Baby taken from parents who wanted 2nd doctor's opinion

[Double T]

Request? You appear to be implying that the doctor has the rightful authority to make your decisions for you unless he chooses to allow you to make another choice.

Hypothetical: If your child was on a vent, or on bypass; you can't leave AMA without security/LEO intervention as by disconnecting the patient they would die.

Similarly, if a person cannot speak for themselves; and the POA/Guardian is making a stupid decision regarding healthcare. Health care personnel can request an emergency guardianship hearing for the well being of the patient. Having been involved in these sorts of things, it's not as simple as black and white, and in order for the "hearing" to take place, there typically has to be imminent danger and/or negligence involved.

My words are being twisted for some sort of anti-CPS/State/Hospital argument.

The doctor's and especially nurses are not advocates for the parents, but for the patient. If you're going to do something stupid that could harm your kid, and they DON'T do something, they can be held liable civilly and criminally.

They were just doing their jobs and CYOA if you will.

 

[downzero]

Hypothetical: If your child was on a vent, or on bypass; you can't leave AMA without security/LEO intervention as by disconnecting the patient they would die.

Similarly, if a person cannot speak for themselves; and the POA/Guardian is making a stupid decision regarding healthcare. Health care personnel can request an emergency guardianship hearing for the well being of the patient. Having been involved in these sorts of things, it's not as simple as black and white, and in order for the "hearing" to take place, there typically has to be imminent danger and/or negligence involved.

My words are being twisted for some sort of anti-CPS/State/Hospital argument.

The doctor's and especially nurses are not advocates for the parents, but for the patient. If you're going to do something stupid that could harm your kid, and they DON'T do something, they can be held liable civilly and criminally.

They were just doing their jobs and CYOA if you will.

Please define what "informed consent" means to you in one sentence or less.

 

[Double T]

Please define what "informed consent" means to you in one sentence or less.

Can you tell me what implied consent means in one sentence? You can't can you?

The MD's at this place thought the kid was critical enough to warrant CPS intervention. The parent's disagreed. Thus, they should've requested a transfer rather than going AMA. By going AMA they were deemed negligent in the eyes of the MD's and CPS was called.

It's pretty cut and dry really.

Informed consent: making a decision to proceed with a procedure after weighing the potential positive and negative outcomes.

 

[88GT]

Hypothetical: If your child was on a vent, or on bypass; you can't leave AMA without security/LEO intervention as by disconnecting the patient they would die.

Similarly, if a person cannot speak for themselves; and the POA/Guardian is making a stupid decision regarding healthcare. Health care personnel can request an emergency guardianship hearing for the well being of the patient. Having been involved in these sorts of things, it's not as simple as black and white, and in order for the "hearing" to take place, there typically has to be imminent danger and/or negligence involved.

My words are being twisted for some sort of anti-CPS/State/Hospital argument.

The doctor's and especially nurses are not advocates for the parents, but for the patient. If you're going to do something stupid that could harm your kid, and they DON'T do something, they can be held liable civilly and criminally.

They were just doing their jobs and CYOA if you will.

On what authority does the hospital or the state get to decide that they are more qualified to make decisions regarding the health care of my child than me?

Why would the child's death be so horrible?

Why should I be obligated to take heroic efforts to sustain life?

Does my obligation to my child extend beyond preventing forcible harm to the herculean task of preserving life?

 

[88GT]

Can you tell me what implied consent means in one sentence? You can't can you?

The MD's at this place thought the kid was critical enough to warrant CPS intervention. The parent's disagreed. Thus, they should've requested a transfer rather than going AMA. By going AMA they were deemed negligent in the eyes of the MD's and CPS was called.

It's pretty cut and dry really.

Said like a true agent of the state.

Informed consent: making a decision to proceed with a procedure after weighing the potential positive and negative outcomes.

Is it informed consent if the patient was not advised of other options?

 

[Double T]

On what authority does the hospital or the state get to decide that they are more qualified to make decisions regarding the health care of my child than me?

Why would the child's death be so horrible?

