84 yrs old died after being put off a cruise.

[Somerset Cruiser]

This is a very long thread, started by something printed in the Daily Mail. I can't help but feel that the paper in question is a poor starting point for anything other than a fire.

[Mysticalmother]

Why did the husband stay on board when his sick wife was off-loaded? If it had been me I would have wanted to be with my 'other half', rather than 3 days with no contact. This suggests to me that the lady in question was 'reasonably fit' at the time and that there was no reason to think she would deteriorate and sadly die so quickly.

 

According to the article in the paper, it was the son in law who stayed on the ship, not the husband. So I don't think your reasoning stands up - sorry.

[babs135]

According to the article in the paper, it was the son in law who stayed on the ship, not the husband. So I don't think your reasoning stands up - sorry.

 

My mistake, apologies. However still not sure why he stayed aboard. I still feel something doesn't quite add up here.

[pete14]

This is a very long thread, started by something printed in the Daily Mail. I can't help but feel that the paper in question is a poor starting point for anything other than a fire.

 

I couldn't agree more. The speculation, guesswork and probably duff information in this thread is not helpful to anybody, most importantly the bereaved family. I know it is a discussion forum but imo it is best to base discussion on evidence not supposition, including that published in the Daily Mail from a single source.

[terrierjohn]

I couldn't agree more. The speculation, guesswork and probably duff information in this thread is not helpful to anybody, most importantly the bereaved family. I know it is a discussion forum but imo it is best to base discussion on evidence not supposition, including that published in the Daily Mail from a single source.

If supposition is good enough for politicians and the BBC news team, then it's good enough for me.:rolleyes:

[insanemagnet]

Whatever the reasons for P&O offloading this particular passenger, I still feel that they could have offered to let the passenger and her family sign some sort of disclaimer, which would have allowed her to stay on board for the last 3 days until their departure port.

If they had we probably would only be hearing about the wonderful care and superb customer service that P&O had provided to this passenger and her family.

 

So the sick passenger signs a disclaimer, ship sets sail for three days at sea to destination. A day in the passenger suffers a relapse that requires treatment in shore.

 

P&O refuse to divert the ship, and tell the doctors to do the best they can, but if the passenger dies it is not a problem as they have a signed disclaimer.

 

Would we be hearing about the "wonderful customer service" from P&O.

 

And what doctor would want to work for a company that operated in that way?

[tring]

Ok I have not read any of the links from this thread, although I do feel that it would not be a good idea for a ship to get bogged down with patients who need a lot of attention (especially if that cannot necessarily be done on the ship). That is from the point of the remaining passengers as well as the sick person, as the doctor(s) and other staff need to be available for anyone who becomes ill onboard. That is purely my view.

 

However the main pont I launched into this thread is that, (as someone who has accompanied a sick person ashore from a cruise ship), I know that once off the ship the person and relatives will be under the 'care' of the port agents and it is they, and the insurance company, who have the responsibility to prevent and pick up any problems at that stage.

 

In Barbados we were met at the local private clinic by a representative of the port agent who personally kept in touch with us until we flew out. He suggested a hotel, (which was accepted by our insurance co.), and offered to help with re booking a flight as necessary, (although the insurance company did that for us). He also met us at the airport on our departure and had suggested we needed to ask for a late check out, (useful tip), and had booked the taxi transfer for us (we paid and claimed on our insurance as we should have done). The Cruise companies have appointed port agents and it is for them to deal with these things - which is much more logical as they are in the country concerned so can deal with those sort of things very easily and from a personal basis.

 

I do wonder if anyone who makes a fuss about how they are treated has full travel insurance from a decent company. I am in no way suggesting this was the case in this instance, but sometimes it is. I also think that if people go abroad they need to accept that things will not always be as they are in Britain.

[balf]

It's easy to think "Mexico terrible hospitals". In fact there are good hospitals in most parts of the world, as well as some really bad ones. Where do you think the rich local people go when they are ill.

 

We aren't told which hospital the lady was sent to, but I'm pretty sure it would be the best in the resort: P&O would be hardly likely to send her a bad one.

 

Found this on Trip Advisor.

 

 

Nigel T

Santa Monica...

posts: 2

reviews: 3

Amerimed Hospital Cabo San Lucas

16 September 2012, 0:39

I experienced a massive heart attack on a cruise ship in August 2012 and was taken to Amerimed in Cabo San Lucas... All I can say is THANK GOD! The nursing staff speak English, some better than others, a couple not at all, but ALL the staff are attentive, professional and caring. The front desk staff are fabulous and all speak English pretty well. Mr Cardiologist Dr Rodriguez was amazing and performed a not so easy Angioplasty with stenting through the wrist because I was already loaded up with Thrombolytics. I had a private room with my own shower and toilet en suite. The meals were excellent, though to be honest, there are only a couple of food suppliers to hospitals because a special license is needed and sometimes they turn up late with the meals because they have no competition. I can only say, if you have to have a heart attack on vacation, you couldn't do it in a better place than close by to Amerimed in Cabo San Lucas!

 

Edited: 16 September 2012, 0:40

 

 

David.

