Another CPS Kidnapping (For Seeking a Second Opinion)

[billisonboard]

May 2, 2013 16:35:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 2, 2013 16:28:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Did you read someplace that a discharge order was denied? All I read was that they left without one.

I don't know. I've found four articles on the story and all any of them says is "left without an official discharge". They don't say anything beyond that.

Every article makes it clear that the parents had good reason to believe the hospital was making screw-up after screw-up, and that they wanted a second medical opinion (which they got).

Seems like there is a lot of "reading into" going on.  The article says "left without an official discharge" and you say "denying", someone else took "clinically safe to go home" to mean "clean bill of health".


Which articles have you read that talked about screw-up after screw-up? I have read of the mother indicating that there was one but have not read of multiple screw-ups (and nothing other than the mother indicating that it took place).

[Virgil Showlion]

May 2, 2013 17:23:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 2, 2013 16:35:35 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I don't know. I've found four articles on the story and all any of them says is "left without an official discharge". They don't say anything beyond that.

Every article makes it clear that the parents had good reason to believe the hospital was making screw-up after screw-up, and that they wanted a second medical opinion (which they got).

Seems like there is a lot of "reading into" going on.  The article says "left without an official discharge" and you say "denying", someone else took "clinically safe to go home" to mean "clean bill of health".


Which articles have you read that talked about screw-up after screw-up? I have read of the mother indicating that there was one but have not read of multiple screw-ups (and nothing other than the mother indicating that it took place).

You're guilty of your own "reading into". I said the parents had good reason to believe the hospital was making screw-up after screw-up, not that these screw-ups are confirmed fact.

And as evidence, we need look no further than the article in the OP (bold by me):

At one point, Anna questioned the antibiotics Sammy was being given and was alarmed that the nurse administering the treatment didn’t know why the child was receiving them. (Good reason to believe hospital may be screwing things up #1.) Anna claims that a doctor later said that Sammy should not have been receiving the medication.(Good reason to believe hospital may be screwing things up #2.)

When doctors began discussing the possibility of heart surgery, the parents decided to leave without a proper discharge in order to have the child examined elsewhere.“If we got the one mistake after another, I don’t want to have my baby have surgery in the hospital where I don’t feel safe,” Anna said.She added, ”We went from one hospital to another. We just wanted to be safe, that he is in good hands.”

While at Kaiser Permanente, the police showed up at the request of Sutter. The police told the parents that staff at Sutter had told them that the child was in such a bad state that, as Anna put it, “they thought that this baby is dying on our arms.”After the police saw that baby Sammy was fine and examined medical records that clearly stated that Sammy was clinically safe to go home, they left. (Good reason to believe the hospital may be screwing things up #3.)

[cereb]

May 2, 2013 9:29:49 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 2, 2013 9:13:31 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

...

Snowbird-do you believe the government should be involved in any way, shape or form in this latest incident with this couple:

...

Not addressed to me but I am going to answer anyway. I hate to do it because I despise my honest answer to it.

When the decision to withhold medical treatment comes from a long-standing religious belief, I think that the government needs to take a hands off approach. To do otherwise is a violation of the First Amendment.

I am going to disagree with you on this.

You have a right to practice your religion as you wish. You do not have a right to practice your religion upon another sentient human being to the extent that it will likely result in harm or death(even your own child) as they are not your personal property, but another human being, an individual with rights which are protected under the Constitution to include include LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Children are not typically considered competent to make medical decisions for themselves. If a parent is unable or unwilling to provide a seriously ill child with medical attention when withholding such medical intervention is likely to result in catastrophic illness related issue or death, the parent is no longer serving the childs best interests, but instead, serving their own and the child needs a guardian to insure it's needs are being met. I have absolutely no problem removing a child under those circumstances.


I don't believe that was the case in this story, however I think there seems to be some information missing.

[Deleted]

May 2, 2013 17:51:17 GMT -5 cereb said:

May 2, 2013 9:29:49 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Not addressed to me but I am going to answer anyway. I hate to do it because I despise my honest answer to it.

When the decision to withhold medical treatment comes from a long-standing religious belief, I think that the government needs to take a hands off approach. To do otherwise is a violation of the First Amendment.

I am going to disagree with you on this.

