Although this happened on an RCI ship, it shows once again why people shouldn't be cruising without a passport. You never know when you'll have to fly home, and flying home means a passport is required.

As for the incident - I think RCI was looking out for the child's welfare, and most likely the hype about the 10 minutes and so forth is not exactly what happened. This also goes to my personal belief that cruising with babies just a few months old isn't a good idea.

I have a sneaking suspission there is more to this story than the media account. Makes for great TV though. I agree its another good reason for having not only a passport but also travel insurance for such emergencies.

Cheers, Neil

I agree that the medical personnel were probably concerned that the child needed things they could not provide, and that the child's safety was the first priority. I don't know of any other case when someone who came down with norovirus while on a cruise, was kicked off the ship. Usually they're asked to confine themselves to their cabin until they're better.

Sandy

I forgot to mention the travel insurance!

I always shake my head when I see "a living hell" used to describe what it really just an annoyance or inconvenience. What did RCI do, have the crew line up and beat these people with sticks and mock them as they left the ship?

quote:

Originally posted by Sandy:
I agree that the medical personnel were probably concerned that the child needed things they could not provide, and that the child's safety was the first priority. I don't know of any other case when someone who came down with norovirus while on a cruise, was kicked off the ship. Usually they're asked to confine themselves to their cabin until they're better.

Sandy

Sandy, you're right, I've never heard of anyone being kicked off the ship either. It said in the article and the video that the the child had vomiting and diaheria. It also said it was serious enough for the Dr. to reccommend (order?) a hospital visit. That sounds more like a medical emergency than being "kicked off the ship". When the child was released from the hospital the ship had departed. Let an investigative reporter get hold of those nuggets of information and a mother concerned enough about her child to rush off the ship in her pajamas to the hospital becomes, "being forced off the ship" and all RCCLs (a company with deep pockets) fault. Next step is a trial lawyer and claim of gross negligence for the staff caring about the health of a child. I may be way off base and it may have happened exactly as the family said. Forgive me being skeptical of media stories but reading between the lines of the story, I just can't help thinking a child with such symptoms really should have been referred to a hospital. I don't reall ever having a common cold that resulted in a Dr. referring me to the hospital for possible dehydration. Had the Dr. aboard the ship not referred the family to a hospital and something serious developed onboard with an infant, there would have been a much larger bill for helecopter evac and emergency treatment. Not to mention the possible consequences to the rest of the passengers for what may have been a contageous illness brought onboard. Perhaps I'm just synical.

Cheers, Neil

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Beers: This also goes to my personal belief that cruising with babies just a few months old isn't a good idea.

I think it would do no harm to refuse children under 3 years old.
It was reported that Royal Caribbean said they were concerned because the child was so young and they didn't want to take any chances.Well I think this should apply to under 3 years old as well.

Actually it seems unlikely RCI ( and other cruiselines ) will refuse to carry really young children

The piece about travel insurance caught my attention. This is precisely the reason for insurance. Do not leave home without it!

We cruised with our son when he was a baby. His first cruise was a few weeks shy of his first birthday, and his second was at 20 months. Both times, we got medical clearance from his doctor. And both times, we got trip cancellation and interruption insurance that would have covered us all should he had taken ill and had to be removed from the ship for medical treatment.

I hope the baby in the article is alright. I doubt it was a cold, too.

quote:

Had the Dr. aboard the ship not referred the family to a hospital and something serious developed onboard with an infant, there would have been a much larger bill for helecopter evac and emergency treatment.

Well not only that. Had the doctor not recommended hospitalization and the baby got sicker, or worse, it would be an unimaginable tragedy with an even bigger lawsuit in question.

I just don't understand, "Your baby is very sick and needs to be in a hospital. This is a medical emergency." being misconstrued as "they kicked us off the ship" if, in fact, that's the gist of what happened.

Sandy

quote:

I just don't understand, "Your baby is very sick and needs to be in a hospital. This is a medical emergency." being misconstrued as "they kicked us off the ship" if, in fact, that's the gist of what happened.

That is my feeling about it too. Even if the ship's doctor was eventually found to be wrong, I wouldn't be whining about it. I'd be thinking that the ship's doctor showed admirable concern for my child. The story makes it sound like RCI was just going to dump a family because their kid had norovirus symptoms - in some desperate attempt to keep the ship from an outbreak. Well, if the baby did have noro then it was already too late. 7 month old babies don't grab railings, push buttons, hold buffet utensils, etc. If the kid had noro then it would be guaranteed some older people were well on their way to being sick.

I totally agree with jack2007 on this. They should limit the age to at least 3 years old.

Babies at that age are still trying to acquire immune responses to their normal environment. Put them in an environment with external germs and viruses from all over the world, of course there are going to be possible problems.

Another reason is that the ship's medical staff are not Pediatricians that specialize in infant care. I think they did the right thing.

Dwayne

I find it strange the stories keep saying the family was suppose to be on a five night cruise but the Majesty doesn't do five night cruises. They also say they were kicked off the ship at 11PM. The Majesty is only suppose to be in Nassau until 6PM. I also wish they'd quit calling it a "Boat". (Sorry just my pet peeve there). Seems like there definitely is details missing in this story.

It does seem like some details are missing. I have never had a cold that caused vomiting and diarrhea. I guess it could happen to a baby though. The calling the ship a boat is a pet peeve of mine too. Our bar tender a few years ago called out a young couple for it. He pointed to a life boat and said "that is a boat, this is a ship". I think the future cruise credit is adequate. It isn't their fault they didn't have passports or travel insurance.

Dwayne

I wonder what ship they were actually on?

I was always told the difference between a ship and a boat is "a ship can carry boats but a boat can't carry a ship". Submarines are called boats.

It probably was Majesty as they only have three ships doing the Bahamas. Majesty, Monarch and Soverign of the Seas are the only ships RCCL has currently hitting thier port. Reporting it as a 5 nighter is yet another discrepency in the story. It would have been either a 3 or 4 night sailing on any of these ships. Why bother with the actual facts of a story when you have something you can report with a sick baby, an evil corporation mistreating a family and lots of emotional appeal to their viewers, especially mothers. I'll bet they got very big ratings for that nights broadcast after running the ads that were the trailer in the video. Here I go being cynical again.

Cheers, Neil

The TV station is in Orlando. I bet they mean the Sovereign and not the Majesty. The Sovereign is out of Port Canaveral and shows being in Nassau until midnight. Oh, and it is a 4-day not a 5-day.

See Dave, we're already getting closer to the facts than the investigative reporter that did the story. They didn't have the ship or length of sailing right. I wonder what else in the story is fabricated to fit the well spun tale of woe?

Cheers, Neil

I guess I missed something. I thought after Jan 1 you had to have passports. I have not really paid attention to it because we have had our for several years.
Our friends told us that his business partner and family were kicked off of a ship last fall. It was after the mom was complaining about the kids being in different Day Camps because of age. She wanted them together. After she threaten to become physical, they were removed from the ship. Sounds to me like it was all her fault....

Gary,

The passport requirement for cruises was yet again rolled back until maybe next year.

Nope, the Sovereign doesn't work for the story. They were kicked off the ship on Tuesday night, and the Sovereign isn't in Nassau until Wednesday. I bet they were on the Mystery of the Seas.

I went to the RCI site and it shows the Majesty leaving earlier in the evening from Nassau. Then I went to some other cruise websites and they show a midnight departure.

I would look on cruisecal.com but they have gone to a total subscription basis.