Have you heard about the Pelletier case?

[westwoodmom04]

Doubtful. As a lawyer for a large institution, I can guarantee that their lawyers are making sure they learn from any mistakes that were made. The hit to their reputation was not worth it.

Academic medical centers are very different than for-profit companies and HIPPA very much limits a hospitals ability to defend its actions. I personally agree with dogmom, and think it already does happen.

[Melbel]

Come on. You're an attorney, right? You know that a gag order and a sealed record have nothing to do with each other. The court proceedings in any case involving a juvenile are sealed. They're not for public consumption, or dispersal, as they shouldn't be as they involve intensely personal matters. Also, I have never read that any court ruled that the gag order was unconstitutional. The judge lifted it, and the State withdrew its contempt complaint against Lou Pelletier.

Yes, I am an attorney and I absolutely understand the difference. The parents and family are permitted to speak about the case. I have donated time pro bono to similar cases. I do not throw my support blindly, but rather, carefully research and investigate first.

It is easy to want to believe that a hospital and the government would be on the right side of the issue. It makes us feel safe. It makes us feel that it could not happen to us or someone we love. This is the same type of mentality that leads to people blaming the victim in criminal cases. It is harder to dig deeper and see that there is sometimes a conflict of interest, or that agencies/hospitals are given too much power and deference.

Mr. Pelletier is not just out for blood and money. He has expressed an interest in a Justina's law that would prevent this type of situation from happening to other children.

[westwoodmom04]

Yes, I am an attorney and I absolutely understand the difference. The parents and family are permitted to speak about the case. I have donated time pro bono to similar cases. I do not throw my support blindly, but rather, carefully research and investigate first.

It is easy to want to believe that a hospital and the government would be on the right side of the issue. It makes us feel safe. It makes us feel that it could not happen to us or someone we love. This is the same type of mentality that leads to people blaming the victim in criminal cases. It is harder to dig deeper and see that there is sometimes a conflict of interest, or that agencies/hospitals are given too much power and deference.

Mr. Pelletier is not just out for blood and money. He has expressed an interest in a Justina's law that would prevent this type of situation from happening to other children.

I think you are missing the point -- Boolady was simply saying that she found it shocking that the family was sharing "inside" information about their minor child with people who were not part of their legal team and had no need to know the information as part of their legal effort.

[Kindra178]

I just don't think the takeaway from the limited facts from this case is that the government is out to get us and take our kids away. That doesn't make me feel safe; that's just reality.

[JBaxter]

What is scary is a doctor in a pissing match with another hospital / dr in a diagnosis can result in the child taken from her parents for 16 months deprived of her education and religious education/practice and with out national coverage Im not sure she would have been returned. The child did NOT get better in their care so maybe JUST MAYBE the doctors at BCH were wrong.

[crayonblue]

I just don't think the takeaway from the limited facts from this case is that the government is out to get us and take our kids away. That doesn't make me feel safe; that's just reality.

I agree. I've been around the system enough to see how incredibly hard it is to get a child taken away in cases where they SHOULD be taken away! In the vast majority of Pelletier type cases there is a real good reason for what happens and we just aren't privy to that info. The only people I know IRL who are scared of the gov't taking their kids actually should be concerned based on what I've seen in their homes.

[Simon]

What is scary is a doctor in a pissing match with another hospital / dr in a diagnosis can result in the child taken from her parents for 16 months deprived of her education and religious education/practice and with out national coverage Im not sure she would have been returned. The child did NOT get better in their care so maybe JUST MAYBE the doctors at BCH were wrong.

I agree.

[westwoodmom04]

I just don't think the takeaway from the limited facts from this case is that the government is out to get us and take our kids away. That doesn't make me feel safe; that's just reality.

If nothing else, it shows that a significant portion of the population believes it is more likely that the medical (2 separate and unaffiliated hospitals filing neglect complaints) and legal establishment (both state agency and judiciary) would gang up on an entirely innocent family to "save face" then a white, middle class family could be unwilling to get their child necessary psychiatric help. Not sure what the lesson is there.

[dogmom]

Doubtful. As a lawyer for a large institution, I can guarantee that their lawyers are making sure they learn from any mistakes that were made. The hit to their reputation was not worth it.

They may learn that also, but from a health care perspective it will put a chilling effect the next time a health care provider is asked to consult on a complex case with a minor with a family that can be "difficult". Although I am not certain of all the medical facts of this case, there are actions that the parents have taken that are reported by eye witnesses, or themselves, that appeared to be no the best choice given the options. That is not to say they deserve to have their child taken away from them, but I've dealt with thousands of patients and families in my career, and some are just downright challenging to work with. I see it happen all the time, a challenging patient from both a medical and interpersonal perspective goes to a new provider and many, many providers will move them along because the time it takes to work with them is so lengthy, involved, and not compensated it can suck you dry as a caregiver. Then if you do decide to take on these patients as clients one is often put in the place of decided to give a client what they want vs. giving them what you honestly think is in their best interest given the training you have and all the current evidence based practice. I've seen surgeons getting paged in the middle of the night by Social Workers because the patient is going to sign out AMA with a dead rotting leg because they are having some fight about what they can or cannot do with their current medical treatment. I've seen some surgeons come in from home to talk them down, but many, many more are going to say, "Why am I doing this? They don't want my help and I have other patients I need to operate on tomorrow morning that I may not be 100% for because of this one patient." That is just one of so many examples I've forgotten. I'm sure someone will challenge this post and tell me how wrong I am and how that's not what's happening here. But you know what, it doesn't really matter. That is the experience of majority of health care providers and at some point cases like this make people reluctant to push. Look at the recent stories that say if an ER wants to get up their customer satisfaction rating they just hand out more Vicodan, and poof, their scores go up. And since that's what they are being judge on, why not? It would have been much, much easier for Children's to never get into this situation. I worry that this case will make it harder for children who are sick with families that are challenging to get the care they deserve.