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 sus****ion 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?

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

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.

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

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