Another hospital calls CPS on parents who question routine medical procedures

[JD_KaPow]

You should have to have some kind of evidence or suspicion that the baby is in danger and they didn't have that. Otherwise anyone with a bug up their rear end can create problems for people. Common sense isn't so common anymore.

Huh? They had suspicion - that's why they made the call.

I mean, I know that you, having read a column based on an article based on the parents' account of what happened, are an expert and know everything there is to know about the case. But this all seems really overblown. There was what sounds like a series of disputes that resulted in a newborn being checked out against medical advice. Someone felt enough concern about the child's well-being to place a call to CPS (we haven't heard their side of the story, and probably won't, so it's pointless to speculate on the exact reason for their suspicion). CPS looked into it (apparently) and concluded that the child was not at risk. And that was the end of it. So it sounds like things worked the way they should.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

The fact that he is a doctor and once workled there is the irrelevant part.



Which can and have been superceded by doctors and hospitals in a number of different instances. Parents do not have supreme authority in a medical setting and court orders can be handed down turning over the right of care to the hospital or a given physician when it is determined the parents were either not fit to make decisions or were not acting in the best interest of the child...but that isnt the point. The point is that the parents are upset because the hospital was following procedures that are in place because of people LIKE THEM who will sue hospitals if anything goes wrong. Now, in a stroke of pure irony, they are attacking them legally for doing the very thing meant to prevent legal action.

And thus is America.



Because legally they didn't lie. I can look at and feel your ankle and tell it's not broken but medically I'm not lying in saying that it could be broken until a conclusive test is done. If they let that baby leave, even IF nothing is wrong with it, the parents would have a legal right to sue if they had a mind to do so. "They looked fine" doesn't hold up in court.

The hospital could have handled it more professionally, but after reading how paranoid it seems the parents were acting I have trouble faulting them too much.

That's a crock of horse crap.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Duty of Care. But you don't seem to want to learn anything.

You don't seem to learn anything! You keep trotting out this Duty of Crap meme but there was no care that needed to be attended to at that point. IT WAS ABOUT A BATH AND HOW TO ADMINISTER A MEDICATION!

No danger to the child. No care to give. Therefor no duty.

I swear you do love your Nanny State.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Huh? They had suspicion - that's why they made the call.

I mean, I know that you, having read a column based on an article based on the parents' account of what happened, are an expert and know everything there is to know about the case. But this all seems really overblown. There was what sounds like a series of disputes that resulted in a newborn being checked out against medical advice. Someone felt enough concern about the child's well-being to place a call to CPS (we haven't heard their side of the story, and probably won't, so it's pointless to speculate on the exact reason for their suspicion). CPS looked into it (apparently) and concluded that the child was not at risk. And that was the end of it. So it sounds like things worked the way they should.

And you think this is perfectly alright? That a hospital "trained" to know when a patient is at risk makes a call like this and it turns out the parents were right all along? You are good with this, huh?

Do you have a nanny to wipe your nose too?

I swear to God some people will never use common sense.

 

[TwoCentPlain]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but wanting to have a natural home birth or preferring one supplement over the other is perfectly normal and safe. Home births are statistically just as safe so long as a person trained in such matters is present. These issues are not what this is about, this is about parents who defied a hospital trying to carry out proper procedure for their legal protection. They werent simply disagreeing, they were checking their child out against medical advice in what the article makes it sound like was a paranoid frenzy.

I'm not being sarcastic. I cannot fathom why anyone would want a home birth. If my wife were pregnant, I would not even consider a birth at home. If complications arise, I'd rather be in a hospital. No-brainer to me.

"Preferring one supplement over another" No problem with that but in this case they were disagreeing over the vitamin delivery method. Oral vs syringe (or did I read it wrong?). Doesn't make any sense to me. But, that's just me.

Personally, I wouldn't even consider this doctor as a patient for anything. He sounds like a quack. He has a right (within reason) to choose whatever he wants for his child. Take his kid out of the hospital against advice? No problem as long as the child ends up OK. But, along with that right comes responsibility. If something happens to the child due to his "quack" actions, then he some explaining to do in a court of law.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I'm not being sarcastic. I cannot fathom why anyone would want a home birth. If my wife were pregnant, I would not even consider a birth at home. If complications arise, I'd rather be in a hospital. No-brainer to me.

"Preferring one supplement over another" No problem with that but in this case they were disagreeing over the vitamin delivery method. Oral vs syringe (or did I read it wrong?). Doesn't make any sense to me. But, that's just me.