Why should I be obligated to take heroic efforts to sustain life?

Does my obligation to my child extend beyond preventing forcible harm to the herculean task of preserving life?

By signing the papers to admit the kid, you would be adding the hospitals policies and procedures regarding this stuff to your child. By leaving AMA after signing a consent to eval and treat, you could be deemed negligent.

IF you don't want your kid to be on a vent/hyperal/tube feeding, you and your doctor need to sign an order and have it notarized and carry it with you. if you don't have it, then they are obligated to go through "heroic" measures as you would put it.

While you guys are right, that the parent should have the ultimate final say in something, the hospital has to act unless you have advance directives on file due to fear of legal repercussions.

By signing them into treatment, you are giving consent to treat with the recommendations of the physician in charge of their care.

there are ways to go about getting a second opinion, and you have to hop through the hoops sadly to avoid the BS in the OP.

Leaving somewhere AMA is never a good thing, regardless of the reason to go. I wonder if the parent's signed the paper that they were leaving AMA or if they just took the kid and left? The nurse typically brings a paper for you to sign releasing the hospital of all liability if the person bottoms out.

 

[Double T]

Said like a true agent of the state.

Well, they do hold my nursing license; but they don't employ me

 

[steveh_131]

 

[88GT]

By signing the papers to admit the kid, you would be adding the hospitals policies and procedures regarding this stuff to your child. By leaving AMA after signing a consent to eval and treat, you could be deemed negligent.

I give consent. I can withdraw it. At. Any. Time. The problem with your position is that you seem to think that consent includes abdication of my authority as well.

IF you don't want your kid to be on a vent/hyperal/tube feeding, you and your doctor need to sign an order and have it notarized and carry it with you. if you don't have it, then they are obligated to go through "heroic" measures as you would put it.

No, hospital policy requires them to violate parental authority solely as a CYA measure for their liability mitigation. They are in no way legally authorized to act in opposition to the wishes of the parent.

You seem to be confusing the concept of treatment with hospital policy.

The only authority a hospital has in the contractual consent to treat is to refuse to treat at all if the parent doesn't want the child to be treated in the manner the hospital recommends/requires. The infliction of police orders to confiscate children because the hospital thinks its policy trumps parental authority is sick and twisted. It's no different than your neighbor calling CPS because he doesn't approve of firearms in the house.

My kids, my choice. I respect the hospital's right to dictate the terms of treatment. But once the parent quits the voluntary contract, that ends the relationship. It is no business of the hospital if the parent seeks alternative treatment or no treatment at all.

While you guys are right, that the parent should have the ultimate final say in something, the hospital has to act unless you have advance directives on file due to fear of legal repercussions.

No, it doesn't have to act. It bullies patients into believing it does.

By signing them into treatment, you are giving consent to treat with the recommendations of the physician in charge of their care.

We've gone over this before. Consent =/= abdication of authority. I am giving consent to diagnose and treat, but not carte blanche to treat. What part of this distinction do you not understand?

there are ways to go about getting a second opinion, and you have to hop through the hoops sadly to avoid the BS in the OP.

This comment makes me rage. I cannot convey to you the arrogance and ignorance it carries. I don't need anybody's permission to stop treatment that I voluntarily sought, be it for me or my children.

Leaving somewhere AMA is never a good thing, regardless of the reason to go. I wonder if the parent's signed the paper that they were leaving AMA or if they just took the kid and left? The nurse typically brings a paper for you to sign releasing the hospital of all liability if the person bottoms out.

Only in the hospital's point of view. Only in the hospital's point of view.

I suppose in the interest of full disclosure I should share that I have been in a battle with a hospital on the discharge of my younger son. I won. But either way, he was going home with me that night.

 

[Double T]

This comment makes me rage. I cannot convey to you the arrogance and ignorance it carries. I don't need anybody's permission to stop treatment that I voluntarily sought, be it for me or my children.

So I'm ignorant? That's an awesome argument and counterpoint. I think I'll write that down.

