Have you heard about the Pelletier case?

[basil]

I'll say what I always think in these types of stories -

What is the motivation of the hospital to do this? Not greed (see PP), not because this is an easy road, not because it gets good publicity, clearly. So they must really think this is what's going on. And they must have reasons. And if it's getting this much press, there are a LOT of people involved in the decisions at this point. There are many flags even in that article that those parents are, at best, way beyond just pushy.

It would have been so much easier and more profitable for them to admit the child, consult the GI specialist, and send the child home. They didn't. So there must be a reason.

And I don't get what this has to do with Christianity at all??

[TwinFoxes]

I'll say what I always think in these types of stories -

What is the motivation of the hospital to do this? Not greed (see PP), not because this is an easy road, not because it gets good publicity, clearly. So they must really think this is what's going on. And they must have reasons. And if it's getting this much press, there are a LOT of people involved in the decisions at this point. There are many flags even in that article that those parents are, at best, way beyond just pushy.

It would have been so much easier and more profitable for them to admit the child, consult the GI specialist, and send the child home. They didn't. So there must be a reason.

And I don't get what this has to do with Christianity at all??

I think the motivation is often just that people are convinced they're right, and dig in their heels. Just like prosecutors who refuse to acknowledge wrongful prosecutions. And if they backed off now, and said "our bad" their reputation would take a huge hit. I'm sure they didn't expect this to blow up like it apparently has, it seems this has happened to some extent before with little publicity. At this point there'd be serious loss of "face" if they admitted they were wrong. It's not like it's unheard of for doctors to cover each other's ass*s. As to why the judge continues to rule again the family...well, as you said if the hospital is doing it "there must be a reason". Perhaps the judge feels that way too. It's easy to side with doctors at Children's rather than the middle class annoying parents.

I'm not convinced the hospital is wrong. But I'm usually really skeptical of these types of "me against the system" stories, and this one just seems more valid.

[westwoodmom04]

I think the motivation is often just that people are convinced they're right, and dig in their heels. Just like prosecutors who refuse to acknowledge wrongful prosecutions. And if they backed off now, and said "our bad" their reputation would take a huge hit. I'm sure they didn't expect this to blow up like it apparently has, it seems this has happened to some extent before with little publicity. At this point there'd be serious loss of "face" if they admitted they were wrong. It's not like it's unheard of for doctors to cover each other's ass*s. As to why the judge continues to rule again the family...well, as you said if the hospital is doing it "there must be a reason". Perhaps the judge feels that way too. It's easy to side with doctors at Children's rather than the middle class annoying parents.

I'm not convinced the hospital is wrong. But I'm usually really skeptical of these types of "me against the system" stories, and this one just seems more valid.

Not after all this time. Plus, hospitals have legal departments and this decision would have been vetted by them. If there were really nothing there, the court would have released her by now. She isn't even in the hospital any longer, but the court has kept her in protective custody. That's telling.

[basil]

Anotehr of these stories was posted about a while back http://windsorpeak.com/vbulletin/sho...t=spourdalakis

A lot of peole thought the hospital was doing something similar. Mom ended up stabbing kid to death

[TwinFoxes]

Anotehr of these stories was posted about a while back http://windsorpeak.com/vbulletin/sho...t=spourdalakis

A lot of peole thought the hospital was doing something similar. Mom ended up stabbing kid to death

Yes this is one where I said it sounded suspicious.

If anything, I'd think the legal department would be afraid of admitting the diagnosis was wrong. It would set them up for legal action. Hospitals make mistakes. Administration tries to cover those mistakes. Judges make mistakes too.

[westwoodmom04]

Yes this is one where I said it sounded suspicious.

If anything, I'd think the legal department would be afraid of admitting the diagnosis was wrong. It would set them up for legal action. Hospitals make mistakes. Administration tries to cover those mistakes. Judges make mistakes too.

Sure they do. Pretty uncommon that they would all do it in the same case and do it repeatedly. Protective custody cases like this are reviewed frequently because the circumstances change and the system actually doesn't prefer to leave custody in the hands of the hospital. Each time, same result for over a year now, and in the spot light of heavy publicity.

Hospital legal departments are very conservative and their mission is to avoid lawsuits. They don't stay on the wrong track to 'save face" if they are wrong, because doing so could quickly lead to a multi-milliion dollar malpractice suit.

[chlobo]

And here is an article about DCF in Massachusetts. It's a mess right now.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...IsO/story.html

[arivecchi]

Yes this is one where I said it sounded suspicious.

If anything, I'd think the legal department would be afraid of admitting the diagnosis was wrong. It would set them up for legal action. Hospitals make mistakes. Administration tries to cover those mistakes. Judges make mistakes too.

Case in point - the brain dead woman kept alive for her fetus in Texas.

From the little I've read, it could very well be a dig in your heels scenario, not to mention the potential liability of the hospital for wrongfully taking away a child if they were incorrect. I don't see why the could not just transfer her back to Tufts. I could understand their actions if the parents did not believe in medical intervention at all, but these parents simply wanted to take her back to her previous medical team who had a wholly different opinion. Something seems fishy here.

[JBaxter]

I have been following this for a while. This article popped up on my facebook feed last week http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-of-the-state/

[westwoodmom04]

From the little I've read, it could very well be a dig in your heels scenario not to mention the potential liability of the hospital for wrongfully taking away a child if they were incorrect. I don't see why the could not just transfer her back to Tufts. I could understand this if the parents did not believe in medical intervention at all, but these parents simply wanted to take her back to her previous medical team who had a wholly different opinion. Something seems fishy here.

She's not in the hospital anymore, but the courts still have her in protective custody with only weekly visitation with parents, don't you think that means something? The problem was not that the parents didn't believe in medical intervention; but that they were constantly seeking it from various providers. Sounds like a case of Manchasen's syndrome.

The problem with the Globe story is that it is entirely told from the parent's perspective because everyone else is bound by patient confidentiality. Having practiced law in Massachusetts for six years, I think the state court system is quite good. I actually had a pro bono case with dfs made incorrectly made a determination that my client had committed child abuse (only allegations came from vindicative ex-husband). It took one court hearing to get the findings reversed.