[maggiemou]

I have been in a position where I had to leave the ship Arcadia. Anyone who has read my book SHIPS, SHOES & MAGGIEMOU will be in no doubt what the procedure is when one is medi -vacced from a ship. It is very well documented on a daily basis. It is a traumatic experience in itself and to find oneself in a strange land without proper help would be your biggest nightmare.

The Medical centre on most ships can deal with everyday minor incidents but when it come to operations heart problems etc you need to be in the proper hospital. I had to leave to have surgery after my fall. I did have minor surgery on Arcadia, the Dr was very good but not able to do the work need as they had not the equipment.

I was not a fan of Arcadia, but I have to say in fairness we did receive good help from P&O /PRINCESS cruises in LA where they have a special dedicated department that deals purely with sick passengers who have had to leave the ship through illness. Our man in LA was our guardian angel and without him we would not have coped. He dealt with our insurance company via a conference call from LA to Ireland. He called the hospital daily to see if we were coping. He was a saint! P&O have this special department in LA as I say so I sure they would have been there for these people.

We always make sure we have over insured ourselves and always carry more than one credit card. We had to pay upfront £10-000 to the private clinic in South America before I even saw a DR. Lesson here take plenty of credit on a credit card with you plus an extra card just in case. My insurers took a week to pay up the £10-000 and the remaining money I had to pay out ( a further £15-000) I never received as my treatment continued for a year after my return from the cruise, and this was considered null in void by the financial services ombudsman as I had to have further surgery in my own country where it is all private treatment.

I send my condolences to the family of this lady as not matter what happened they lost their mum. Very sad.

 

It is a very sad case for the family of this lady. One thing I do not understand is why P&O cancelled their flight from San Francisco and the hotel? Surly they had paid for this in there cruise so why would they cancel them and leave the people without flights home?

 

Condolences to the family concerned.

[maggiemou]

It's easy to think "Mexico terrible hospitals". In fact there are good hospitals in most parts of the world, as well as some really bad ones. Where do you think the rich local people go when they are ill.

 

We aren't told which hospital the lady was sent to, but I'm pretty sure it would be the best in the resort: P&O would be hardly likely to send her a bad one.

 

Found this on Trip Advisor.

 

 

Nigel T

Santa Monica...

posts: 2

reviews: 3

Amerimed Hospital Cabo San Lucas

16 September 2012, 0:39

I experienced a massive heart attack on a cruise ship in August 2012 and was taken to Amerimed in Cabo San Lucas... All I can say is THANK GOD! The nursing staff speak English, some better than others, a couple not at all, but ALL the staff are attentive, professional and caring. The front desk staff are fabulous and all speak English pretty well. Mr Cardiologist Dr Rodriguez was amazing and performed a not so easy Angioplasty with stenting through the wrist because I was already loaded up with Thrombolytics. I had a private room with my own shower and toilet en suite. The meals were excellent, though to be honest, there are only a couple of food suppliers to hospitals because a special license is needed and sometimes they turn up late with the meals because they have no competition. I can only say, if you have to have a heart attack on vacation, you couldn't do it in a better place than close by to Amerimed in Cabo San Lucas!

 

Edited: 16 September 2012, 0:40

 

 

David.

 

I have to agree with this post.

I was sent from Arcadia to private hospital in Punta Arenas which is at the end of the world. Next stop Antarctica. The private clinic was very helpful and the surgeon spoke good English. The staff spoke Spanish. We managed to communicate. It was immaculately clean, the food was edible. I had a nice private room and a day bed if my husband had wanted to stay. It was very expensive and I do think we were well over charged, but we got fixed and that is all that mattered as I had good insurance. The thing to remember , never skimp on insurance. :)

[morecambe13]

After all the commences on this it is making me wonder what is the best insurance to have. On the maiden voyage of Britannia we have gone with P&Os own insurance holiday extra. But how do you tell which is best.

[richleeds]

After all the commences on this it is making me wonder what is the best insurance to have. On the maiden voyage of Britannia we have gone with P&Os own insurance holiday extra. But how do you tell which is best.

 

 

I don't think you do. Everyone will have a horror story or praise for a company in equal measures.

 

There might be some merit in going with P&O's own as any claim maybe a smoother transaction.

 

But then again it will only be faced up as P&O insurance and will be underwritten by another company.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the english lady]

After all the commences on this it is making me wonder what is the best insurance to have. On the maiden voyage of Britannia we have gone with P&Os own insurance holiday extra. But how do you tell which is best.

Really it just comes down to sitting and reading the small print about what is and isn't covered. Also always tell of any pre existing conditions.

No good thinking if they don't know about it they will cover it, they probably will not if. Something happens.

We used to get annual travel insurance with our bank account, then I read on here some of them did not cover cruises, forget why not.

We always purchase our own travel insurance now, and compare cover not price.

The time to find out your good deal on insurance isn't really, is not when you need to claim on it.

[Daftlad]

I have posted previously regarding the lengths that some insurers will go to in order to avoid paying out on legitimate claims.

From personal experience, my wife's claim for reimbursement of the cost of holiday due to cancellation on health grounds was declined due to an "UNDIAGNOSED" pre-existing condition. So now we need crystal balls to consult before opting for insurance cover?

