Autistic child ¨discriminated against¨ by Qantas - NOT!!

[dk4]

Was the child discriminated against, that one is easy = YES.

It's a black and white case, if the child was not autistic would they have been able to fly? Yes.

So on that basis the child was discriminated against, there really can be no discussion on that.

The question is was the Qantas pilot correct in denying boarding, both in the framework of Qantas policy and, more widely, the legality of such a decision under Australian law? (It would appear that the parent had not followed the correct notification procedure required by Qantas, but had followed instructions and advice given by the child's doctor?)

...the circumstances surrounding the article's genesis ...

I would suggest that timing had an effect on the issue hitting the media when it did - World Autism Awareness Day

And in finishing, the fact that Qantas allowed the child to fly on a different flight, at a later date, demonstrates that "someone" in Qantas obviously decided it was suitable for Qantas to carry the child. (Perhaps this same "person" at Qantas (for legal, liability and safety reasons), needs to sign off on this decision prior to any flight, hence the need to send appropriate paperwork to Qantas in advance rather than simply handing it over at the gate?)

 

[serfty]

...
And in finishing, the fact that Qantas allowed the child to fly on a different flight, at a later date, demonstrates that "someone" in Qantas obviously decided it was suitable for Qantas to carry the child. (Perhaps this same "person" at Qantas (for legal, liability and safety reasons), needs to sign off on this decision prior to any flight, hence the need to send appropriate paperwork to Qantas in advance rather than simply handing it over at the gate?)

I have seen no indication the child flew on a later flight unaccompanied (I suspect the mother was provided with transport as well), but if they did so, it would likely be because the procedure outlined by Qantas was eventually followed with the second event (i.e. relevant documentation provided upon [re]booking).

Was the child discriminated against, that one is easy = YES.

It's a black and white case, if the child was not autistic would they have been able to fly? Yes.

So on that basis the child was discriminated against, there really can be no discussion on that.

The question is was the Qantas pilot correct in denying boarding, both in the framework of Qantas policy and, more widely, the legality of such a decision under Australian law? (It would appear that the parent had not followed the correct notification procedure required by Qantas, but had followed instructions and advice given by the child's doctor?)
...

I would suspect the Qantas policy has been framed with input from credible anti-discrimination bodies (as well as Qantas' legal team).

So, in those terms ... discrimination? Yes! Legal discrimination (in those terms)? Yes.

Remember, the original recommendation not to provide transport was not made by the pilot.

 

[basso]

And in finishing, the fact that Qantas allowed the child to fly on a different flight, at a later date, demonstrates that "someone" in Qantas obviously decided it was suitable for Qantas to carry the child. (Perhaps this same "person" at Qantas (for legal, liability and safety reasons), needs to sign off on this decision prior to any flight, hence the need to send appropriate paperwork to Qantas in advance rather than simply handing it over at the gate?)

I have thought about this, and I think this maybe the case. Qantas are responsible for the overall safety of everybody on the aircraft (including in emergency situations), and thus in this case, needed to do a 'risk assessment' if you will. Someone competent, will have needed to sign this off for the airline - and I suggest there was not enough time at the gate to do this. I am not sure the policy on the website covers the situation.

 

[dk4]

Legal discrimination (in those terms)? Yes.

Absolutely. Discrimination occurs every day in many ways, and some discrimination is enshrined in law.

But we must not shy away from acknowledging that it is discrimination, and we should always discuss the basis for it! Without discussing it, we can end up with discrimination that is unfair or unreasonable. But equally without using discrimination we can end up with situations that are unsafe or untenable.

In Australia - people under 18 can't buy alcohol or vote, people under a certain height can't go on some rides at the agricultural show, 14 year olds must attend some sort of schooling, blind people can't pilot commercial aircraft, people wearing thongs can't get access to a Qantas club...

 

[VHOEJ]

Regardless of the policy, the fact of the story I don't like is that the mother went to the media and it was front page of the NT News the next day. Running to the media all the time gets attention - the outcome may have been the same but I hate that people go the media when something doesn't go thier way.

 

[Rick93]

Interesting, the 'common' view of Autism ...

