RE: Parents rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DomKen -> RE: Parents rights (2/27/2014 10:05:02 PM)

I've spent several hours reading up on this case and the information available publicly is frustratingly vague. It could be that the parents are right and this young lady urgently needs the care the want to give her or it could be that she is so convinced she is sick that she fails to thrive despite the best care of one of the top hospitals in the nation. She desperately needs an independent diagnostic evaluation to determine which it is.




Zonie63 -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 4:38:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
It seems like it would help to know what the rationale of BCH was to begin with - because we don't have that information at all - only what the parents are asserting the hospital did and said. I have to believe that unless BCH felt the child's life was in imminent danger they would not have acted as they did. But based on what?? And while it appears that BCH did not consult with Tufts, could the parents not have called the Tufts doctors in to testify on their behalf?? This whole thing seriously raises more questions than I feel are answered by the various articles that I've read.


This is a key point which stands out. It seems as if BCH and the Massachusetts child protection authorities are saying that the parents did something horribly wrong, yet they were ostensibly acting on the medical advice of their doctors in Connecticut. If the parents are guilty of "medical child abuse," then doesn't that also implicate the doctors at Tufts? Is this really a legal dispute, or is it more of a medical dispute between medical professionals with conflicting diagnoses?

My experience in dealing with the medical profession is that communication between doctors, hospitals, and other organizations within the medical community is oftentimes very poor. Even communication between departments within the same hospital/organization can be deficient. This may be by design, or it may be administrative incompetence; it's hard to tell.

Certainly, there wouldn't be enough information released to the public, since they can't say anything without authorization. But someone should be authorized to take charge and figure out just what in heck is going on here and make a ruling. I don't know what may be going on medically with her, but the idea of sticking her in a psych ward just stinks to high heaven. It's not exactly biscuits and gravy in places like that, and she's all alone with no contact with her family or friends? She's not even in her home state. Shouldn't it really be up the Connecticut authorities to make the determination here?







thishereboi -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 5:04:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I've spent several hours reading up on this case and the information available publicly is frustratingly vague. It could be that the parents are right and this young lady urgently needs the care the want to give her or it could be that she is so convinced she is sick that she fails to thrive despite the best care of one of the top hospitals in the nation. She desperately needs an independent diagnostic evaluation to determine which it is.



I couldn't find much either. Thanks K for the links by the way. They were very informative.

I wasn't going to sign the petition until I learned more but the whole "gag order" bothered me. I have to wonder what they were trying to hide. I decided the petition might bring the whole thing out in the open and force people to make a decision about the kid. Just locking in up in a physc ward for a year isn't going to help her. If it was I would think you would see some improvement after all this time.




Aylee -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 7:26:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

I will note that they refused to do the most rudimentary testing to verify her past medical history, such as the MRI to confirm the childhood stroke of her brain, which was the reason she was on blood thinners and certain neurological drugs. Not to mention there are genetic tests for the markers that indicate for the DNA disease that the girl in question has.

Instead they allowed a doctor to practice outside of his field and disregard the expert opinion of doctors at his OWN hospital and impose his own diagnosis when the patient in question was NOT HIS patient.

Considering his department has done this numerous times (at least several that have been documented), I do wonder what HE or his department head has on the hospital administration, because of the tort liability they have incurred, because at least in this case the physical condition of the patient in question has noticeably deteriorated under their care.

It is enough to make you cry and to confirm that the doctors in the neurology department are criminally incompetent and that the Hospital Administrator needs to be fired.

http://www.childrenshospital.org/centers-and-services/programs/f-_-n/mitochondrial-program
quote:

Mitochondrial diseases are a large group of chronic disorders in which the body's cells have problems making energy. These disorders are relatively common.

They are also very complex, and can affect many different body systems in different combinations. As a result, a child with a mitochondrial disorder may be affected very differently than another child. Some patients' disease can be very serious, while others' may be stable and well-managed for many years.

Boston Children's Hospital's Mitochondrial Program is comprised of world experts with extensive experience diagnosing and treating children with suspected mitochondrial disorders. After a diagnosis is made, we provide the diverse expertise needed to evaluate and manage the various complications these children may face.

