Australian baby facing amputation after contracting meningococcal in Thailand

[webfact]

Gold Coast baby facing amputation after contracting meningococcal in Thailand

By Emily McPherson

 

 

Lilliana's family are trying to arrange a medivac to bring her home.

 

A Gold Coast family is desperately trying to get their baby girl home after she was struck down with meningococcal while on holiday in Thailand.

 

Eight-month-old Lilliana Sheridan has been fighting for life in a Phuket hospital for six days and may need to have part of her right leg amputated if her condition does not improve, her parents say.

 

The family had been in Phuket for two weeks when parents Elisha Roberston, 23, and Jai Sheridan, 25, noticed that Lilliana had become unwell last Thursday.

 

Full story: https://www.9news.com.au/2018/10/30/15/00/gold-coast-baby-facing-amputation-after-contracting-meningococcal-in-thailand

 

-- 9NEWS 2018-10-30

[LivinginKata]

They did take out travel insurance but not sure if cover all the expenses.  Makes me wonder how much insurance company will really pay. I wonder that each year I pay our Blue Cross Thailand policy, now Aetna. What exclusion clause will they declare ..... 

[sweatalot]

"Although the family have travel insurance, which will cover the medivac to Bangkok, it was not yet clear if they will have to pay for the costly journey to Australia."

 

I think this post is wrong. I guess the insurance would  take the girl to Australia if she cannot be treated in Bangkok but their advising doctors don't see a need, because appropriate treatment is available in Bangkok.

 

The insurance conditions are likely to cover air transportation AS FAR AS MEDICALLY NECESSARY, and to the next appropriate location, not only to Bangkok.

 

Thailand has very professional hospitals in Bangkok. I don't see a need to take her to Australia. What can  be done in Australia can be done in Bangkok. I guess that is the viewpoint of the health insurance doctors as well.

Looks like they offered the transfer to Bangkok but the family seems to have  insisted on Australia.

They shouldn't make a mistake.  If more specialized treatment is necessary and can be done in Bangkok - they shouldn't hesitate. They might regret waiting to long.

 

I understand it is a terrible situation and wish the girl and her parents the very best - but they shouldn't insist on taking her to Australia now. Might even be dangerous, considering the long flight.

 

Better check with insurance how to take her to Bangkok. Normally travel insurances have supervising doctors who check the need for transportation. And they will suggest to take her to Bangkok if there is  need.

 

I believe the travel insurance would take her to Australia when they learn she cannot be treated in Thailand. 

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by sweatalot

[from the home of CC]

I hope the kid recovers but IMHO infants shouldn't be brought to tropical countries till their immune systems have developed. One of the reasons I never had children is because I traveled too much when I was younger. To me it's a matter of prioritizing.  

[beechbum]

1 hour ago, from the home of CC said:

I hope the kid recovers but IMHO infants shouldn't be brought to tropical countries till their immune systems have developed. One of the reasons I never had children is because I traveled too much when I was younger. To me it's a matter of prioritizing.  

Yeah, sounds like a good thing you never had children.

[jak2002003]

1 hour ago, from the home of CC said:

I hope the kid recovers but IMHO infants shouldn't be brought to tropical countries till their immune systems have developed. One of the reasons I never had children is because I traveled too much when I was younger. To me it's a matter of prioritizing.  

You are right.  I don't understand why families with very young babies want to take them on long flights for holidays.  The baby is not going to like the holiday any more than being at home, and when its crying and screaming on the plane it is an annoyance to other passengers and an inconvenience to staff, and a potential safety hazard.

 

 

[Bob12345]

17 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

..., and a potential safety hazard.

Paint me the scenario where a baby on a plane is a safety hazard, i can use a good laugh.

[richard_smith237]

15 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

You are right.  I don't understand why families with very young babies want to take them on long flights for holidays.  The baby is not going to like the holiday any more than being at home, and when its crying and screaming on the plane it is an annoyance to other passengers and an inconvenience to staff, and a potential safety hazard.

 

 

Not all babies scream and cry on the plane, just like not all tools get drunk and make a nuisance of themselves on a plane. It would be a shame to ban idiots because a handful of them drink and get stupid on a flight, the same with babies...  

