Either one of two things happened here - they passenger and crew were aware that a limb was broken or they were not. If they were, then I am absoloutely appaled that they would continue across the ocean with a passenger in that state.
Continuing onwards with a passenger in such a state cannot be in the interest of the passenger concerned - commercial considerations would appear to be the overriding issue here.
The second possiblity - that they were unaware of the extent of the injury would appear to be, and I hope, the case, but given that a number of crew members were also injured, prudence would dictate that a passenger with a serious injury be attend to ASAP as opposed to continuing across the ocean where compications might set in, and the aircraft be a long way from any help for the passenger. I
What I find cynical is that having continued onwards without any "emergency" for several hours, passing numerous suitable airfields, that when they arrive at their destination, they then declare a medical emergency - "the aircraft was given an expeditious routing".
I'm not slating BA, I'm questioning that commander's priorities. From reading the report, the welfare of the passenger really only seemed to matter in the Gatwick zone.
martinidoc,
Some attitude for a so called doc. Any expense that the passenger would incur in treatment in the US would have to borne by BA - not the individual. And don't tell me a fat embolus is not rare - I attended a funeral a week ago where a relative of mine died from a broken leg received in a car accident.