Personally, I wouldn't even consider this doctor as a patient for anything. He sounds like a quack. He has a right (within reason) to choose whatever he wants for his child. Take his kid out of the hospital against advice? No problem as long as the child ends up OK. But, along with that right comes responsibility. If something happens to the child due to his "quack" actions, then he some explaining to do in a court of law.

A quack who worked his way all the way up to Chief of staff of the hospital. Yeah, he's a quack.

 

[Hoofbite]

You don't seem to learn anything! You keep trotting out this Duty of Crap meme but there was no care that needed to be attended to at that point. IT WAS ABOUT A BATH AND HOW TO ADMINISTER A MEDICATION!

No danger to the child. No care to give. Therefor no duty.

I swear you do love your Nanny State.

You'd like for that to be the primary issue but it's not.

They took a child home 12 hours after birth against the advice of the staff.

I read in one of the articles the guy simply could have signed the child over to his care but didn't want to "disrespect" his former co-workers. So instead, he'd rather flat out disregard their advice like that isn't a slap in the face.

And just for the sake of argument, even if it was about the Vitamin K the argument would still be completely reasonable.

For one, the bioavailability of each in their respective forms differs with the injection being far superior and the accepted standard route of delivery. One injection of vitamin K does the trick whereas it's often recommended to give multiple doses of the oral formulation over a few weeks. That's assuming there isn't any sort of inability to absorb oral medications in the first place. Not to mention the problem that arises should the kid puke it up after a while.

Secondly, every drug, supplement or vitamin given in a hospital goes through the pharmacy. Everything. You bring medications in, they'll be sent down for identification and verification. If his liquid was open, it's probably not gonna make anyone on staff comfortable approving it because theres no way to verify it's purity. So now, you not only have a doctor who's reputation on the line but you have a pharmacist who's reputation is on the line as well. Doubtful either will be willing to hear his argument for a lesser effective route of delivery just to appease some personal preference.

Just because you don't understand the argument doesn't mean that it isn't valid.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

You'd like for that to be the primary issue but it's not.

It is.

Just because you don't understand the argument doesn't mean that it isn't valid.

I understand your argument. It's just that it is a bull crap argument. It really is that simple.

 

[Hoofbite]

It is.

I understand your argument. It's just that it is a bull crap argument. It really is that simple.

No, you really don't. If you did, you wouldn't try to paint the situation as something it's not......all the while arguing against a point that has clinical evidence to support it.

 

[jobberone]

While it says the hospital called CPS, it really could have been anyone with knowledge of the situation who called. It may not be fair to blame the hospital.

Once called CPS is required by law to investigate.

This is an example of a 'good Samaritan' creating a problem when there wasn't a problem. No one likes it when the government intrudes when they shouldn't and no one likes it when they don't when they should.

We got a good baby so everyone needs to be happy.

And no wonder we get sued so GD often.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

No, you really don't. If you did, you wouldn't try to paint the situation as something it's not......all the while arguing against a point that has clinical evidence to support it.

No, I do. I just don't agree with it. Somehow you seem to think that because one doctor says something and another doctor says something else, the one acting as the doctor is automatically right and then to hell with the parents rights. Also, since the the father was Chief of staff and a long career as a physician, seems like he would have not only his child's best interest at heart but also might have a better understanding on the medical necessity of one treatment over another.

Further, it really wasn't, no matter how you try to spin it, any endangerment of the child. And once again, since you can't seem to get this through your head, this was over something that was so insignificant like a bath and administration of a vitamin. Never was there any danger to the child and the hospital knew that.

I'm curious Hoof. Do you have kids?

 

[casmith07]

You'd like for that to be the primary issue but it's not.

They took a child home 12 hours after birth against the advice of the staff.

I read in one of the articles the guy simply could have signed the child over to his care but didn't want to "disrespect" his former co-workers. So instead, he'd rather flat out disregard their advice like that isn't a slap in the face.

And just for the sake of argument, even if it was about the Vitamin K the argument would still be completely reasonable.

For one, the bioavailability of each in their respective forms differs with the injection being far superior and the accepted standard route of delivery. One injection of vitamin K does the trick whereas it's often recommended to give multiple doses of the oral formulation over a few weeks. That's assuming there isn't any sort of inability to absorb oral medications in the first place. Not to mention the problem that arises should the kid puke it up after a while.

Secondly, every drug, supplement or vitamin given in a hospital goes through the pharmacy. Everything. You bring medications in, they'll be sent down for identification and verification. If his liquid was open, it's probably not gonna make anyone on staff comfortable approving it because theres no way to verify it's purity. So now, you not only have a doctor who's reputation on the line but you have a pharmacist who's reputation is on the line as well. Doubtful either will be willing to hear his argument for a lesser effective route of delivery just to appease some personal preference.