 

Back on topic - traveling with kids to tropical countries who have not had sufficient vaccinations places them at extra risk (I'm not sure if this is the case here). 

 

I'd be interested to know how and where is thought this infant contracted the Meningoccocus bacteria purely as a precaution for my son who is vaccinated against it but is still at risk (4 yrs old).

 

 

[BritManToo]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

The family had been in Phuket for two weeks when parents

The incubation period can be 2 weeks, could have caught it in Oz.

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

You are right.  I don't understand why families with very young babies want to take them on long flights for holidays.  The baby is not going to like the holiday any more than being at home, and when its crying and screaming on the plane it is an annoyance to other passengers and an inconvenience to staff, and a potential safety hazard.

 

Not much of a holiday for the parents either.

I'm guessing dad would have more fun in Thailand on his own.

[jak2002003]

49 minutes ago, Bob12345 said:

Paint me the scenario where a baby on a plane is a safety hazard, i can use a good laugh.

One flight I was on the baby was crawling up and down the isle on its own when the plane was landing.  During the flight it was unsupervised and kept crawling to the toilet doors, and people nearly stepped on it several times and one man stumbled and nearly fell over.   The mother also had 2 other young kids... one screaming and not allowing anyone to put its seatbelt on... so it was basically climbing over the back of the chair as the plane was having turbulence and everyone had to fasten the seatbelts.  

 

They could go flying through the air and land on someone if not restrained properly. 

 

Why drag the babies halfway across the world for something they will never remember anyway?  Leave them with someone to take of them and have a more relaxing holiday.

 

 

 

 

[DGS1244]

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

You are right.  I don't understand why families with very young babies want to take them on long flights for holidays.  The baby is not going to like the holiday any more than being at home, and when its crying and screaming on the plane it is an annoyance to other passengers and an inconvenience to staff, and a potential safety hazard.

 

 

Totally agree. When my children were young we never took holidays abroad requiring flights until they were all old enough to dress, feed and look after themselves. Made do with local breaks which we all enjoyed as a family. No upsetting other passengers etc. as many seem to do. 

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, DGS1244 said:

Totally agree. When my children were young we never took holidays abroad requiring flights until they were all old enough to dress, feed and look after themselves. Made do with local breaks which we all enjoyed as a family. No upsetting other passengers etc. as many seem to do. 

With our Son at 4 months old we flew back to the UK to meet the family.

With our Son at 7 months old we flew back to the UK with our Son again for a summer trip. 

With our Son at 10 months old we flew to New Zealand with our son and travelled for a month in a camper van, we bungie jumped, sky dived, jet boats, BBQ'ed... restaurants, wineries etc etc.. we stopped off in Australia for a few days on the way back. 

 

By the age of 1 our son had been on more than 25 flights, many of them short haul to Singapore or domestically - but as above a number of them were longer flights. 

 

I recall my son crying for 15mins on just one of those flights.

On another flight I was warned by the flight attendant to be aware that the man in front was drunk and being aggressive and to be careful if he walked up the isle incase he fell on my Son and I (son was on my lap). 

I've been on a number of flights where the drunks are disruptive or noisy....  

 

.... The point I want to make here is that while there are obviously some infants which can be disruptive and parents who do nothing to appease this... the majority of babies and kids travel very well with parents who pay attention to their children and respect others around them.

 

I think it quite unreasonable to travel with a noisy child or if you are careless enough to ignore your child or not know what to do to keep them quiet... But, I find it even more unreasonable to begrudge a family and even your own from traveling.

 

Your children may have missed out on some lovely experiences because you were concerned they 'may' have disrupted others - the reality is, they wouldn't have, most kids on flights are perfectly well behaved. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[from the home of CC]

1 hour ago, beechbum said:

Yeah, sounds like a good thing you never had children.

yeah, well look how well it's working out for this family.

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

2 hours ago, beechbum said:

Yeah, sounds like a good thing you never had children.

yeah, well look how well it's working out for this family.

What a very crass comment.... 

 

You'd be forgiven for assuming people only become unwell if they travel. 

 

 

[BritManToo]

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

children may have missed out on some lovely experiences because you were concerned they 'may' have disrupted others - the reality is, they wouldn't have, most kids on flights are perfectly well behaved. 

