New Infant and Pregnancy Policies

[smeyer418]

correction it was scarletini not roseola.

[SCCAcruiser]

Oh, give me a break! A cruise line is a for profit corporation, and has the perfect right to make decisions/policies that it feels are best for both IT and its customers. If the two incidents that are being referred to were the first two incidents, ever, involving infants, do you REALLY think that RCCL would be implementing this policy? I have no doubt that there have been other incidents that just haven't been as well publicized, not just on RCCL but on other lines as well (remember, their "people" do speak to each other, and their lawyers speak to each other, and their insurance people speak to each other), and RCCL made a decision based upon all of that.

 

I love how people always look FIRST to blame the "lawyers". More of what drives corporate decisions of this type (i.e., ride height restrictions at amusement parks, etc.) come from the insurance companies, who look for EVERY way possible to eliminate situations for which they might have to pay out. Don't give me that crap about the cruise lines not being liable - that has never stopped someone from trying to sue when anything goes wrong for which negligence could be alleged.

 

And how about a situation where a ship has to divert and a port-call is missed, and the cruise line ends up compensating everyone for that? Sure, it can happen with people of any age, but as some posters have said, cruise ships are completely unequipped to treat infants. As to passengers of 90+ years age with medical issues, the kinds of medical issues that they might have that are treatable are the same ones that other adults might have. Why bother bring up dimentia or alzheimers? Those are not acute conditions that would need any immediate treatment on a ship anyway!

 

As to those who feel a burning need to take a cruise with an infant - so you'll wait a few months....

 

And to the poster that commented about behavior - YOU are absolutely right! We have no issue with well behaved kids, unfortunately, there are more and more families these days who don't seem to feel that there's any need to TEACH their children how to be well behaved, and it doesn't bother those parents in the least to have their kids (particularly teenagers) running all over the ship and bothering everyone else. Yeah, and the drunken adults in the hot tubs, as well.... :eek:

[dkjretired]

Oh, give me a break! A cruise line is a for profit corporation, and has the perfect right to make decisions/policies that it feels are best for both IT and its customers. If the two incidents that are being referred to were the first two incidents, ever, involving infants, do you REALLY think that RCCL would be implementing this policy? I have no doubt that there have been other incidents that just haven't been as well publicized, not just on RCCL but on other lines as well (remember, their "people" do speak to each other, and their lawyers speak to each other, and their insurance people speak to each other), and RCCL made a decision based upon all of that.

 

I love how people always look FIRST to blame the "lawyers". More of what drives corporate decisions of this type (i.e., ride height restrictions at amusement parks, etc.) come from the insurance companies, who look for EVERY way possible to eliminate situations for which they might have to pay out. Don't give me that crap about the cruise lines not being liable - that has never stopped someone from trying to sue when anything goes wrong for which negligence could be alleged.

 

And how about a situation where a ship has to divert and a port-call is missed, and the cruise line ends up compensating everyone for that? Sure, it can happen with people of any age, but as some posters have said, cruise ships are completely unequipped to treat infants. As to passengers of 90+ years age with medical issues, the kinds of medical issues that they might have that are treatable are the same ones that other adults might have. Why bother bring up dimentia or alzheimers? Those are not acute conditions that would need any immediate treatment on a ship anyway!

 

As to those who feel a burning need to take a cruise with an infant - so you'll wait a few months....

 

And to the poster that commented about behavior - YOU are absolutely right! We have no issue with well behaved kids, unfortunately, there are more and more families these days who don't seem to feel that there's any need to TEACH their children how to be well behaved, and it doesn't bother those parents in the least to have their kids (particularly teenagers) running all over the ship and bothering everyone else. Yeah, and the drunken adults in the hot tubs, as well.... :eek:

 

 

I agree with your comments and as the person who brought up the lawyers I would have to explain a little. In my job, I dealt with insurance companies a lot and the only people I dealt with were lawyers for the insurance companies so I guess my comment could be put in that context.