Here at Boston Children's, your child will be evaluated and treated by pediatric neurologist Irina Anselm, MD, who specializes in caring for children with mitochondrial diseases. Dr. Anselm works with experts from other specialties at Children's, including Metabolism, Cardiology, Genetics, Gastroenterology and Ophthalmology.

Each of these specialists has particular expertise in working with children who have mitochondrial disorders. Our doctors will work with you to develop a customized plan that manages and addresses your child's individual condition and symptoms, and we will follow your child closely throughout each stage of the treatment process.
snipt.


So the hospital has an entire program and staff now dedicated to a disease that they are on record as saying does NOT exist.

It's not that they do not exist. they definitely exist. but they are grossly over diagnosed. They are the trendy disease of the moment in some circles just like multiple chemical sensitivity was a few years back. I will point out that in all the coverage of this which specific condition she has is never mentioned and there is no such thing as just "mitochrondrial disease" that is an umbrella term for any disease involving a mutation of the DNA of the mitochondria. That could be something as mild as type 2 diabetes to all kinds of esoteric metabolic illnesses. So that generic statement does make me more than a tad suspicious.


Momma has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Older sister has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Younger sister. . . just wants something trendy?

Why would it surprise you? At least one form affects the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother . . . it seems quite possible that two children of the same mother could inherit that form.

Testing (more accurately, sequencing and comparing) the mitochondrial DNA of both children and comparing seems feasible with current technology, no?




kalikshama -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 7:34:44 AM)

quote:

This is a key point which stands out. It seems as if BCH and the Massachusetts child protection authorities are saying that the parents did something horribly wrong, yet they were ostensibly acting on the medical advice of their doctors in Connecticut. If the parents are guilty of "medical child abuse," then doesn't that also implicate the doctors at Tufts? Is this really a legal dispute, or is it more of a medical dispute between medical professionals with conflicting diagnoses?

My experience in dealing with the medical profession is that communication between doctors, hospitals, and other organizations within the medical community is oftentimes very poor. Even communication between departments within the same hospital/organization can be deficient. This may be by design, or it may be administrative incompetence; it's hard to tell.

Certainly, there wouldn't be enough information released to the public, since they can't say anything without authorization. But someone should be authorized to take charge and figure out just what in heck is going on here and make a ruling. I don't know what may be going on medically with her, but the idea of sticking her in a psych ward just stinks to high heaven. It's not exactly biscuits and gravy in places like that, and she's all alone with no contact with her family or friends? She's not even in her home state. Shouldn't it really be up the Connecticut authorities to make the determination here?


Tufts is also in Boston, MA. Their doctor left Tufts and went to Children's. They were attempting to follow him, but she was first seen by another doctor who suspected medical abuse.

I know the articles I provided are really long, but they give much more balanced coverage than that in the HuffPo opinion piece.

Note: I was able to read Part 2 of the Boston Globe article by using another browser.




Owner59 -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 7:41:00 AM)

Do "parents rights" cover "faith healing"?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/faith-healing-deaths


http://www.katu.com/politics/Bill-to-protect-children-of-faith-healers-in-Idaho-will-not-get-a-hearing-247401091.html




Aylee -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 8:01:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Do "parents rights" cover "faith healing"?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/faith-healing-deaths


http://www.katu.com/politics/Bill-to-protect-children-of-faith-healers-in-Idaho-will-not-get-a-hearing-247401091.html


Ya know Owner, I have never been able to answer that question well. I can see both sides of the issue and it is a difficult question.

Yes it should cover it. But, it is a wrong and unethical thing to do to a person that has not reached the age of consent. Or even St. Augustine's age of reason. Yet, that is me imposing my morality on another. (As an example of why that is also a wrong thing to do: I see abortion as infanticide by proxy. Are you comfortable with me imposing my morality about that on others?)

On the other hand, for public health reasons (immunizations and disease vectors) no it should not cover it.

I realize that under the First Amendment a parent should be allowed to make the call that spiritual health is more important that physical health.

It is a double edged sword and I am not sure that there is a good way to reconcile the two sides.




kalikshama -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 9:56:00 AM)

Do "parents rights" cover letting children become morbidly obese?

Courts Charge Mother of 555-Pound Boy

The mother of a 555-pound, 14-year-old boy in South Carolina was charged with neglect last week for allegedly failing to control her son's weight.

