Boston Children's Hospital Takes Custody of Five Children

#1
Vol737

Vol737

Self sufficient non victim
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
18,126
Likes
29,370
#1
And they're not alone. Alaska has done the same thing and some are adult children. This should scare the hell out of everyone. A hospital being an instrument of the state to determine that children should be remanded to the state because of a very subjective definition of "medical abuse". Some of these were adult children with chronic health issues where parents were trying to get second opinions and alternative treatments.

Hospital Takes Custody Of Parents’ Son, Deny Them The Right To Visit Him | Ben Swann Truth In Media

Conn. teen in long custody battle to move again - Metro - The Boston Globe

Hospital Holds West Hartford Girl For 9 Months After Parents Argue Diagnosis | WTIC FOX CT
 
#2
#2
That usually happens in liberal areas. If hospitals down here were to do that, I imagine it would be a different outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3
#3
davethevol said:
That usually happens in liberal areas. If hospitals down here were to do that, I imagine it would be a different outcome.
Click to expand...

No doubt about it, if that happened here, the hospital would quickly turn into a war zone.
 
#4
#4
davethevol said:
That usually happens in liberal areas. If hospitals down here were to do that, I imagine it would be a different outcome.
Click to expand...

Question: Do you think parents ought to be able to make whatever decisions they feel like making concerning their child even if it is severely detrimental to the health and life of their child?
 
#5
#5
therealUT said:
Question: Do you think parents ought to be able to make whatever decisions they feel like making concerning their child even if it is severely detrimental to the health and life of their child?
Click to expand...

As long as the parent is not abusing the child, yes. The children are not the property of the state or the hospitals. I'm all for doctors giving their opinions and doing everything they can to help, but when they start the process to have the children taken from the parents because the parents want a second opinion, then the doctors are out of line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
I'll have to say there really isn't a whole lot of information as to the reason in the first link from Alaska. The other two were concerned about psychological problems in the child which would be a valid concern.
 
#10
#10
Velo Vol said:
Are they "property" of the parents?
Click to expand...

they are the parents responsibility.

as a parent of 2 young boys we have been bombarded with data/info/propaganda/etc about vaccines and their effects. We've done our homework and made the best decisions we could for our boys. Those don't always match up with our friends and even people in the medical community. Should a disagreement with a physician lead to my boys being taken away simply because of his opinion? I have friends who have declined many vaccinations for their kids so should they lose their parental rights since they disagree with another doctor's opinion? Should I be refused even a second opinion because one doctor has already weighed in?

I have a really hard time with things like this. I feel I am intelligent enough to weigh my options and make the best decision for my children. What is becoming evident is that some disagree and are trying to wrestle that power away from me. It's disturbing
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
davethevol said:
As long as the parent is not abusing the child, yes. The children are not the property of the state or the hospitals. I'm all for doctors giving their opinions and doing everything they can to help, but when they start the process to have the children taken from the parents because the parents want a second opinion, then the doctors are out of line.
Click to expand...

The Justina Pelletier case does not show up in the media until the end of January, and by then all that is talked about is the dispute. So, right now I know nothing regarding Justina and what actions her parents were taking. It might be the case that the parents were providing Pyruvic Acid to Justina (an up and coming treatment for mitochondrial disease) and there are some problematic issues related to Pyruvic Acid. It is reasonably to argue that taking a lot of Pyruvic Acid is detrimental to the health of an individual who is not suffering from mitochondrial disease. If so, it could be argued that continuing to subject one to such measures is abusive.

Imagine a child is sick and is prescribed penicillin. Imagine that child has what appears to be an allergic reaction to penicillin and is taken to the hospital. Then imagine that the medical staff tells the parents the child is allergic to penicillin, will have to stop taking the penicillin, and, therefore, will suffer through whatever ailment they were previously suffering. Then imagine the parents say, "My child is not allergic to penicillin, and I am going to get a second opinion". The medical staff might respond by saying, "Okay, get a second opinion, but in the meantime, don't give your child any penicillin". If the parents then say, "No, my child is sick and I will continue to give her penicillin", do you think the medical staff would be correct in keeping the child from the child's parents?

Sure, I am assuming a lot. I am assuming these parents were giving certain drugs to their child, drugs that treat a disease that medical experts said she did not have. I am also assuming that such drugs are not good for someone who does not have such disease. And, I am assuming that the parents asserted that they will continue to give those drugs to their child until a second opinion is had.

It's a lot of assumptions. The question I have for you, though, is: if those assumptions are granted (that is, if that is what happened), then would you have a problem with the state taking such actions?

If so, why? If not, why not?
 
#12
#12
I've read some horror stories of incompetent parents refusing to let their kids take modern medicine, occasionally to the extreme detriment of the children who may have special needs, and in these extremely harmful/life threatening situations, I support the removal of the kids.

Mormons, the Amish, and scientologists(lol) are among some of the more common communities that I've read about who do this sort of thing.
 
#13
#13
therealUT said:
The Justina Pelletier case does not show up in the media until the end of January, and by then all that is talked about is the dispute. So, right now I know nothing regarding Justina and what actions her parents were taking. It might be the case that the parents were providing Pyruvic Acid to Justina (an up and coming treatment for mitochondrial disease) and there are some problematic issues related to Pyruvic Acid. It is reasonably to argue that taking a lot of Pyruvic Acid is detrimental to the health of an individual who is not suffering from mitochondrial disease. If so, it could be argued that continuing to subject one to such measures is abusive.

Imagine a child is sick and is prescribed penicillin. Imagine that child has what appears to be an allergic reaction to penicillin and is taken to the hospital. Then imagine that the medical staff tells the parents the child is allergic to penicillin, will have to stop taking the penicillin, and, therefore, will suffer through whatever ailment they were previously suffering. Then imagine the parents say, "My child is not allergic to penicillin, and I am going to get a second opinion". The medical staff might respond by saying, "Okay, get a second opinion, but in the meantime, don't give your child any penicillin". If the parents then say, "No, my child is sick and I will continue to give her penicillin", do you think the medical staff would be correct in keeping the child from the child's parents?

Sure, I am assuming a lot. I am assuming these parents were giving certain drugs to their child, drugs that treat a disease that medical experts said she did not have. I am also assuming that such drugs are not good for someone who does not have such disease. And, I am assuming that the parents asserted that they will continue to give those drugs to their child until a second opinion is had.

It's a lot of assumptions. The question I have for you, though, is: if those assumptions are granted (that is, if that is what happened), then would you have a problem with the state taking such actions?

If so, why? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Medical experts get things wrong a lot. While I certainly trust and respect most of their opinions, they do not have the final say.

In the situations you provided, I would still side with the parents decisions and say the state should do nothing more than offer counseling should the family want it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
davethevol said:
Medical experts get things wrong a lot. While I certainly trust and respect most of their opinions, they do not have the final say.

In the situations you provided, I would still side with the parents decisions and say the state should do nothing more than offer counseling should the family want it.
Click to expand...

You support the family continuing to give the kids a substance they are potentially deathly allergic to according to the doctors?

****, I'm glad my parents trusted the docs when they were told I was allergic to pennicillin as a kid.
 
#15
#15
MercyPercy said:
You support the family continuing to give the kids a substance they are potentially deathly allergic to according to the doctors?

****, I'm glad my parents trusted the docs when they were told I was allergic to pennicillin as a kid.
Click to expand...

what if 2 doctors have conflicting opinions?
 
#17
#17
utvolpj said:
what if 2 doctors have conflicting opinions?
Click to expand...

You know, in today's day and age, determining whether someone is allergic to penicillin shouldn't be a difficult thing to accomplish. I'm curious as to how often that even actually happens.

And if it were your kids, wouldn't you want to be on the side of caution anyway?
 
#18
#18
davethevol said:
Medical experts get things wrong a lot. While I certainly trust and respect most of their opinions, they do not have the final say.

In the situations you provided, I would still side with the parents decisions and say the state should do nothing more than offer counseling should the family want it.
Click to expand...

Correct. Medical experts get things wrong. Based upon your response to the assumed scenario, I want to restate my original question:

Do you think parents ought to be able to make whatever decisions they feel like making concerning their child even if it is severely detrimental to the health and life of their child?
 
#19
#19
MercyPercy said:
You know, in today's day and age, determining whether someone is allergic to penicillin shouldn't be a difficult thing to accomplish. I'm curious as to how often that even actually happens.
Click to expand...

I had a reaction after a surgery and 3 different doctors in the practice took a look at me to figure out what was wrong (whole body covered in a bad heat rash so maybe they were just coming in to stare). After some poking and prodding it turns out I was allergic to the certain antibiotic they prescribed. Never had an allergy before

my doctor also sought an opinion from a colleague when I came in with shingles because things just didn't line up. I'm just saying a single doctor isn't always going to know exactly what's going on every time
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#20
#20
utvolpj said:
as a parent of 2 young boys we have been bombarded with data/info/propaganda/etc about vaccines and their effects. We've done our homework and made the best decisions we could for our boys.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you do.

However, I see news stories about idiot parents on a regular basis so I'm not going to foreclose the option of third parties to intervene when circumstances warrant.
 
#21
#21
Velo Vol said:
I'm sure you do.

However, I see news stories about idiot parents on a regular basis so I'm not going to foreclose the option of third parties to intervene when circumstances warrant.
Click to expand...

and who makes the decision to intervene? Who determines smart vs idiot parent?
 
#22
#22
therealUT said:
Correct. Medical experts get things wrong. Based upon your response to the assumed scenario, I want to restate my original question:

Do you think parents ought to be able to make whatever decisions they feel like making concerning their child even if it is severely detrimental to the health and life of their child?
Click to expand...

No but the state shouldn't have the ability to seize the child until it proves the parents decisions are harming the child!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
hog88 said:
No but the state shouldn't have the ability to seize the child until it proves the parents decisions are harming the child!
Click to expand...

And, if it is a question that cannot be demonstratively proven, do we just defer to the choice of the parent?
 
#25
#25
therealUT said:
Correct. Medical experts get things wrong. Based upon your response to the assumed scenario, I want to restate my original question:

Do you think parents ought to be able to make whatever decisions they feel like making concerning their child even if it is severely detrimental to the health and life of their child?
Click to expand...
It's still a hypothetical situation and my answer is still yes due to my previous reasoning.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top