[Moeve]

What probably sparked this reaction is a culmination of events that happened in a really sort span of time (roughly 2 weeks)

 

1) was the 2 year old who basically got on a plane in Frankfurt (after a flight from Africa) looking healthy but was dead on arrival at Shannon International after an emergancy dash for this airport after getting sick very quickly.

2) the case of the sick child RCCL caught a lot of negative publicity for on the Bahamas.

 

The point has already been made infants and very small children are just not small adults so their medical requirements are more difficult to deal with. I do however see this as a very clear case of saving a**. So that if something does ever happen the cruiselines can say they have taken every precausion possible..... in the day and age of extensive and in many case just plain rediculous lawsuites insurances require the insurance taker to take certain precausions before they will insure them - THIS is probably one of them.

[lysolqn]

So should every one over 90 be denied boarding-given that a good portion of them are no longer compus mentus? The supreme court has already agreed that malpractice can't be imputed to the cruise line. I think this has more to do with what you think of kids on a ship than the cruise lines liability of which there is none.

 

Good point. Just returned from a 14-day X cruise on which there were FOUR medivacs that I'm aware of (wouldn't be surprised if there were more that I'm not aware of!) - two of which were at sea - and all involved adults. The kids on board, including a couple of very young babies, did quite well.

[NYCFOD]

It used to be said that cruising was for old people and their parents. Whether this is true or not, the ships I have been on have had a significant number of elderly people aboard. It is a fact of life that on many longer cruises (10+ nights) some of those elderly people disembark in a shroud. People expect the elderly to die, whether of old age in their sleep or of an opportunistic infection, if it happens on vacation, somehow that's an even nicer way to go.

 

We don't expect young people to die anymore. Thankfully, the days when most infants died, and a significant number of women died from complications of pregnancy or childbirth are long gone from the developed world. So when a young person, be they 1 month, 10 years, 30 years or 45 years, dies unexpectedly from a condition that might have been resolved if they'd been in a major teaching hospital, we tend to be outraged. This outrage may well result in higher costs for the cruise lines from lawsuits or increased regulations, both of which the cruising public will have to pay.

 

A cruise ship cannot have the same facilities as a major teaching hospital. Shipping lines, their medical staff, their insurance companies and their legal advisors try to restrict those most at risk from cruising. So for these shipping lines, it seems to be women in their third trimester of pregnancy and infants under one year of age. When things go wrong with an infant or a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy, time may well be of the essence, and if the patient is not quickly transported to a medical facility with advanced life support capabilities, death may result.

 

I don't blame the cruiselines for seeking to limit risk, so maybe people have to think carefully before they book vacations. Most cruiselines allow you to cancel without penalty several months ahead. Unless a woman's pregnancy is well advanced before it's discovered (and that does happen) cancelation without cost should be possible.

[Moeve]

Sorry NYCFOD I am sorry to spit in your soup but the comment about cancellation being without charge pertains to US and Canadian bookings only most other nationalites are excluded from this "service" and have to pay the cancellation fee which is at least your deposit or any where between 5 - 50% of your cruise. That unfortunately is a fact.

[SCCAcruiser]

"spit in your soup"? If every comment or statement that people make on these boards has to be "vetted" for applicability to non North American bookings, people would be having to spend A LOT of time reading the cruise lines foreign websites! Although the internet is "global", the cruise industry is "global" and even the CC boards have "global" users, a great majority of the discussion goes on between U.S.-based people about U.S.-based cruise lines!

 

Now, that being said, EVEN IF someone is subject to a cancellation penalty such as you mention, I believe very strongly that the likely outcome of someone contacting a cruise line and saying "I booked this cruise (no, not a cruise leaving tomorrow, one that is still months away) months ago, and now I've found out that I am pregnant and will be in my 3rd trimester at the time of the cruise", the cruise line would allow that person (and fellow travelers) to reschedule. They are NOT going to say "oh, too bad, pregnant! Pay us the cancellation fee cause we won't let you go!" :eek: