn't "magical".

It seems like when Disney is involved, people expect to get something for free and that annoys me. My daughter was sick on our cruise, we saw the doctor, we were quarantined to our room. Did I complain to Disney because our "vacation was destroyed"? NO!!! Things happen. It wasn't Disney's fault she got sick mid-way through. Should I have found a TV camera and claimed they didn't clean the kid's clubs well enough, that they should refund me for my room and make my ending "magical?" Give me a break. This family has lost my sympathy. Crap happens with kids, get used to it. It isn't always someone else's fault. It is called LIFE.

Honestly, the age thing is only being used here to get publicity. The baby was sick. She wasn't removed from the ship for her age, she was removed because she was vomiting. The age issue is there to "sell" the article and get more attention because if the headline said "Doctor removes sick infant from ship because he felt the child would be safer in a hospital on land then ill on a ship" then no one would look twice at it. There would be no controversy. If the parents, or the doctor, overreacted to the baby being sick, it doesn't matter. The doctor responded in the best way he saw fit. As a parent, I would prefer over reaction and safe to the opposite. Maybe I appreciate that more because I have had the unfortunate experience of having my infant son misdiagnosed shortly after birth, resulting in a horrifying Life flight to a hospital 3 hours away and a heartbreaking 4 day stint where we were not sure he would survive. Be thankful your kid is ok. Vacations come and go. Your child's life and health, is more paramount. IMO, they do not deserve any more than they have already received.

Ok. Off soapbox. Sorry. Had to "Let it Go".

 

[AmberHeartsDisney]

I think they are upset because they paid $1,000 a night for the cruise and the hotel they stayed at was not up to par with that price.

The warmer climates are busy this time of year with people getting away from the cold weather so they might not of been able to find them a $1,000 a night hotel room.

But besides of all that, if the baby was in fact throwing up as others had said that can turn bad quickly.

 

[scm]

At this point, it's beating a dead horse but this story is a great reminder to use our own critical thinking about what the media offers.
The baby's age was the hook for this story but was only relevant to medical protocols. I will bet anything there was no correctly sized pediatric IVs onboard and dehydration can swiftly become life threatening for such a young baby. The fact that they chose to travel with such a young child without the protection of insurance is their own fault.
Of course, the paper offers a poll on whether Disney was wrong without offering this context -resulting in a 2 to 1 margin faulting Disney no matter how far the company had exceeded their obligations to this family. Any large corporation faces such incidents but that doesn't make it any less unfair.

 

[disneycrazy2004]

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.

If you really dislike the way Disney does business why continue cruising with them? Makes no sense to me. They did what was best for that family and as lots of people have said they really didn't have to but they did, because they do care! I have had nothing but pleasant experience with Disney and will continue to cruise with them.

 

[emilyann415]

As another poster already stated, I think people just expect Disney "to make it right". Why do I purchase travel insurance if Disney is just going to throw a cruise my way if my child gets sick and the rest of the cruise is ruined. Hey, I understand if your are disappointed that your child got sick. I understand being disappointed that the baby could have stayed on the ship and probably been fine. But I can't understand blaming the doctor for taking procaution with your child and doing what they thought best. It's ok to be disappointed but what would that family have done if the doctor let the child stay on the ship and then the baby died? Would they have said, "oh well....at least we all got to spend the rest of the trip together." Moral of the story, get travel insurance and when things like this happen, you can afford to take another trip without expecting someone else to foot the bill.

 

[marshmellow86]

Looks like per the article, they did have travel insurance as Disney offered to assist with filing their claim. So.... the travel insurance company should be refunding their money per their claim....

Disney said that it has apologized to the family and said that because it was New Year's Day and a last minute booking, options were limited. In addition, the cruise line offered to help with the family's trip insurance claim.​

 

[ocspartan]

Of course, the paper offers a poll on whether Disney was wrong without offering this context -resulting in a 2 to 1 margin faulting Disney no matter how far the company had exceeded their obligations to this family. Any large corporation faces such incidents but that doesn't make it any less unfair.

Yeah after reading through this and thinking critically about it, I don't see what more Disney could have done... didn't realize there was a poll, will need to go back and put a vote in.

 

[lbgraves]

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.

The family lives in FL so probably drove to the port and left the car seat in the car there. We always did that since there was no need for them on the ship.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

what would that family have done if the doctor let the child stay on the ship and then the baby died? Would they have said, "oh well....at least we all got to spend the rest of the trip together."

no, they would have sued the pants off Disney and the doctors, that's what...now that they can. and possibly rightfully so if the doctors on the ship were to misdiagnose their baby. I'm assuming the family thought the baby wasn't all that sick.

 

[Disneyfied4]

DCL did above and beyond. Had DCL not gotten the baby off the ship and it died, the family would have sued. Gotta love people that don't follow the rules or accept the consequences of their actions. It's always someone else's fault….right????

 

[bringmethathorizon]

will get mad and quit going to wdw for vacation.
tired of all this entitlement.

 

[disneycrazy2004]

will get mad and quit going to wdw for vacation.
tired of all this entitlement.

 

[mmouse37]

Interesting update to the story!!!

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3670845.shtml?cat=1

MJ

 

[Dawnlight]

Interesting update to the story!!!

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S3670845.shtml?cat=1

MJ

Yes, very interesting.

I wonder, now, if the doctors realized the mistake and instead of owning it, they sent the family off-ship to a place where better medical care would be close if something extreme happened due to the medication.

 

[tinkerone]

that is interesting. i wonder though, if what the fda has to say has any bearing on what happens on a ship registered in the bahamas.

glad the baby is healthy and well. so much could have gone wrong.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

oh yeah, you bet she has been contacted by attorneys who specialize in cruise ship cases.

According to last month's court ruling, they can sue both the doctor personally and the cruise line for malpractice if they wish. since nothing ontoward happened to the baby, their damages will likely relate to emotional distress if that's actionable in malpractice cases. DCL will have to prove that the doctor was a completely independent contractor to get away from this.