You have a right to practice your religion as you wish. You do not have a right to practice your religion upon another sentient human being to the extent that it will likely result in harm or death(even your own child) 

Well said!!

[Virgil Showlion]

May 2, 2013 18:03:27 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 2, 2013 17:51:17 GMT -5 cereb said:

I am going to disagree with you on this.

You have a right to practice your religion as you wish. You do not have a right to practice your religion upon another sentient human being to the extent that it will likely result in harm or death(even your own child) 

Well said!!

If everybody took this advice to heart, we'd save 1.2 million lives a year. But I digress.

[mmhmm]

May 2, 2013 18:10:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 2, 2013 18:03:27 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

Well said!!

If everybody took this advice to heart, we'd save 1.2 million lives a year. But I digress.

Yes, you do.

[Virgil Showlion]

If Tenn can get a hit piece on faith healing that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread in, is it so wrong of me to point out a six order of magnitude difference in scale?

[cereb]

May 2, 2013 18:10:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 2, 2013 18:03:27 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

Well said!!

If everybody took this advice to heart, we'd save 1.2 million lives a year. But I digress.

It's not advice, it's a legal standing.  If you are referring to 1.2 million fetuses, there no  Constitutional protections for those not considered a "person".

[cereb]

May 2, 2013 18:18:06 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If Tenn can get a hit piece on faith healing that has absolutely nothing to do with the thread in, is it so wrong of me to point out a six order of magnitude difference in scale?

Actually, Tenns piece on "faith healing " parents has quite a bit to do with the subject.

[Virgil Showlion]

Indeed.

So what is your read on the Nikolayevs?

Suppose you got the impression the hospital staff didn't know what they were doing at hospital A in treating your son. You drive to hospital B, who tell you that your son is fine and clear you to go home. The next day, CPS shows up and takes your kid away.

Would you forgive them under the circumstances in the article? Better safe then sorry? Or is it a post facto violation of your parental right to seek a second opinion?

Actually, Tenns piece on "faith healing " parents has quite a bit to do with the subject.

We shall agree to very much disagree there too, Ms. Cereb.

[billisonboard]

May 2, 2013 17:34:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 2, 2013 17:23:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Seems like there is a lot of "reading into" going on.  The article says "left without an official discharge" and you say "denying", someone else took "clinically safe to go home" to mean "clean bill of health".


Which articles have you read that talked about screw-up after screw-up? I have read of the mother indicating that there was one but have not read of multiple screw-ups (and nothing other than the mother indicating that it took place).

You're guilty of your own "reading into". I said the parents had good reason to believe the hospital was making screw-up after screw-up, not that these screw-ups are confirmed fact.  Which is why I made the comment about the mother a parenthetical statement.

And as evidence, we need look no further than the article in the OP (bold by me):
... the nurse administering the treatment didn’t know why the child was receiving them. (Good reason to believe hospital may be screwing things up #1.) "I need to check with the doctor" is not a screw-up. Anna claims that a doctor later said that Sammy should not have been receiving the medication.(Good reason to believe hospital may be screwing things up #2.)There is one.

... medical records that clearly stated that Sammy was clinically safe to go home, they left. (Good reason to believe the hospital may be screwing things up #3.) So this subsequent finding is support for a previous thought? Right.

[cereb]

May 2, 2013 18:29:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Indeed.

So what is your read on the Nikolayevs?

Suppose you got the impression the hospital staff didn't know what they were doing at hospital A in treating your son. You drive to hospital B, who tell you that your son is fine and clear you to go home. The next day, CPS shows up and takes your kid away.

Would you forgive them under the circumstances in the article? Better safe then sorry? Or is it a post facto violation of your parental right to seek a second opinion?

Actually, Tenns piece on "faith healing " parents has quite a bit to do with the subject.

We shall agree to very much disagree there too, Ms. Cereb.

Well, I think there is possibly more to the story.  Where the parents screwed up in this case was not having the child formally discharged and not transported via ambulance from hospital A to hospital B. This obviously caused hospital A to get their undies in a bundle and once a call has been placed for child endangerment, oftentimes the ball doesn't stop rolling until it hits the wall.

