A medico-legal question

[radhak]

Read this disturbing account of a child's death :

Mom says overmedication killed 16-year-old son

I am puzzled by one statement by DCF Secretary George Sheldon:

''A parent of a child who has been removed will, for all practical purposes, sign anything,'' Sheldon said, noting that gaining meaningful permission from a parent overwhelmed by the removal of a child is next to impossible.

What does 'removal' mean here? Does the law allow children to be taken away from parents under any medical circumstances?

[Sam Conder]

My take on the article is that the of the two cases, one of the children (the one who hanged himself) was in foster care, thereby "removed" from his biological parents. The person quoted was a Department of Children & Families secretary and therefore was commenting on how difficult it is to obtain reliable treatment permission and medical history from the biological parents of foster children due to the fact that they are distressed by the removal. The article does not imply thet the removal was because of untreated medical conditions.

As a parent of two children adopted from the foster care system, I can personally vouch that these kids often come with a myriad of mental and physical health problems that are hard to diagnose because of the lack of reliable medical history.

[crokett]

My parents adopted 6 kids. 4 had/have emotional/mental problems of varying degrees. The two that don't were adopted when they were infants. I recall when the last two were adopted that my parents had problems getting their medical history, any allergies, etc.

[MilDoc]

A 16 year old boy is on 6 different psychiatric drugs?

A 7 year old is on 6 anti-psychotic drugs, at the same time?????

Unfortunately, I see this more and more. And, IMHO, it is overtreatment and using drugs rather than other known treatments.

It is also MHO that "bipolar disorder" is the diagnosis of the decade, just as "multiple personality disorder" was the diagnosis of the 80's.

[vaking]

The words here probably are referring to foster children but I do want to remind of a recent well publicized case of a mother that went hiding with her son because a judge ordered cancer treatment for a child despite mother's objections. Apparently a child can be removed from parents for medical reasons.
I personally find it disturbing. Mother that decides to run from the law because she does not want something to happen to her son clearly cares about the child, so the child is certainly not neglected. Whether mother is right or wrong refusing chemotherapy is a matter of opinion. This treatment is very heavy, success of it is never guaranteed but unpleasant consequences are, so I can easily understand a person refusing to take such treatment. If it was prescribed to me - I would probably refuse it myself. The judge who decided this case against the parent I think substituted the law with his personal opinion. I would like to see him removed from the bench for it.

[paintandbodtman]

The words here probably are referring to foster children but I do want to remind of a recent well publicized case of a mother that went hiding with her son because a judge ordered cancer treatment for a child despite mother's objections. Apparently a child can be removed from parents for medical reasons.
I personally find it disturbing. Mother that decides to run from the law because she does not want something to happen to her son clearly cares about the child, so the child is certainly not neglected. Whether mother is right or wrong refusing chemotherapy is a matter of opinion. This treatment is very heavy, success of it is never guaranteed but unpleasant consequences are, so I can easily understand a person refusing to take such treatment. If it was prescribed to me - I would probably refuse it myself. The judge who decided this case against the parent I think substituted the law with his personal opinion. I would like to see him removed from the bench for it.

The sad paradox here is our goverment refuses to furnish the american public with socialized medicine but fills compelled to force a family into personal bankrupcy by forcing them to let the medical community treat them.

Only in America.

[MilDoc]

The words here probably are referring to foster children but I do want to remind of a recent well publicized case of a mother that went hiding with her son because a judge ordered cancer treatment for a child despite mother's objections. Apparently a child can be removed from parents for medical reasons.
I personally find it disturbing. Mother that decides to run from the law because she does not want something to happen to her son clearly cares about the child, so the child is certainly not neglected. Whether mother is right or wrong refusing chemotherapy is a matter of opinion. This treatment is very heavy, success of it is never guaranteed but unpleasant consequences are, so I can easily understand a person refusing to take such treatment. If it was prescribed to me - I would probably refuse it myself. The judge who decided this case against the parent I think substituted the law with his personal opinion. I would like to see him removed from the bench for it.

Sorry, but as a Pediatrician, I have to disagree. Yes, mom cares about her son, but has NO comprehension of modern medicine, NO understanding of the true issues involved.

