I think it unlikely that the parents will be naive about the prospects of long term prognosis, given the father's capacity for research on the condition.
The statements from the Kings are that there is no cancer showing on scans any more and the lad is cured. If you read up on the type of cancer he had there is no possible way of knowing that is really the case for several years yet. The type of radio therapy does not affect this.
In fact, the orginal hospital offered his son no treatment, so convinced were the specialists at that hosptial there was nothing that could be done.
Not true at all. The hospital followed their standard protocol of surgery (which he had in Southampton) to be followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The surgery saved his life - left untreated it would have killed him. In simple terms the other treatments are designed to remove any other cancerous cells left and help prevent the cancer returning. What Mr. King was concerned about was the effect of the conventional radio therapy. The specialists did not think that using proton beam would make a difference to the likely outcomes.
I have seen what radio and chemo does to people so I do not question the Kings' desire to find a viable alternative but to suggest the hospital were a bunch of heartless bastards is a gross misrepresentation.
I see the so-called "controversial" treatment (Proton) the specialists had questioned will be more widely available in the UK this year.
Proton beam is safer way of delivering radio therapy and has been used in the UK for some time. The NHS does refer patients it feels the treatment can work for. There are new centres opening up. There was also some research published in the past couple of days that provide more empirical data supporting it's use in a wider range of cases. Oncologists do not question proton beam in the same way they question things like special diets for the treatment of cancer. It's not "controversial" in the sense they think it's some kind of quackery. It is a relatively new technology that they have only had limited data with which to form clinical decisions. Basically, it is not suitable for all patients but perhaps it is more suitable for more people than they previously had evidence for.
The more it is used and the more results they have then I am sure that it will be more useful for more and more people. If it has worked for Aysha King then no doubt it has minimised the potential damage to healthy cells that conventional RT risks. That's a great result however it is no more likely to cure (by which we mean long term remission of over 5 years) than anything else.