Every parent has the right to a second opinion for their child as long as their is time to get one. Hospital A had the opinion that this child was medically compromised and needed treatment. Hospital A was the party who filed child endangerment when their patient was walked out of the hospital without proper discharge. Hospital A did the right thing. CPS obviously went with the opinion of hospital A since they have been treating the child for months and they filed the report.

All these parents had to do was call their insurance, tell them their concerns and an ambulance would have been secured and the kid transported to another facility. You just can't walk out of a hospital with a baby who is being treated for any kind of condition without the child being formally released.

[billisonboard]

May 2, 2013 17:51:17 GMT -5 cereb said:

... the parent is no longer serving the childs best interests, but instead, serving their own and the child needs a guardian to insure it's needs are being met. ...

(Walking a fine line)
It is the parent's belief that they are serving the child's long term best spiritual interest. Who are we to say they are wrong?

[Virgil Showlion]

"I need to check with the doctor" is not a screw-up.

Ms. Nikolayev thought it was, and I don't blame her.

And you get "I need to check with the doctor" from... where?

All these parents had to do was call their insurance, tell them their concerns and an ambulance would have been secured and the kid transported to another facility. You just can't walk out of a hospital with a baby who is being treated for any kind of condition without the child being formally released.

Fair enough, and I agree.

Hypothetically, if you sought a discharge and the hospital denied it, what would you do then? (Note that we don't know what the circumstances are behind the parents leaving. This hypothetical could prove true.)

[cereb]

"It is the parent's belief that they are serving the child's long term best spiritual interest. Who are we to say they are wrong?"

A parent does not have the right to determine that the "spiritual interest" of said child trumps the physical well being of said child.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 2, 2013 18:54:01 GMT -5 cereb said:

"It is the parent's belief that they are serving the child's long term best spiritual interest. Who are we to say they are wrong?"

A parent does not have the right to determine that the "spiritual interest" of said child trumps the physical well being of said child.

Perhaps you can show us where in the US Constitution or the US Bill of Rights this statement appears.

[mmhmm]

May 2, 2013 18:21:36 GMT -5 cereb said:

May 2, 2013 18:10:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If everybody took this advice to heart, we'd save 1.2 million lives a year. But I digress.

It's not advice, it's a legal standing.  If you are referring to 1.2 million fetuses, there no  Constitutional protections for those not considered a "person".

I think we also need to give proper attention to the word "sentient".  Of all Virgil's 1.2 million, how many were actually sentient?  How many had any more than a neural tube for a brain?

[cereb]

"Hypothetically, if you sought a discharge and the hospital denied it, what would you do then?"


Wouldn't happen. If the child required an ALS ambulance to be transferred to another hospital, they would do that.

Only in extremely rare cases would this kind of request be denied and it would have to meet a certain criteria, that being the accepting hospital does not have the facilities to care for the child or that the transport would threaten the life/ health of the child.

[cereb]

May 2, 2013 18:56:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 2, 2013 18:54:01 GMT -5 cereb said:

"It is the parent's belief that they are serving the child's long term best spiritual interest. Who are we to say they are wrong?"

A parent does not have the right to determine that the "spiritual interest" of said child trumps the physical well being of said child.

Perhaps you can show us where in the US Constitution or the US Bill of Rights this statement appears.

Oh come on now, you are much smarter than that.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 2, 2013 18:56:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 2, 2013 18:21:36 GMT -5 cereb said:

It's not advice, it's a legal standing.  If you are referring to 1.2 million fetuses, there no  Constitutional protections for those not considered a "person".

I think we also need to give proper attention to the word "sentient".  Of all Virgil's 1.2 million, how many were actually sentient?  How many had any more than a neural tube for a brain?

Sentience simply means "awareness", but it persists over periods of unconsciousness. For example, a sleeping man has no awareness of his surroundings and yet is still considered sentient. So is a comatose man.

We'd end up with the same argument: Is the period of development before a baby becomes aware of it's surroundings a period of unconsciousness or a period of insentience? That obviously depends on the answer to the deeper question "Is the fetus a person?"

[cereb]

May 2, 2013 19:06:28 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 2, 2013 18:56:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I think we also need to give proper attention to the word "sentient".  Of all Virgil's 1.2 million, how many were actually sentient?  How many had any more than a neural tube for a brain?

Sentience simply means "awareness", but it persists over periods of unconsciousness. For example, a sleeping man has no awareness of his surroundings and yet is still considered sentient. So is a comatose man.

We'd end up with the same argument: Is the period of development before a baby becomes aware of it's surroundings a period of unconsciousness or a period of insentience? That obviously depends on the answer to the deeper question "Is the fetus a person?"

Oh lets please not go down that road! That's a different subject altogether.

[Virgil Showlion]

Wouldn't happen. If the child required an ALS ambulance to be transferred to another hospital, they would do that.

I love "Inconceivable!" replies to hypotheticals. But fair enough.

If ever it does happen to you, here's hoping your brain doesn't explode.

Oh come on now, you are much smarter than that.

To think that your claim has some genuine legal basis? Mea culpa.

Oh lets please not go down that road! That's a different subject altogether.

Agreed.

Shame on you, mmhmm.

[mmhmm]

May 2, 2013 18:56:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 2, 2013 18:54:01 GMT -5 cereb said:

"It is the parent's belief that they are serving the child's long term best spiritual interest. Who are we to say they are wrong?"

A parent does not have the right to determine that the "spiritual interest" of said child trumps the physical well being of said child.

Perhaps you can show us where in the US Constitution or the US Bill of Rights this statement appears.

Parens patriae  is alive and well, Virgil.  By law, parents have a duty to see to their child's health, safety and well-being.  If they do not do that, they can be held criminally liable.  

[cereb]

"To think that your claim has some genuine legal basis? Mea culpa."

Well, lets start with the pesky little fact that the Bill of Rights lays out the rights you have, not the ones you don't.


The other problem is that the Bill of Rights defines a person as an "individual" not a "parent" meaning that a child is also an "individual". Parental rights do not trump the rights of the individual to Life.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 2, 2013 19:10:34 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 2, 2013 18:56:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Perhaps you can show us where in the US Constitution or the US Bill of Rights this statement appears.

Parens patriae  is alive and well, Virgil.  By law, parents have a duty to see to their child's health, safety and well-being.  If they do not do that, they can be held criminally liable.  

The question is where physical well-being is explicitly placed above spiritual well-being.

It seems to me that the judge in Tenn's article was being called to make that decision in a particular case precisely because there is no legal recognition of "spiritual well-being".

Yet courts have allowed corporal punishment for the moral chastisement of children since the nation was founded. Is that not a case where the spiritual well-being of the child is considered paramount to the physical well-being?

Show me actual language from your Constitution or Bill of Rights that supports Cereb's blanket claim, and you'll have won the argument.

[mmhmm]

Virgil, I'm not here to play games.  I consider it a waste of time; particularly, when we're talking about the lives of children.  That's when I get deadly serious.  The First Amendment grants our citizens the right to believe whatever they wish.  It does not grant them the right to act on that belief; especially when their actions effect someone else's well-being.  The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were meant as guidelines, not absolutes, and do not pretend to spell out every situation that might be encountered throughout the time of man on this planet.

If you want to win, take the win.  It doesn't matter to me.  What does matter to me is the protection of children, even if it has to be from the ignorance, or the viciousness of their own parents.

[Virgil Showlion]

What does matter to me is the protection of children, even if it has to be from the ignorance, or the viciousness of their own parents.

Who protects them from you?

[cereb]

"Yet courts have allowed corporal punishment for the moral chastisement of children since the nation was founded. Is that not a case where the spiritual well-being of the child is considered paramount to the physical well-being?"

And that is unfortunate, however it is my belief that the US will soon ratify the Convention on Rights of the Child which will prohibit corporal punishment and  life sentences for juveniles. Courts are no longer warm and fuzzy on corporal punishment.

[cereb]

"Show me actual language from your Constitution or Bill of Rights that supports Cereb's blanket claim, and you'll have won the argument."


Don't have to. There are multiple legal precedents. Andrea Yates killed her children to prevent them from going to hell and "save them" spiritually. She didn't have the right to do that and she will spend her days in a mental institution for doing it.



I win.

[cereb]

May 2, 2013 19:24:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What does matter to me is the protection of children, even if it has to be from the ignorance, or the viciousness of their own parents.

Who protects them from you?

That was totally uncalled for and you should be embarrassed you even said it.