As many have said, choosing the correct policy should be an absolute pre-requisite.

[tjwa]

I have posted previously regarding the lengths that some insurers will go to in order to avoid paying out on legitimate claims.

From personal experience, my wife's claim for reimbursement of the cost of holiday due to cancellation on health grounds was declined due to an "UNDIAGNOSED" pre-existing condition. So now we need crystal balls to consult before opting for insurance cover?

As many have said, choosing the correct policy should be an absolute pre-requisite.

 

Excellent post.

[tring]

I have been in the position of not being able to get insurance for an undiagnosed condition. The situation was that we declared that I was having investigations and they said they, basically, could not cover that condition at any price, which is understandable really as they could not put a price on it, (to charge as an additional premium), as they did not know what it was. All tests and investigations have to be declared though, so just not telling the insurance company does not work. We did not book any more hols until the condition was diagnosed, which seems the obvious thing to do.

 

If something is undiagnosed on the grounds that it has not shown symptoms and be under investigation before the holiday is booked, or the insurance taken out, then it should be covered.

 

I know people who will say that they are just not covered for one particular illness, but if that is the illness which causes the problem you are not insured at all, so that does not make sense to me.

[richleeds]

It can be very costly. Let's say you are diagnosed with a heart condition so as expected your insurance will not cover you then you travel on holiday outside the EU and have ticker trouble, you would need very deep pockets to pay the local bill and repatriation costs etc.

 

Did you see the recent story of the lady who gave birth early while on vacation in NYC - the private hospital wanted £120,000 and her insurance didn't cover her.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[themanwithahat]

Not a bad story it's the Mail and sensationalist rubbish.

 

The company, any cruise company are in difficulty when someone is Ill they have to disembark the passenger. The person who has the final say is the Dr. As he is personally responsible.

 

If they were not transferred and the worst happened then the law suits would be flying.

 

For the family this is a great tragedy for the rag that is the Daily Mail to publish the way they have is disgusting

 

Yep. I was on the "Cruise to nowhere" just before Christmas which was reported in the Daily Mail. None of it was factually accurate, split between exaggerations and complete fantasy.

[Kingofcool1947]

Yep. I was on the "Cruise to nowhere" just before Christmas which was reported in the Daily Mail. None of it was factually accurate, split between exaggerations and complete fantasy.

 

Do you have a link to the article?

[dsrdsrdsr]

I have been in the position of not being able to get insurance for an undiagnosed condition. The situation was that we declared that I was having investigations and they said they, basically, could not cover that condition at any price, which is understandable really as they could not put a price on it, (to charge as an additional premium), as they did not know what it was. All tests and investigations have to be declared though, so just not telling the insurance company does not work. We did not book any more hols until the condition was diagnosed, which seems the obvious thing to do.

 

If something is undiagnosed on the grounds that it has not shown symptoms and be under investigation before the holiday is booked, or the insurance taken out, then it should be covered.

 

I know people who will say that they are just not covered for one particular illness, but if that is the illness which causes the problem you are not insured at all, so that does not make sense to me.

 

Just to add, that with my company (Staysure - we're allowed to name insurance companies, I think?) they ask about symptoms under investigation, but if the symptoms have been investigated, nothing diagnosed, and the investigations have stopped, they don't count it against the price.

[Scriv]

We have an annual insurance via our building society and we have pre-existing conditions which we have to update at least annually.

 

I have found it is best and safest to tell them absolutely everything as they seem to want to know everything about even the most minor ailments if you have sought medical attention for it! But I know several friends where claims have been turned down because they hadn't revealed all.

 

An interesting point though is I was recently asked what the doctor had written down as diagnosis - well, how on earth would I know????

[English Voyager]

With regard to Holiday Insurance, what I find really annoying is that as soon as one advises the Insurance Company that something is under investigation, and has yet to be diagnosed, all medical cover under the Policy is withdrawn until a diagnosis has been made, the Company has been notified, and if necessary has decided if the condition will be covered.

[richleeds]

With regard to Holiday Insurance, what I find really annoying is that as soon as one advises the Insurance Company that something is under investigation, and has yet to be diagnosed, all medical cover under the Policy is withdrawn until a diagnosis has been made, the Company has been notified, and if necessary has decided if the condition will be covered.

 

 

It seems a sensible stance from the insurers point of view, however annoying for consumers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[English Voyager]

It seems a sensible stance from the insurers point of view, however annoying for consumers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Up to a few years ago, the stance of the Insurance Company was that, obviously, there would be no medical cover in respect of the newly declared, but as yet undiagnosed condition.

 

Now, medical cover is withdrawn in respect of all declared, and accepted, medical conditions.

 

If, as has happened in my case, a fully paid for overseas holiday is due to take place before investigations are due to commence, one is forced to decide to either cancel the holiday or travel without medical insurance.

 

Obviously, one cancels the holiday, which in the case of a cruise costs the Insurance Company substantially.

[balf]

, one is forced to decide to either cancel the holiday or travel without medical insurance.

 

.

 

Which you can't do on a cruise.

 

David.