I think many people are confusing Autism and ADHD - which is commonly considered to mean 'bad behaviour'. Take a look ( from somewhere ) at what Autism is described as ...

Many kids at the age quoted in this case, sit quietly, in a 'self-absorbed' world, and are usually difficult to effectively communicate with - due to the nature of their 'self-focus'.

This story to me, sounds as if the pilot ( and others at QANTAS ? ) most likely had an 'image' in their mind, of this child running amok on the aircraft etc.

When all ( the originally supplied ) factors are considered ( well, by me anyway ... ), it was more than likely, that this child was going to be sitting quietly, fiddling with whatever his favourite toy / object is ( that his mother provided for ).

"extra medication" doesn't always mean 'drugged to the eye balls' ...

The kid probably was given his usual PRN ( additional above regular ) dose of whatever ( diazepam / Valium for eg. ) Probably no more than many other air travellers receive for 'nerves' ...

A shame that QANTAS et al don't seem to distinguish between 'behavioural' conditions. Not all kids with a 'label' are going to be a risk of 'bring the aircraft down' ...

 

[mimishat]

Regardless of the policy, the fact of the story I don't like is that the mother went to the media and it was front page of the NT News the next day. Running to the media all the time gets attention - the outcome may have been the same but I hate that people go the media when something doesn't go thier way.

Unfortunately this seems to be getting more and more prevalent

 

[mimishat]

The media sure do like these David and Goliath type stories. From the facts presented the mother didn't follow proper procedure which lead to the denial of boarding for her son but he was later allowed to travel. I'm sure there have been other UMs with similar conditions who have followed procedure and allowed to travel without issues. A quick search on the QANTAS website for medical conditions gives indications on what procedures need to be followed, and if in doubt she should have called the customer service centre (especially with him being a UM). I hope the child wasn't too traumatised by it all and was reunited with his father.

 

[moa999]

Again we don't have all the facts and it appears the Captain made a call, seemingly because the correct paperwork was not done, and the mother complained raising the discrimation card rather than shouldering some blame.

That said I remain of the view that increasing the medication dosage and having the child travel alone.

Whilst I typical autistic child may be docile/self absorbed in flight that same behavior, combined with higher levels of medication, could be disastrous in say an evacuation situation.

 

[mannej]

Interesting, the 'common' view of Autism ...

I think many people are confusing Autism and ADHD - which is commonly considered to mean 'bad behaviour'. Take a look ( from somewhere ) at what Autism is described as ...

Many kids at the age quoted in this case, sit quietly, in a 'self-absorbed' world, and are usually difficult to effectively communicate with - due to the nature of their 'self-focus'.

This story to me, sounds as if the pilot ( and others at QANTAS ? ) most likely had an 'image' in their mind, of this child running amok on the aircraft etc.

When all ( the originally supplied ) factors are considered ( well, by me anyway ... ), it was more than likely, that this child was going to be sitting quietly, fiddling with whatever his favourite toy / object is ( that his mother provided for ).

"extra medication" doesn't always mean 'drugged to the eye balls' ...

The kid probably was given his usual PRN ( additional above regular ) dose of whatever ( diazepam / Valium for eg. ) Probably no more than many other air travellers receive for 'nerves' ...

A shame that QANTAS et al don't seem to distinguish between 'behavioural' conditions. Not all kids with a 'label' are going to be a risk of 'bring the aircraft down' ...

Without the full set of facts (because the article clearly doesn't present them) you are making assumptions as to what actually occurred.

Without going on about the image of autism, perhaps the pilot wasn't happy with the lack of an appropriate risk analysis conducted, hence the denial of boarding.

I think your last paragraph is off the mark considering the risk here isn't one of bringing the aircraft down, but of what may happen should an emergency situation occur.

 

[serfty]

Again we don't have all the facts and it appears the Captain made a call, seemingly because the correct paperwork was not done, and the mother complained raising the discrimation card rather than shouldering some blame. ...

According to the article, it was not fully the captain's decision:

... In this case, the crew sought professional medical advice and took the decision not to allow travel until further information about the condition could be gathered. ...

 

[Rick93]

The crew sought professional medical advice ???

From who, and HOW ?

Ever tried to get "professional medical advice" over the phone ??