The medical community now lives in fear of litigation, and as such, must have a SOP of CYOA. If any parent takes their kid AMA without signing a waiver, then the hospital is not released from liability, which is why many cases as such involve CPS.

I feel for the parents in the OP, but if they didn't sign a release of liability for AMA then they were (technically) in the wrong. If they did, then the hospital has no business involving CPS as their liability is over, and the fault/blame rests on the parents.

Believe it or not, people who hold professional licenses can go to jail for a long time if they do not report child endangerment.

Be that as it may, I think you might want to research medical liability and it's involvement with the AMA procedures, and also what could happen if they were just allowed to walk out and take their kid without signing papers.

It's all about documentation. If it's not documented, then the parents could later sue and take MY license if I allowed them to walk out without informing them of the possible dangers of leaving, and having them sign a waiver that they understand the risks. It is called against medical advice for a reason.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So I'm ignorant? That's an awesome argument and counterpoint. I think I'll write that down.

The medical community now lives in fear of litigation, and as such, must have a SOP of CYOA. If any parent takes their kid AMA without signing a waiver, then the hospital is not released from liability, which is why many cases as such involve CPS.

I feel for the parents in the OP, but if they didn't sign a release of liability for AMA then they were (technically) in the wrong. If they did, then the hospital has no business involving CPS as their liability is over, and the fault/blame rests on the parents.

Believe it or not, people who hold professional licenses can go to jail for a long time if they do not report child endangerment.

Be that as it may, I think you might want to research medical liability and it's involvement with the AMA procedures, and also what could happen if they were just allowed to walk out and take their kid without signing papers.

It's all about documentation. If it's not documented, then the parents could later sue and take MY license if I allowed them to walk out without informing them of the possible dangers of leaving, and having them sign a waiver that they understand the risks. It is called against medical advice for a reason.

Hold on. While you're correct that we can be professionally (and personally?) liable if we don't report abuse, it's a nebulous term in all but the most heinous of cases. That is to say, if a person is actively being physically harmed by the intentional acts of another person, say, a beating, or sexual assault, etc. We can even take it to the point of including neglect in there, i.e. if a person has no food in the house or is living in squalor, without sanitary facilities, etc. I don't argue with you that those things are not true, and yes, I've reported them myself at times.

Where we part ways in thought, or at least so it seems, is on the point about "endangerment". If a home-health nurse for grandma happens to discover that her patient's son, in whose home grandma is living, has guns, and also has the child (say, age 5) who makes the patient, "grandma", is the mere presence of guns in the house, in whatever condition they may be kept/stored/etc., enough to cite "endangerment"?

I realize this case centers on the child being removed from the hospital and the only definition they can make "fit" the circumstances is "endangering". The "slippery slope" figures in heavily here, though: If we're willing to draw the line at endangerment, a VERY loose definition on a good day, how long will it be before some anti-gun ninny in a nurse's uniform decides to define gun ownership as "child endangerment" and get kids taken away from their parents punitively as a consequence of the parent not viewing the world through the rose-colored utopia glasses that the nurse uses?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[88GT]

So I'm ignorant? That's an awesome argument and counterpoint. I think I'll write that down.

It's not an argument. It's an observation.

The medical community now lives in fear of litigation, and as such, must have a SOP of CYOA.

I already said that I don't have a problem with a hospital having policies governing treatment. I know why they exist, and I would be surprised anybody would operate without them. But they are hospital policies. You cannot force parents to comply with them when the consensual relationship between hospital and parent has ended. And you certainly don't punish parents by using the state to kidnap their children.

If any parent takes their kid AMA without signing a waiver, then the hospital is not released from liability, which is why many cases as such involve CPS.

That's absolute horse crap. All the damn documentation I have to sign for a simple consent to treat, and the lawyers can't insert a clause indemnifying hospitals if the patient goes AWOL without a proper discharge?

I feel for the parents in the OP, but if they didn't sign a release of liability for AMA then they were (technically) in the wrong. If they did, then the hospital has no business involving CPS as their liability is over, and the fault/blame rests on the parents.