Before fleeing town with her son, Jerri Gray had been contacted by the local Department of Social Services previous times about her son's weight and was even issued a treatment plan to turn around Alexander Draper's morbid obesity, Gray's attorney Grant Varner told ABCnews.com.

But when Gray failed to bring Alexander in for some of his medical treatment appointments recommended by the department and he continued to gain weight, the state sent notice that Gray would lose custody of her only child.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/story?id=7941609





DomKen -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 11:57:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Do "parents rights" cover "faith healing"?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/faith-healing-deaths


http://www.katu.com/politics/Bill-to-protect-children-of-faith-healers-in-Idaho-will-not-get-a-hearing-247401091.html


Ya know Owner, I have never been able to answer that question well. I can see both sides of the issue and it is a difficult question.

Yes it should cover it. But, it is a wrong and unethical thing to do to a person that has not reached the age of consent. Or even St. Augustine's age of reason. Yet, that is me imposing my morality on another. (As an example of why that is also a wrong thing to do: I see abortion as infanticide by proxy. Are you comfortable with me imposing my morality about that on others?)

On the other hand, for public health reasons (immunizations and disease vectors) no it should not cover it.

I realize that under the First Amendment a parent should be allowed to make the call that spiritual health is more important that physical health.

It is a double edged sword and I am not sure that there is a good way to reconcile the two sides.

Let adults do what the will with their own health but they should not do so with the minors temporarily in their care.




DomKen -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 11:59:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Momma has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Older sister has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Younger sister. . . just wants something trendy?

I found no claim that the mother is ill. The sister is and has an actual diagnosis which is absent in this case.




Owner59 -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 12:01:24 PM)

I would like at least for it to be understood that no one seems to acting in bad faith.






kalikshama -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 12:07:37 PM)

Yes, I didn't see any bad faith either. I saw the new doctor at Children's saying WTF about Justina's medical records and kicked the case up to the woman in charge of Children's child protection team who saw additional red flags.

I do think it's unfortunate how it played out, and that it's taken so long. My brother has been trapped in the mental health system in MA, and it does take forever, and harmed him further.




BamaD -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 12:12:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Momma has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Older sister has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Younger sister. . . just wants something trendy?

I found no claim that the mother is ill. The sister is and has an actual diagnosis which is absent in this case.


There was an actual diagnosis in her case as well but the "authorities" ignored that in favor of blaming the parents.




DomKen -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 12:21:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Momma has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Older sister has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Younger sister. . . just wants something trendy?

I found no claim that the mother is ill. The sister is and has an actual diagnosis which is absent in this case.


There was an actual diagnosis in her case as well but the "authorities" ignored that in favor of blaming the parents.

Nope. No muscle biopsy or any of the other tests that would provide a definitive diagnosis. That was one of the reasons the new doctors got concerned.




BamaD -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 12:24:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Momma has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Older sister has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Younger sister. . . just wants something trendy?

I found no claim that the mother is ill. The sister is and has an actual diagnosis which is absent in this case.


There was an actual diagnosis in her case as well but the "authorities" ignored that in favor of blaming the parents.

Nope. No muscle biopsy or any of the other tests that would provide a definitive diagnosis. That was one of the reasons the new doctors got concerned.

You are saying that the doctor who may a documented diagnosis of the sister just declared her to have to same thing without taking any tests.
Does that make any sense to you?




DomKen -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 1:05:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Momma has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Older sister has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Younger sister. . . just wants something trendy?

I found no claim that the mother is ill. The sister is and has an actual diagnosis which is absent in this case.


There was an actual diagnosis in her case as well but the "authorities" ignored that in favor of blaming the parents.

Nope. No muscle biopsy or any of the other tests that would provide a definitive diagnosis. That was one of the reasons the new doctors got concerned.

You are saying that the doctor who may a documented diagnosis of the sister just declared her to have to same thing without taking any tests.
Does that make any sense to you?

No, and it didn't make any sense to the doctors at Children's which helped lead to this mess. Read the Boston Globe article Kali linked on page 1 they make it clear that this girl has never actually had the tests.




calamitysandra -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 1:10:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Momma has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Older sister has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Younger sister. . . just wants something trendy?

I found no claim that the mother is ill. The sister is and has an actual diagnosis which is absent in this case.


