- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Remember that girl in Mass. that was taken from her parents by the state?
Posted on 3/27/14 at 2:06 pm to moneyg
Posted on 3/27/14 at 2:06 pm to moneyg
quote:
Let's be specific. What type of actions would the parents have to be engaging in for the hospital to rightfully claim that abuse is occurring.
Intentionally harming their child. I'm sure you can come up with many reasons a dr would think separating child from parent is important for the child's well being.
quote:
More specifically, would the parents choosing to dismiss a diagnosis of BCH and instead decide to treat the patient at a respected medical facility whose diagnosis was different constitute a basis for the abuse claim?
No, I don't believe it should. If the parents are guilty, they would be pissed off and resist to save their own asses. If they are innocent, they would be pissed off bc of the severity of these accusations.
1
Posted on 3/27/14 at 2:11 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Intentionally harming their child. I'm sure you can come up with many reasons a dr would think separating child from parent is important for the child's well being.
Have you seen specific allegations in this case that meet your definition?
quote:
No, I don't believe it should.
Would the opinion of a licensed, qualified, and respected physician who supports the parent's position be enough to prove that the parents are acting reasonably?
quote:
If the parents are guilty, they would be pissed off and resist to save their own asses. If they are innocent, they would be pissed off bc of the severity of these accusations.
So, them being pissed off should be no basis for the charges, right?
Posted on 3/27/14 at 2:44 pm to moneyg
quote:
Have you seen specific allegations in this case that meet your definition?
No, bc you can't just publicly air out a pt's private info. Thats why I said let's wait and see how this plays out. One side can say w/e they want while the law prohibits the other side from rebutting anything.
quote:
Would the opinion of a licensed, qualified, and respected physician who supports the parent's position be enough to prove that the parents are acting reasonably?
Again, like I mentioned in an earlier post, if a dr suspects child abuse/maltreatment of some kind, they are mandatory reporters. Doesn't matter how many drs have seen the child previously.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 3:00 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Again, like I mentioned in an earlier post, if a dr suspects child abuse/maltreatment of some kind
You are being very loose in your language. Maltreatment is not equivalent to accepting a diagnosis...especially when the patient has received a different diagnosis from a qualified respected physician.
quote:
A few days later, state workers gave the Pelletiers a “service plan” that spelled out in writing what they would need to do to for the agency to consider returning Justina to their custody. Although the parents continued to reject Children’s doctors’ new psychiatric diagnosis for their daughter, the service plan made it clear that they would have to change if they wanted her back. “Parents must acknowledge and demonstrate an understanding of Justina’s medical and psychiatric needs as well as her emotional needs,” the document stipulated, “including an understanding of her diagnosis of somatoform disorder.”
It really seems like the state is indicating that the "abuse" is simply a rejection of the diagnosis. That seems to be the terms for returning the child back to the parents' custody.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 3:13 pm to moneyg
quote:
You are being very loose in your language. Maltreatment is not equivalent to accepting a diagnosis...especially when the patient has received a different diagnosis from a qualified respected physician.
We are obviously having a disconnect here. I've already stated that if what the parents are saying is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, than this is really F'd up and the doctors at BCH should face the full extent of the law.
I just have a feeling we are missing some info here, which is why I'm not ready to go crazy quite yet.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 3:22 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
I just have a feeling we are missing some info here, which is why I'm not ready to go crazy quite yet.
I don't have any inside info, but their story is supported by the other doctor (very credible) and by the state's plan indicating that if they accepted the diagnosis, custody would be returned to the parents.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 4:09 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
just have a feeling we are missing some info here, which is why I'm not ready to go crazy quite yet.
^^this
Yes we have heard the family, and yes we have heard from the doctors on their side. They may be correct, and if so, this is a horrible situation.
On the other hand, I can tell you from personal experience that individuals and families with Manchausen's or other serious psychiatric disorders can be very smooth. I've seen fellow M.D.'s that I respect immensely get fooled. Until ALL of the info on both sides is open, I'm going to reserve judgement and not condemn one side.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 5:53 pm to moneyg
quote:FWIW the reporting in this case appears highly suspicious. That's why I've tried to preface my posts here with "if". I think that is where some folks and OMMG are differing. If you read closely, he's addressing pragmatic probabilities rather than what is being reported. He is making reasonable assumptions. You are basing your posts on unambivalent press accounts.
Have you seen specific allegations in this case that meet your definition?
Neither of you is guaranteed 100% right. Neither of you is going to be 100% wrong.
As the entire burden of taking a child should rest with the state, the state has a lot of explaining to do at this stage. But those explanations may yet surface.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 7:39 pm to CITWTT
quote:
This girl will be dead before she is able to walk out the door upon the age of majority in Mass., and no one will be held responsible at all.
Sad but probably true.
quote:
The doctors and all of the elites and the judges of the state will have immunity to fall back on for any action brought forth.
Not necessarily--they could be violating the girl's civil rights under color of law. That could be the equivalent of a first degree murder charge if she dies. And since her condition is deteriorating under the course of treatment forced on her by the state, that would make the prosecution's case stronger. They had plenty of time to see they were wrong.
Posted on 3/27/14 at 9:45 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
quote:
This girl will be dead before she is able to walk out the door upon the age of majority in Mass., and no one will be held responsible at all.
Sad but probably true.
If her life was actually in danger, I'm quite sure she would be hospitalized .
Posted on 3/27/14 at 10:45 pm to NHTIGER
This would probably be a good time to point out that Massachusetts already has its own version of Obamacare.
This shite is coming to your state. Get ready.
This shite is coming to your state. Get ready.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News