Another hospital calls CPS on parents who question routine medical procedures

[casmith07]

You guys need to all look up Duty of Care and do some light reading.

Hoofbite is correct, though he's explaining it differently.

 

[JBond]

You understand what SOP is, don't you?

Basically a CYA type of thing to prevent multiple different outcomes between like situations.

Guy takes a newborn who was in distress during birth from the hospital against the advice of the staff.

Being in "possible danger". You can't say whether or not someone actually is IN DANGER or not because nobody has a crystal ball to know the outcome.

Umm, the baby was not in danger. The birth went smoothly according to the article. I have had several run-ins with over bearing doctors insisting they shoot my kids up with all sort of crap vaccines of dubious merit. I am not referring to mumps or measles, TB etc, but the laundry list on "new" ones they insist upon. I know from experience what some of these "new" vaccines can do to children. My son has suffered as a result. Having an MD after your name impresses me less and less every year.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

You guys need to all look up Duty of Care and do some light reading.

Hoofbite is correct, though he's explaining it differently.

Umm, no he isn't. This wasn't a situation where the child was in danger or the family as refusing life sustaining treatment. It was an over reach and a breech of parental rights.

 

[Trendnet]

Umm, the baby was not in danger. The birth went smoothly according to the article. I have had several run-ins with over bearing doctors insisting they shoot my kids up with all sort of crap vaccines of dubious merit. I am not referring to mumps or measles, TB etc, but the laundry list on "new" ones they insist upon. I know from experience what some of these "new" vaccines can do to children. My son has suffered as a result. Having an MD after your name impresses me less and less every year.

It's amazing what google has done to people.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I doubt anything on the list prompted the call except checking the baby out against advice.

Probably an SOP thing.

I hope not. No part of this, as indicated in this piece, should point to calling Child Protective Services as Standard Operating Procedure IMO.

 

[JBond]

It's amazing what google has done to people.

Feel free to clarify...before I type something worthy of another infraction.

 

[casmith07]

Umm, no he isn't. This wasn't a situation where the child was in danger or the family as refusing life sustaining treatment. It was an over reach and a breech of parental rights.

Duty of Care. Look it up.

 

[casmith07]

I hope not. No part of this, as indicated in this piece, should point to calling Child Protective Services as Standard Operating Procedure IMO.

It all centers around the duty of care of the hospital, not necessarily "SOP" but the justification for it remains the same as what Hoofbite stated, essentially.

 

[casmith07]

Here's a reference article, though from the UK, with what can potentially happen if a hospital or medical professional doesn't fully exhaust all avenues of their duty of care:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/feb/08/hospital-duty-care-supreme-court?cat=law&type=article

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It all centers around the duty of care of the hospital, not necessarily "SOP" but the justification for it remains the same as what Hoofbite stated, essentially.

I understand CAS but that does not make it right, so to speak.

Here is the definition I found. There may be others but for the sake of discussion......


duty of care

Definition

The responsibility or the legal obligation of a person or organization to avoid acts or omissions (which can be reasonably foreseen) to be likely to cause harm to others.

Duty of care is owed by an accountant in correctly preparing a company's accounts, by an auditor in confirming an company's financial statements correctly present its financial position; by a director to shareholders in husbanding the enterprise's resources; by a manufacturer to consumers for the safety of product; and by every party to a contract to the other contracting parties. See also standard of care.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/duty-of-care.html#ixzz1vXC7HhzB


Was it likely to casue harm? I don't know if it meets the criteria.

 

[casmith07]

I understand CAS but that does not make it right, so to speak.

Here is the definition I found. There may be others but for the sake of discussion......


duty of care

Definition

The responsibility or the legal obligation of a person or organization to avoid acts or omissions (which can be reasonably foreseen) to be likely to cause harm to others.

Duty of care is owed by an accountant in correctly preparing a company's accounts, by an auditor in confirming an company's financial statements correctly present its financial position; by a director to shareholders in husbanding the enterprise's resources; by a manufacturer to consumers for the safety of product; and by every party to a contract to the other contracting parties. See also standard of care.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/duty-of-care.html#ixzz1vXC7HhzB


Was it likely to casue harm? I don't know if it meets the criteria.

I'm not sure if it would either. But the hospital's actions are the appropriate course of action to prevent potential malpractice litigation.

The worst case scenario here is that the guy has to deal with CPS, and it gets sorted out, if nothing's wrong. If something IS wrong, then the child gets appropriate care and the hospital avoids costly malpractice lawsuits.

It sounds bad on the surface but with everyone looking to sue for everything, the hospital's actions are appropriate.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Duty of Care. Look it up.