How can they be wrong if they aren't obligated to do something? And if you think they are obligated to comply with hospital policy even after the hospital/patient relationship has ended, what is your basis for such an opinion?

Believe it or not, people who hold professional licenses can go to jail for a long time if they do not report child endangerment.

But this is not a mandatory reporting discussion because this was not a mandatory reporting case. The hospital got pissed because the family decided to withdraw consent and wanted to take the child elsewhere for diagnosis and treatment. The hospital's reaction was retaliatory, nothing else.

Be that as it may, I think you might want to research medical liability and it's involvement with the AMA procedures, and also what could happen if they were just allowed to walk out and take their kid without signing papers.

And I suggest you research liberty and parental rights and understand that hospital policy doesn't trump it. Ever.

It's all about documentation. If it's not documented, then the parents could later sue and take MY license if I allowed them to walk out without informing them of the possible dangers of leaving, and having them sign a waiver that they understand the risks. It is called against medical advice for a reason.

Allowed them? Oh, yes, like you have the power to detain them.

I'm not buying this crap. The risk of being sued is grossly insufficient grounds to override parental authority in the seeking of treatment options. Once the parent has decided to severe the doctor/patient relationship, there is no more authority over that parent to compel them to comply with hospital policy. None.

I understand what you're trying to say. I know hospitals face legal risks from idiot patients. But that's a tort issue and it's solved by reforming tort law and injecting a little common sense back into the judicial process. The solution is not to punish parents for rejecting your treatment by calling out the attack dogs on them.

 

[johnny45]

μολὼν λαβέ

Strange.

It appears that somewhere along the way folks concluded such resolve applied only to inanimate objects.

 

[Double T]

It's not an argument. It's an observation.


I already said that I don't have a problem with a hospital having policies governing treatment. I know why they exist, and I would be surprised anybody would operate without them. But they are hospital policies. You cannot force parents to comply with them when the consensual relationship between hospital and parent has ended. And you certainly don't punish parents by using the state to kidnap their children.


That's absolute horse crap. All the damn documentation I have to sign for a simple consent to treat, and the lawyers can't insert a clause indemnifying hospitals if the patient goes AWOL without a proper discharge?


How can they be wrong if they aren't obligated to do something? And if you think they are obligated to comply with hospital policy even after the hospital/patient relationship has ended, what is your basis for such an opinion?


But this is not a mandatory reporting discussion because this was not a mandatory reporting case. The hospital got pissed because the family decided to withdraw consent and wanted to take the child elsewhere for diagnosis and treatment. The hospital's reaction was retaliatory, nothing else.



And I suggest you research liberty and parental rights and understand that hospital policy doesn't trump it. Ever.


Allowed them? Oh, yes, like you have the power to detain them.

I'm not buying this crap. The risk of being sued is grossly insufficient grounds to override parental authority in the seeking of treatment options. Once the parent has decided to severe the doctor/patient relationship, there is no more authority over that parent to compel them to comply with hospital policy. None.

I understand what you're trying to say. I know hospitals face legal risks from idiot patients. But that's a tort issue and it's solved by reforming tort law and injecting a little common sense back into the judicial process. The solution is not to punish parents for rejecting your treatment by calling out the attack dogs on them.

And you can cite no proof of any of your arguments. I can provide cases, but I would be violating privacy wouldn't I?

You are basing your reasoning upon an article, one side to the story

A nurse who doesn't know the medicine she is giving to a patient obviously didn't verify the "5 rights" huh? Right patient, right med, right dose, right time, right route (oral/IV/IM/etc), and that silent sixth one: the right to refuse. The nurse was incompetent, and the parents are blaming the entire hospital and medical staff. That has no bearing on the kids course of treatment. If he had a murmur, he probably needed surgery. Though it may not have been immediately "dangerous", he could have had a condition that could throw a clot. We really don't know without reading the kids chart.

I highly doubt that a hospital would react "in retaliation" all things considered, perhaps the staff felt the parents didn't have the capacity to understand the severity of the kids case? Perhaps another physician could've come to do rounds and give another opinion? Perhaps a transfer?