Doctor or Nurse can only give 'general' guidelines - which means there could be nothing said about this particular child.

The crew most likely received 'worst case scenario' details, and assumed that this kid would do everything 'negative' they were told was a possibility.

 

[juddles]

The crew sought professional medical advice ???

From who, and HOW ?

Ever tried to get "professional medical advice" over the phone ??

Doctor or Nurse can only give 'general' guidelines - which means there could be nothing said about this particular child.

The crew most likely received 'worst case scenario' details, and assumed that this kid would do everything 'negative' they were told was a possibility.

Which is why Qantas ((and every other entity) would dearly love that people provide them with stuff in advance, and not wait to drop these situations on the airline as they board!!

 

[mannej]

The crew sought professional medical advice ???

From who, and HOW ?

Ever tried to get "professional medical advice" over the phone ??

Doctor or Nurse can only give 'general' guidelines - which means there could be nothing said about this particular child.

The crew most likely received 'worst case scenario' details, and assumed that this kid would do everything 'negative' they were told was a possibility.

How can you make a statement such as this without any evidence?

 

[Rick93]

With the use of key words, such as: "... most likely".

Secondly, as a Registered Nurse, who works in Mental Health, I've seen a range of child and adolescent behaviours etc.

 

[drron]

The crew sought professional medical advice ???

From who, and HOW ?

Ever tried to get "professional medical advice" over the phone ??

Doctor or Nurse can only give 'general' guidelines - which means there could be nothing said about this particular child.

The crew most likely received 'worst case scenario' details, and assumed that this kid would do everything 'negative' they were told was a possibility.

Qantas have their own medical staff who quite possibly have more knowledge of medical problems in flight than a paediatrician.

 

[Rick93]

QANTAS do have 'resources' at their disposal, but not in a short space of time.

Their "professional medical advice", was most likely ( don't just love that term ? I know I do ... ) a duty nurse in the Occupational Health Centre.

I've been that Nurse on a few occasions ( via a Nursing Agency as a 'temp'. )

The 'usual' questions that come through as a phone consult are like:

"What's best for motion sickness - Stemetil or Maxalon?. Passenger has both available".

"Our in-flight kit has a salbutamol inhaler that expires today. Is it safe to use for this flight today? We can't get it replaced at this time".



In order to have 'doctor' provide an 'opinion' on the child in question, they would want an hour's consult session - IN PERSON - not over the phone with a staff member.

 

[N860CR]

I dare say the "advise" was somebody contacting the relevant department at Qantas to confirm the required documentation for the passenger to travel. This department would have confirmed that the passenger was not correctly cleared for travel (as we have established from the article and the mothers claims) and boarding was correctly denied.

 

[drron]

QANTAS do have 'resources' at their disposal, but not in a short space of time.

Their "professional medical advice", was most likely ( don't just love that term ? I know I do ... ) a duty nurse in the Occupational Health Centre.

I've been that Nurse on a few occasions ( via a Nursing Agency as a 'temp'. )

The 'usual' questions that come through as a phone consult are like:

"What's best for motion sickness - Stemetil or Maxalon?. Passenger has both available".

"Our in-flight kit has a salbutamol inhaler that expires today. Is it safe to use for this flight today? We can't get it replaced at this time".



In order to have 'doctor' provide an 'opinion' on the child in question, they would want an hour's consult session - IN PERSON - not over the phone with a staff member.

Sorry but you are wrong.Approving a person for medical travel is not done through a nurse.
working in regional areas but especially here in Tasmania I often see people who have a major illness which impacts their ability to fly home.On several occasions I have rung QF medical staff to discuss the options.I talk to a doctor,not a nurse in the occupational health unit.
Look at the bottom of each page of the Qantas travel clearance guidelines-it is by the Medical Director,qantas medical services.
I have just done it today for a fellow flying out on Sunday who obviously couldn't get a form back to QF several days before the flight.
And I repeat-I talked to a doctor.

 

[jb747]

As a pilot....if I want to talk to a doctor I can do so in a couple of minutes, from anywhere in the world. There are companies that specalise in provision of just that service, and they have been extremely helpful to me a number of times over the years.

And as often as not, walking back to 1A will be just as useful....