How many detailed memories do you have from before age 5?

Risking a young child on unnecessary travel is just selfish.

[atyclb]

i had called the hospital offering to arrange donation of O negative blood but it was very difficult trying to get connected to someone with the competence to understand. i finally left contact info but no contact as of yet

 

 

meningococcemia is the correct term

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by atyclb

[richard_smith237]

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

How many detailed memories do you have from before age 5?

Risking a young child on unnecessary travel is just selfish.

 

You are quite right of course.... The holidays were not for my Son, but for my Wife and I... very selfish indeed. 

 

Enjoying the time with our son for our benefit was also perhaps selfish... But it was great... what a wonderful time of our lives, I'd do the same trips again in a heartbeat. Doing the stuff while we had time and before our son was at School was also perhaps selfish....

 

All very selfish... Heck... Taking my son in the Car on Thailand's deadly roads is also perhaps selfish...   We just came back from an Island - 3 hrs in the car (one way), was that also selfish, quite frankly the holiday was unnecessary... but what a lovely time we all had... 

 

 

Perhaps we can rise above the stupidity of such rhetoric and evaluate a balanced risk instead of posting such bumf... 

 

People travel with their kids because if for no other reason travel is fun....  and having fun is not selfish, its just enjoying life. 

 

 

 

 

[BritManToo]

17 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

People travel with their kids because if for no other reason travel is fun....  and having fun is not selfish, its just enjoying life. 

I was just pointing out your kids don't miss out by not travelling with you.

My parents dragged me all over the world, and it bored me out of my mind, until I learned to say no at age 8 or 9. I then had great holidays staying at home with my aunt and cousins.

 

Just don't confuse parents selfish motives, with their children's best interests.

Edited October 30, 2018 by BritManToo

[jak2002003]

33 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You are quite right of course.... The holidays were not for my Son, but for my Wife and I... very selfish indeed. 

 

Enjoying the time with our son for our benefit was also perhaps selfish... But it was great... what a wonderful time of our lives, I'd do the same trips again in a heartbeat. Doing the stuff while we had time and before our son was at School was also perhaps selfish....

 

All very selfish... Heck... Taking my son in the Car on Thailand's deadly roads is also perhaps selfish...   We just came back from an Island - 3 hrs in the car (one way), was that also selfish, quite frankly the holiday was unnecessary... but what a lovely time we all had... 

 

 

Perhaps we can rise above the stupidity of such rhetoric and evaluate a balanced risk instead of posting such bumf... 

 

People travel with their kids because if for no other reason travel is fun....  and having fun is not selfish, its just enjoying life. 

 

 

 

 

Seem to have lots of spare time on your hands to go on so many trips and holidays. Do you have you own business or something?.  Lucky you.

 

But, taking young babies and screaming toddlers on long flights is selfish.... you might enjoy it, but the other people around you won't.  Glad you baby was quite... you and your wife are obviously very good parents.  Sadly, for the majority of good parents, it only takes one bad family to ruin it for everyone. 

 

Have you never had to sit next to badly behaving noisy children and screaming babies on any trip in your life?  I don't mind an hour or so of it, but on a 10 plus hours flight its not acceptable. 

 

I see now some airlines are banning babies and children for business and first class.  That's at least a step in the right direction.  

[dirtybirty]

Get to bkk asap sort the aussie side out there after seeing proper drs

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Scouse123]

2 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Why drag the babies halfway across the world for something they will never remember anyway?  Leave them with someone to take of them and have a more relaxing holiday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Australia is huge and a beautiful country. with everything from beaches that are world famous to sightseeing. Why not holiday at home until the baby is older?

 

However, that is ifs, buts and why for! The problem is right now. Everybody wiser after the event.

 

If they have any chance to look up the medical care in Thailand, they need to get up top Bangkok and get it sorted ASAP.  Especially with insurance, they will get a top quality world care service, probably better than Australia!

 

I had a very big operation in 2004 and was insured, I had no hesitation, Bangkok or U.K....................... It was Bumrungrad all the way!