There was an actual diagnosis in her case as well but the "authorities" ignored that in favor of blaming the parents.

Nope. No muscle biopsy or any of the other tests that would provide a definitive diagnosis. That was one of the reasons the new doctors got concerned.

You are saying that the doctor who may a documented diagnosis of the sister just declared her to have to same thing without taking any tests.
Does that make any sense to you?



No, he is saying that:

"Justina’s physicians at Tufts Medical Center had been treating her for this illness for about a year, saying she exhibited many of its symptoms, and were still in the midst of determining if she had a clear-cut case of this disorder."

Which is a quote from the article Kali linked.

At least I think that he is refering to this.

I am with Ken. There is not enough information to for an informed opinion. I would especially like to know why the courts have ruled against the parents.

But one thing is absolutely clear. An independent investigation needs to happen, so the girl can get the help she needs (whatever that might be) and start to heal.




BamaD -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 1:37:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: calamitysandra

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Momma has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Older sister has the disease and has responded well to treatment. Younger sister. . . just wants something trendy?

I found no claim that the mother is ill. The sister is and has an actual diagnosis which is absent in this case.


There was an actual diagnosis in her case as well but the "authorities" ignored that in favor of blaming the parents.

Nope. No muscle biopsy or any of the other tests that would provide a definitive diagnosis. That was one of the reasons the new doctors got concerned.

You are saying that the doctor who may a documented diagnosis of the sister just declared her to have to same thing without taking any tests.
Does that make any sense to you?



No, he is saying that:

"Justina’s physicians at Tufts Medical Center had been treating her for this illness for about a year, saying she exhibited many of its symptoms, and were still in the midst of determining if she had a clear-cut case of this disorder."

Which is a quote from the article Kali linked.

At least I think that he is refering to this.

I am with Ken. There is not enough information to for an informed opinion. I would especially like to know why the courts have ruled against the parents.

But one thing is absolutely clear. An independent investigation needs to happen, so the girl can get the help she needs (whatever that might be) and start to heal.

I agree.
A year and Tufts hasn't completed the tests?
Something fishy there.




fucktoyprincess -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 2:56:13 PM)

Kali, thanks for all the info and links.

As a general response to the overall thread, it is my understanding that there is no definitive test for mito - so I'm not sure how the sister has a definitive test result for it.

I really feel this is a complicated case and the answer is not so clear cut. As a general matter, while I support the notion of parental rights vis-a-vis their children, it is a known fact that parents can sometimes be a danger to their own children. This is why protective custody laws exist. But judging when a child is safe with their parents and when they are not is a nuanced judgment call. And sometimes mistakes are made. We are all familiar with the cases of abused children who end up dying at the hands of their parents because social workers/teachers/other relatives, etc. did not make the right judgment call or could not get the relevant authorities to act. So, as a society, we cannot jettison the laws that are clearly there to protect children. Sometimes children do have to be removed from their parents.

I just don't like that this girl was skating and active before being hospitalized and now appears wheelchair bound. Again, wtf is going on with her health that the various doctors that she has seen cannot improve her condition - whether the culprit is physical or mental. I have read a little about psychosomatic illness - and while it is possible she is willing herself into sickness, would not a year of being in psych ward and getting treatment have resolved some of this.

It also troubles me that the petition is for the return of the child to her parents - as opposed to a petition for proper treatment. Shouldn't the treatment be the first and absolute priority?

This is a dreadful case. No doubt about that. But for every case out there like this there are hundreds of cases of children being in dangerous household situations. This particular case needs a better resolution. But we should all be cautious about what this case represents for parental rights in general. I generally feel that with most cases the risks are generally much more with the child. We still need protective custody laws. And such inquiries are necessarily an imperfect judgment call on the basis of numerous well-meaning adults. Reading about this case is upsetting on so many different levels.




DomKen -> RE: Parents rights (2/28/2014 3:35:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Kali, thanks for all the info and links.

As a general response to the overall thread, it is my understanding that there is no definitive test for mito - so I'm not sure how the sister has a definitive test result for it.

There are a number of tests that can be done. The most common kind of mito disease, mitochondrial myopathy is diagnosed by muscle biopsy. Based on what is described in the Boston Globe article that seems to be what she was being treated for so she should have gotten that test to confirm the diagnosis.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.152344E-02