This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.
mizukage2 posted...What would you do if an incompetent doctor wanted to open your child up and mess with their heart and refused to give you a release to go get a second opinion?
I wouldn't call Doctor A incompetent, but Kaiser Permanente is one of the finest medical institutions in the country. If anything, the mistake was going to Sutter instead of Kaiser in the first place.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. - Voltaire
Sativa_Rose posted...NoName999 posted...Wow that's a completely asinine comment.
This is a fair point, but I think that having the child removed was not the right decision. The child was not in critical condition or anything. The hospital could have been doing a very lousy job, and the mother could have just wanted to get better care ASAP.
The fact that you think we should live in a dystopian society where you can be indefinitely detained simply for going to the ER with a broken bone is VERY disturbing. I don't understand why this generation seems to be so determined to throw away the very freedoms this country was created to protect.
CE's Official Pornstar
Yeah...I'm amazed at the lengths people go to defend CPS for this crap. They were clearly in the wrong here. Bureaucracies are naturally inflexible...and sometimes issues fall through the cracks. But that doesn't mean moderate reforms shouldn't be made to make sure the bureaucracy doesn't make the same mistake again.
"Whoever becomes imbued with a noble idea kindles a flame from which other torches are lit"
Oh. Listen to this.
The child is no longer removed.
Although he *is* at a different hospital, the parents have regained control over the child, under conditions.
On Monday, a judge ruled that he be moved to Stamford Medical Center where his condition is being evaluated. Although they have regained control of his medical decision, they have to allow Child Protectice Services (CPS) to visit their home and also agree never to remove him from a hospital without official discharge. The parents will appear in court on May 28. Sacramento CPS said in a statement: "The law is clear. If there is imminent risk of serious physical harm to the child and there is insufficient time to obtain a court order to remove the child from the care of the parents... the social worker or law enforcement officer can remove the child."
But then once court is in session, the judge has to actually grant the court order. And if the parents object, they can ask for a hearing in order for Child Protective Services to prove that a court order to remove the child is necessary. The child returns to the parents if they either win the hearing, which can actually happen.
It is also possible for child protective services to settle with the parents for the purposes of the hearing and for the judge to approve, or for the parents to propose a set of conditions for their behavior which the court will agree to (this isn't always done with a hearing). It's unclear which of these things happened.
The Nikolayev's are overjoyed to be able to care for their son again and also feel some small measure of victory. "We've been asking that we get the treatment in a different hospital, that we're going to have a second opinion," mom told Today. "That's all we've been asking for and we got it."
This is how the system is supposed to work. Good triumphs.
Do your own research!
I once had a case in which a child was hospitalized, and the mother was so MAD about the hospital pushing treatment she didn't like that what she did was she walked out.
And when I met her (at the hospital), she was still MAD. And I knew I was going to lose her.
So what I told her was "Well you get to meet the treatment team at the care plan meeting, it's your right to go there and be part of the medical decisions. This is when the meeting is." And I was like, you need to ask about the care plan meeting, the meeting, the meeting, the meeting. This is when you get to take part in the decision.
And she was so MAD that after five minutes she walked out.
I told the hospital don't worry, I told her when the meeting was. She doesn't come, then we have a problem.
She went to that meeting.
Do your own research!
Considering the parents obviously had every intention of getting whatever care their child needed (in other words, they are not bad parents), the government overstepped its bounds in this situation by miles.
The final decision on what's best for a child should be the parent's. This child was in absolutely no danger because the parents wanted a second opinion.
The government also shouldn't be able to just barge into your house like they did here, especially not to snatch your child out of your arms when the child is not in danger. I expect no less out of California, though, because I doubt there is a competent government employee in that state.
Add user to Ignore List after reporting