Shot forced on newborn over parents' objections

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, June 18, 2003 | By Diana Lynne

[justshutupandtakeit]

You are correct, financial status is not the issue but immature, irresponsible behavior is. Financial status would not be relevent had they not exhibited ingratitude and irresponsibility on a massive scale.

I have seen nothing to indicate each description of these two which I have used is not correct. Why don't you show me that they are not. I will then apologize.

My problem is irresponsible, ungrateful, foolish and ignorant people. They burn my @$$, particularly when they are setting up a law suit which will hurt many of the poor which this hospital serves. Like the illegals who came over to save their dying child and are going to collect millions because of a mistake. That burns my arse too.

Btw the court gave the hospital permission to act, choosing to go with those who actually had knowledge of the facts rather than the constitution-waving legal genius. This was not the act of power-mad hospital administrators/doctors just itching to throw more money away on these dead-beats.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Court hearings adjudicate conflicts in presumed rights. Wonder Boy though he had the right to potentially endanger his child, the hospital thought it had the right to properly treat its patient irrespective of Wonder Boy's opinion of his "rights."

The court sided with the hospital.

There is no confusion on this side of the screen on this issue.

[LanPB01]

This family's story is full of holes from the start, and even a "Google" search can beat their information. First, their personal phsyiciain is apparently as dumb as they are. Even home hepatitis tests are 99.5% accurate.

Second, the chances of a hepatitis infected woman passing the diease to her baby are between 10 and 20%. Treatment is effective for this if the infant is treated within roughly 12 hours.

Third, hepatitis is highly contagious, and can be spread through simple things (think about those "Changing Stations" at your local eatery and malls).

Fear of giving the state too much power is one thing. Allowing a family of nuts to walk out the door of a hospital (and likely killing their child, along with the risk of infecting other children) would be criminal.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

My guess is that biodad (the freak spouting a whacked out definition of what he thinks the Constamatooshin says) must be a FReeper.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That is not at issue here. Perjury is a criminal offense. When it is detected bring them before the bench. I would support any punishment given to perjurors.

[Protagoras]

You should try the new drug they have for "ass burning", it might help. (if you can get a few thousand uninvolved people to let you aquire it.)

You might also try a chill pill for your personality disorder. Keep your apologies, you owe me none, and the people you insulted without knowing them don't read this crap.

[justshutupandtakeit]

He would certainly fit in some of its branches. Any bets he will be homeschooling the child?

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no intention to apologize to YOU, I was speaking of my disparaging (though totally accurate) descriptions of this pair of fruits.

[Protagoras]

There seems to be much confusion on your side of the screen, on many issues. Hospitals don't have rights. Only people have rights.

[BlazingArizona]

What's with this weird little movement against vaccination, anyway? Will all these people start lining up to have their appendies and tonsils put back?

[1rudeboy]

At the risk of reading to much into this story, it is clear that the woman was admitted to the hospital with a life-threatening condition (and by extension, life-threatening to the baby). It is likely that she signed a consent form, and that got the ball rolling. I find it hard to imagine that a court would allow her to withdraw that consent at her convenience (although anything's possible, I guess.

When a parent refuses on religious or other grounds to allow a hospital to provide medical treatment for a child, courts are likely to grant a hospital's application to overrule the parent [even] if the treatment is life threatening, but not if it only will improve the child's comfort or appearance.
Prosser, Wade, and Schwartz's Torts, 9th ed., page 97.

Now, the woman had the option of not going to the hospital in the first place . . . with a whole slew of different legal ramifications.

[Protagoras]

I'll bet you got an "A" in namecalling in school.

(call your doctor immediately, You need a personality transplant)

[Protagoras]

Any bets he will be homeschooling the child?

I'm speculating that you are opposed to home schooling as well.

[ContentiousObjector]

anyone want to bet this kid is going to get drowned in a bathtub or otherwise harmed by these lunatics at some point?

[Ramius]

I believe you may have misconstrued the facts. It was the PARENTS that were "assaulting" the child by exposing it to imminent risk of a very serious disease. The hospital was merely stepping in to stop an assault already in progress.

It would be exactly the same if someone broke into a car to take a baby that was cooking in the sun due to the negligence of a parent. No, grabbing the child and giving it an IV is not authorized by the guardian then either. But it is not assault.

[justshutupandtakeit]

By ignorant people, sure. By people who don't think they are wonder workers and are willing to work at it, no. That is not the case here.

Ignorance teaching is a futile gesture.

[Protagoras]

I'll bet. Where do I pick up my winnings?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Certainly I can name call with the best of them. But nothing I have said has been inconsistent with the facts and logical surmises from those facts.

I certainly don't name call without justification. Nor do I perform half-assed psychological evaluations. I'll leave that to you.