Edited October 30, 2018 by Scouse123

[Sheryl]

Travel Insurance companies actually prefer to pay for medivac back to the home country IF

(1) it is medically feasible for the ill person to fly (with an infectious disease like meningitis there might be safety issues for other passengers and crew; also the baby might not be stable enough, we don't know) and

(2) The cost of the med-evac is the same or less than the cost of treatment in the foreign country (because once back in the home country the travel insurance no longer pays for treatment). Which might or might not be the case.

 

If appropriate treatment is not available then they have to pay for med-evac to the nearest place where it is available. But certainly this can be treated in Bangkok. So it is the above 2 variables that still need to be ascertained hence the family nto yet knowing if the insurer will pay for travel form Bangkok to Oz.

[hobobo]

6 hours ago, beechbum said:

Yeah, sounds like a good thing you never had children.

My three kids were all born in the UK but due to our work they were all introduced to the 3rd world within one month after birth. Thirty-plus years later they are all well, healthy, two even wealthy...my wife and I used a lot of common sense but also listened to the locals. I totally agree with you, beechbum, some adults should never have children, full stop (or period for them yankee cousins)

[Tongjaw]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I was just pointing out your kids don't miss out by not travelling with you.

My parents dragged me all over the world, and it bored me out of my mind, until I learned to say no at age 8 or 9. I then had great holidays staying at home with my aunt and cousins.

 

Just don't confuse parents selfish motives, with their children's best interests.

I bet your old dad was so happy to leave your ungrateful butt at home too ???? 

[Rc2702]

I do think it is unnecessary to travel so far with young children in tow but I do worry about stuff like that and put it down to want versus need.

 

 

[webfact]

Gold Coast baby Lilliana was flown to Bangkok last night to see doctors who will make a decision to amputate or not

Campbell Gellie, Gold Coast Bulletin

 

AN aircraft is on standby at Gold Coast Airport to fly to Thailand and bring sick baby Lilliana Sheridan home.

 

The eight-month-old was flown from a Phuket hospital to Bangkok late last night where doctors will make a decision to amputate her legs.

 

Little Lilliana’s parents — Elisha Robinson, 23, and Jai Sheridan, 25, from Nerang — raced her to a hospital in Phuket on Thursday when she contracted meningococcal through septic poisoning. Her arms and legs were swollen and black and purple.

 

Full story: https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/gold-coast-baby-lilliana-was-flown-to-bangkok-last-night-to-see-doctors-who-will-make-a-decision-to-amputate-or-not/news-story/4cfa169483115d95a9b538cb56cd75c8

 

-- Gold Coast Bulletin 2018-10-31

[Bob12345]

15 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

One flight I was on the baby was crawling up and down the isle on its own when the plane was landing.  During the flight it was unsupervised and kept crawling to the toilet doors, and people nearly stepped on it several times and one man stumbled and nearly fell over.   The mother also had 2 other young kids... one screaming and not allowing anyone to put its seatbelt on... so it was basically climbing over the back of the chair as the plane was having turbulence and everyone had to fasten the seatbelts.  

 

They could go flying through the air and land on someone if not restrained properly. 

 

Why drag the babies halfway across the world for something they will never remember anyway?  Leave them with someone to take of them and have a more relaxing holiday.

 

 

 

 

I have to admit this is a safety hazard, but in my view it is not caused by a baby.

The cause is the parents letting the baby go around; just as i dont blame hand luggage for causing a safety hazard but the people taking it out and dropping it on your head. 

[Hayduke]

 

This is so very tragic and so terribly sad. Good luck little girl.

 

 

[oslooskar]

18 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I was just pointing out your kids don't miss out by not travelling with you.

My parents dragged me all over the world, and it bored me out of my mind, until I learned to say no at age 8 or 9. I then had great holidays staying at home with my aunt and cousins.

 

 

I think it was about 1947 when I was on an outing with my grandmother in San Francisco and happened to look down from Telegraph Hill and see a big white ocean liner taking on passengers at Pier 35. My grandmother could see that I was curious about the ship so she told me that it was the Lurline and that it was going out to the Hawaiian Islands.  I immediately grabbed my grandmother's hand and tried to drag her to the ship while begging her to take me to Hawaii on it.

 

Bottom-line; I would have kissed a mule's A** to have been able to travel all over the world when I was a kid.