All of these things are things to consider and weigh, which the parents seemed not to do. They ran.

I am not saying anything regarding parents rights, I really could give a damn about your parental rights. If I'm your kids' nurse, and you want to pull them out of the hospital AMA, so be it. But I will make sure you sign the damn waiver, or have another nurse there to document your refusal. You parental rights don't mean so much to me to cost me my livelihood. It sucks, but the time I wouldn't, I would be sitting in front of the AG and explaining why I let someone walk out with a potentially gravely ill child.

I've seen these things happen, and have sadly had to testify at AG hearings. My license is on the line every time I clock in, whether your kids life is on the line or not.

Each state has such things called "ombudsman", which are posted nearly everywhere. If the parents had called them, the whole treatment/2nd opinion issue could have been resolved without going AMA, and without CPS involved. Hospitals are pretty set in stone on what employees are to do in these circumstances, since that is the case there are always options that can be taken to avoid leaving AMA.

Don't think your kid is getting the treatment they should, request a transfer. Don't agree with the course of treatment, request a 2nd opinion. If they won't provide one, contact the hospital COO and if that is not satisfactory, call the ombudsman. There are channels that can be gone through, and there is no reason to leave AMA pretty much ever.

Yes, this IS a slippery slope. However, it's one that gets crossed from time to time, which is why there are policy and procedures for them.

I am not trying to say that the parent's were wrong for there reasoning behind their actions, they should've gone about it a different way is all I'm trying to say. Kind of like having a bunch of outs, each one progressively more aggressive?

Does that make sense? tonight's my late night where I get to stay up and switch from day to night shift.

 

[$mooth]

Did you just say that it was acceptable for a hospital to sic the police on a family because they chose to change their medical decisions for their children?

I got into this with our hospital when they wouldn't let me leave with my baby after birth. They kept insisting that I had to bring the car seat to the room so they could check it, and I take him to the car in the car seat. My car seat isn't a two piece; it is fixed with no handle. It is incredibly stupid and dangerous to carry a baby in something that wasn't designed for carrying, but they didn't seem to care. They just needed to check the box.
I told them I wasn't driving, then. So I'm walking home, and if they try to stop me, I'll call the cops for them for holding my child against my will (although the cops would probably take the hospital's side, it still got them to reconsider their position)

 

[rambone]

I am not saying anything regarding parents rights, I really could give a damn about your parental rights.

Geez. I see that you haven't changed your totalitarian views since the last time we discussed kidnapping children for forced drugging.

I at least appreciate your honesty. Most tyrants mask their intentions behind dubious phrases like "common sense" and "greater good." But you are a straight-shooter. I know what I'm getting from you and I can appreciate that.

What hospital do you work at?

Yes, they are your children, but they are on "loan" to you until they turn 18.

You can argue parents rights BS...

 

[IndyDave1776]

μολὼν λαβέ

Strange.

It appears that somewhere along the way folks concluded such resolve applied only to inanimate objects.

Unfortunately I got the 'spread the rep' scold.

 

[Double T]

Geez. I see that you haven't changed your totalitarian views since the last time we discussed kidnapping children for forced drugging.

I at least appreciate your honesty. Most tyrants mask their intentions behind dubious phrases like "common sense" and "greater good." But you are a straight-shooter. I know what I'm getting from you and I can appreciate that.

What hospital do you work at?

​

Children are not possessions, they are responsibilities. Still chuckling to myself at how you assume I meant they are on loan from the state. My words above were regarding a loan from a "higher power", not from the state. But as religion is a no go here, twists my words.

 

[Mark33]

Terrible situation to be in.

 

[rambone]

This case has gotten the attention of one California lawmaker.

Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks, California)

"The idea that in 2013 we have a government agency operating in complete secrecy and tearing families apart is unacceptable. That is why I have requested an audit to determine how widespread these abuses are, what can be done, and what recourse exists for innocent parents." source
​