Just because you don't understand the argument doesn't mean that it isn't valid.

Pretty much all of this.

Once you bring a child, or yourself, in for care at a hospital, the hospital and health care providers then have a standard duty of care for proper practice of medicine on you, the patient.

If that duty of care is breached, they could be held liable for malpractice. And medical malpractice settlements are expensive.

I'm done with this thread. Too many people projecting their emotions as fact instead of looking at the situation objectively. Back to referee mode.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Pretty much all of this.

Once you bring a child, or yourself, in for care at a hospital, the hospital and health care providers then have a standard duty of care for proper practice of medicine on you, the patient.

If that duty of care is breached, they could be held liable for malpractice. And medical malpractice settlements are expensive.

I'm done with this thread. Too many people projecting their emotions as fact instead of looking at the situation objectively. Back to referee mode.

This is the most stupid thing i have heard. You have every right in the world to refuse treatment if you bring yourself to the hospital. And of there is no life threatening issue with your child, you have every right to take that child to another care facility that you choose. But to say you must stay there and let them do whatever THEY say they want to do is utterly ridiculous.

You should have been done with this thread before you posted your first "Duty of Care" post. because you and hoof look nutty.

 

[casmith07]

You should have been done with this thread before you posted your first "Duty of Care" post.

Well THAT is damn certain. I feel like I cheated myself out of a bunch of otherwise useful time.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Well THAT is damn certain. I feel like I cheated myself out of a bunch of otherwise useful time.

Probably did since the posts didn't make any sense.

 

[JBond]

This is the most stupid thing i have heard. You have every right in the world to refuse treatment if you bring yourself to the hospital. And of there is no life threatening issue with your child, you have every right to take that child to another care facility that you choose. But to say you must stay there and let them do whatever THEY say they want to do is utterly ridiculous.

You should have been done with this thread before you posted your first "Duty of Care" post. because you and hoof look nutty.

The almost lawyer continues to defend government intervention in personal matters. Big shock. Even CPS said they did nothing wrong, yet the more litigious among us continue to stand their ground. Duty of care is a sad excuse from people that favor government intervention over parental rights.

I still want to know how many times CPS was called by that hospital over parents not wanting their kid to have a shot. It still sounds like to me that there was a personal agenda being carried out against the former boss. Was CPS called every single time that a parent disagreed with a method of treatment? If not then there is obviously a worker at the hospital that has a vendetta. Why people would support rouge employees with a vendetta is beyond me. I am sure some lawyer could explain it for $500 an hour.

 

[casmith07]

Probably did since the posts didn't make any sense.

Just because something doesn't marry up with your personal opinion of how you think things are = "doesn't make any sense."

 

[Cajuncowboy]

The almost lawyer continues to defend government intervention in personal matters. Big shock. Even CPS said they did nothing wrong, yet the more litigious among us continue to stand their ground. Duty of care is a sad excuse from people that favor government intervention over parental rights.

I still want to know how many times CPS was called by that hospital over parents not wanting their kid to have a shot. It still sounds like to me that there was a personal agenda being carried out against the former boss. Was CPS called every single time that a parent disagreed with a method of treatment? If not then there is obviously a worker at the hospital that has a vendetta. Why people would support rouge employees with a vendetta is beyond me. I am sure some lawyer could explain it for $500 an hour.

The whole stupid notion that you MUST take whatever treatment the hospital tells you or they will call a government agency and "sic" em on you is so utterly preposterous that I can't see any other agenda but "I want my nanny state" mentality coming through. "Duty of care" my rear end. They had no duty of care that HAD to be forced on this child. Just a ridiculous observation.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Just because something doesn't marry up with your personal opinion of how you think things are = "doesn't make any sense."

Your whole argument is stupid because you are wrong. They CAN'T force a treatment on you.

Oh, and talk about an agenda. LOL. My agenda is parental rights. Yours is propping up a nanny state because you can't wipe your own nose.

 

[DFWJC]

And one thing that is not debateable is that if we go to the type of Unviersal Health Care that is currently planned, the quality of care will for sure go down.
Not a political statement, just indisputable fact.

Hopefully they can find a balance that helps those who can't afford proper care but still allows for easily accessible high-end care if some wish to pay for it.

It is amazing how many die each year from stuff that occurred at the hospital. Sadly, that will only get much worse if we go down the projected path set.