Want to subject yourself as an adult to quack "therapies" - your choice. Want to do that as a parent to a child under 18 - nope. I will never buy that. The child's chance of LIFE may not be 100% with medical treatment. But with quack therapies it will be zero.

OTOH, I would be the first to admit that "docs" are not very sympathetic to parental feelings. They do not in general take enough time to explain things, explainn risks vs benefits, etc.

But do I expect ANY parent to know and understand what I do? Of course not. OTOH, I sure didn't understand what the lawn mower repair guy was saying to me about my riding mower that didn't start.

No. Parental rights stop at choosing quack "cures" for their child. If, as an adult, you want to choose that for yourself, OK. If, an intelligent adolescent i can talk too chooses that, OK. Otherwise, I and this country have an obligation to protect the innocent.

"Freedom of choice" to me stops at childhood. Same as the "right" of parents to beat their child or starve their child, to death

[JR]

... our goverment refuses to furnish the american public with socialized medicine but fills compelled to force a family into personal bankrupcy by forcing them to let the medical community treat them.

Are these the facts of this case? The child will get court-ordered treatment, but the cost will force the family into bankruptcy?

JR

[cgallery]

Want to subject yourself as an adult to quack "therapies" - your choice. Want to do that as a parent to a child under 18 - nope. I will never buy that. The child's chance of LIFE may not be 100% with medical treatment. But with quack therapies it will be zero.

We had a recent case here in Wisconsin where a mother prayed for her young daughter as the little girl died a painful death from undiagnosed diabetes.

They put the mother on trial and she fainted in court, and was cared for by paramedics. Now, how ironic is THAT?

There has to be a safety net for those that can't speak for themselves. I don't know anyone better than the M.D.'s.

[MilDoc]

There has to be a safety net for those that can't speak for themselves. I don't know anyone better than the M.D.'s.

Yep. I personally believe in God. But I do not believe in "miracles" today. This child died. God rest her soul.

[paintandbodtman]

Are these the facts of this case? The child will get court-ordered treatment, but the cost will force the family into bankruptcy?

JR

Are those the facts who knows.That was a general assumption just like lots of other people on here offer general assumptions or opinions.
But unless they are wealthy I'd say thats a pretty safe assumption.When you force those kind of treatments on someone it don't take long to reach 1-1.5 million lifetime caps on insc policies and if they have any assets after insurance tops out the medical proffesion will go after them.

[moc]

Sorry, but as a Pediatrician, I have to disagree. Yes, mom cares about her son, but has NO comprehension of modern medicine, NO understanding of the true issues involved.

As a long-time lurker, I intended to keep quiet but I'm going to rally around MilDoc here. This case did not involve painful, experimental, hail-mary-pass treatment. The cure rate for Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2009 is crazy-good. It is easily one of the most "curable" childhood cancers.

You can believe in whatever crazy voodoo you'd like. You can raise your child to believe in whatever crazy voodoo you'd like. But until your child is old enough to make his own decision, you just can't kill him.

You can't starve your child because you don't believe in food. You can't kill him because you don't believe in treating lymphoma.

*moc

[MilDoc]

The cure rate for Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2009 is crazy-good. It is easily one of the most "curable" childhood cancers.

Yep. I like the "crazy good" expression. Hodgkin's is VERY treatable, and has been for many years. No excuse for mom's actions, except that she doesn't understand that.

[MilDoc]

Are those the facts who knows.That was a general assumption just like lots of other people on here offer general assumptions or opinions.
But unless they are wealthy I'd say thats a pretty safe assumption.When you force those kind of treatments on someone it don't take long to reach 1-1.5 million lifetime caps on insc policies and if they have any assets after insurance tops out the medical proffesion will go after them.

Hey, if you want to criticize medical care and the costs, blame this country's method of funding, all based on profit to insurance companies and for profit hospitals (and docs).

[paintandbodtman]

Hey, if you want to criticize medical care and the costs, blame this country's method of funding, all based on profit to insurance companies and for profit hospitals (and docs).

I don't disagree with anything said so far in this thread.
Haveing said that It's time we as a nation redefine our ideolgy,do we want guality life for everyone or do we want what we are slowly turning into which is a life of luxury for a small percentage and third world life style for the masses.
Profit is not the word here "GREED" is however.Don't even get me started on the insurance companies they have a license to steal in this country.