Again. BS. There was no danger to the child therefor the care was provided to ensure the baby was fine. You can label this whatever you want but it is an overreach by an entity that has no right to do so. The hospital was out of line and it appears since the father was the former chief if staff that someone wanted to throw their weight around and show him who was boss. So none of your "duty of care" BS means anything.

 

[The30YardSlant]

It's amazing how medicine has gone from a respected profession to one of complete ridicule over the last 30 years or so. Nobody personifies "the man" more than doctors, hospitals and insurence companies these days according to the current social narrative.

The original post is a story of one hospital carrying out procedure in a legal albeit poorly done manner, and the subsequent thread has morphed into a testimony of biblical proportions about the evils of healthcare. The irony is that healthcare's flaws are a direct result of actions taken by those who hate the healthcare industry.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

It's amazing how medicine has gone from a respected profession to one of complete ridicule over the last 30 years or so. Nobody personifies "the man" more than doctors, hospitals and insurence companies these days according to the current social narrative.

The original post is a story of one hospital carrying out procedure in a legal albeit poorly done manner, and the subsequent thread has morphed into a testimony of biblical proportions about the evils of healthcare. The irony is that healthcare's flaws are a direct result of actions taken by those who hate the healthcare industry.

My Frustration lies with the hospital itself and those who think they did the right thing in overstepping their bounds. The healthcare industry, with all it's warts is still the best one in the world. Even the much touted Canadian model isn't as good since many canadiens including their premier comes here for health care.

 

[The30YardSlant]

My Frustration lies with the hospital itself and those who think they did the right thing in overstepping their bounds. The healthcare industry, with all it's warts is still the best one in the world. Even the much touted Canadian model isn't as good since many canadiens including their premier comes here for health care.

They didn't legally overstep their bounds. Could they have handled it betetr? Yes, but I don;t see this as an egregious breach.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

They didn't legally overstep their bounds. Could they have handled it betetr? Yes, but I don;t see this as an egregious breach.

Well the Facts are...
The baby was not in any danger.
The father was a doctor himself.
The father disagreed with a vaccine.
The hospital got upset that he didn't acquiesce to their demands.
The father was the former chief of staff at THAT hospital.
The hospital said the baby was in possible danger leading the cps to think something could be wrong when it was obviously not..

Yes, they overstepped the bounds.

 

[The30YardSlant]

The baby was not in any danger.
The father was a doctor himself.
The father disagreed with a vaccine.
The hospital got upset that he didn't acquiesce to their demands.
The father was the former chief of staff at THAT hospital.
The hospital said the baby was in possible danger leading the cps to think something could be wrong when it was obviously not..

Yes, they overstepped the bounds.

Thn father being a doctor or having previously worked there is completely irrelevent.

HAD something unforseen been wrong with the child and the hospital allowed them to leave without performing all reasonable tasks to insure it's safety, they could have legally sued the hospital as such actions would have technically violated the hospital's legal obligation under what is known as duty of care.

Edit, I see casmith beat me to the punch here.

 

[burmafrd]

Thn father being a doctor or having previously worked there is completely irrelevent.

HAD something unforseen been wrong with the child and the hospital allowed them to leave without performing all reasonable tasks to insure it's safety, they could have legally sued the hospital as such actions would have technically violated the hospital's legal obligation under what is known as duty of care.

Edit, I see casmith beat me to the punch here.

Total absolute BS. Sayingthat the father being a doctor is irrrelevent destroys your whole arguement since then it would be called a professional disagreement.

Your definition of reasonable is one reason the system is broken.

First do no harm.

You like hoof ignore that.

They did cause harm and they will end up costing the hospital.

It was a stupid and arrogant decision and they should be held accountable.

 

[casmith07]

They didn't legally overstep their bounds. Could they have handled it betetr? Yes, but I don;t see this as an egregious breach.

Because it wasn't. It was a hospital taking what they felt was the best and most logical course of action in ensuring that they satisfied the duty of care in the face of potential liability for or claims of medical malpractice. Whether it looks good or not from a PR standpoint, or whether it was the best thing to do given the circumstances is unknown, since none of us were there.

What we have here is another classic case of people allowing emotions to cloud judgment in examining a situation at face value from an objective position. It's funny to me.

 

[casmith07]

Thn father being a doctor or having previously worked there is completely irrelevent.

HAD something unforseen been wrong with the child and the hospital allowed them to leave without performing all reasonable tasks to insure it's safety, they could have legally sued the hospital as such actions would have technically violated the hospital's legal obligation under what is known as duty of care.

Edit, I see casmith beat me to the punch here.

End of discussion, above in bold, red, underlined.