Family battling Children’s Hospital to bring teen home for Christmas

[Minette]

I've quoted it previously on this thread. It's either the in depth globe story, or I believe the Salon story. There was concern in CT about doctor shopping primary care docs (care was not being coordinated by a unified team, different procedures were being handled by different docs with no coordination between). Then there was the report by someone from Tufts.

Gosh, I go to a dermatologist, a rheumatologist, an internist, a gynecologist, and a gastroenterologist. Guess who is running the coordination of care? Me! If it comes down to it, my rheumatologist gets the final say--and that's only because I give it to him) because my main condition (inflammatory arthritis) can have an effect on all other systems. But you know what? In a post-managed-care insurance health-care world, this idea that various doctors all have time to call each other up and consult about a given patient's care isn't too realistic, especially given that which doctors participate in which health plans can vary even within the same practice.

Maybe I'm just too cynical after living in the Atlanta area for so long, but given that CPS locally often work proactively to return children to parents who are KNOWN abusers, known drug users, etc. I am really wondering why--if these parents are so unfit that there is obviously NO effort to reunite this family--that there haven't been specific charges filed.

 

[jjenny]

Nor should Wayside be concerned.

Then why should facility in CT be?

 

[jjenny]

Gosh, I go to a dermatologist, a rheumatologist, an internist, a gynecologist, and a gastroenterologist. Guess who is running the coordination of care? Me! If it comes down to it, my rheumatologist gets the final say--and that's only because I give it to him) because my main condition (inflammatory arthritis) can have an effect on all other systems. But you know what? In a post-managed-care insurance health-care world, this idea that various doctors all have time to call each other up and consult about a given patient's care isn't too realistic, especially given that which doctors participate in which health plans can vary even within the same practice.

Maybe I'm just too cynical after living in the Atlanta area for so long, but given that CPS locally often work proactively to return children to parents who are KNOWN abusers, known drug users, etc. I am really wondering why--if these parents are so unfit that there is obviously NO effort to reunite this family--that there haven't been specific charges filed.

Yea, apparently lots of us can be turned into DCF for doctor shopping. Thankfully, DCF isn't interested in us adults.

 

[MyBelle]

Oh give me a break.
Nobody showed any evidence her parents were abusive.
They haven't been charged with anything.
I am not going to just assume DCF has some super secret evidence no one else does.
DCF spend millions (apparently) on this one case and what they have got to show for it?
A sick child stuck in a wheelchair?
Not very impressive if you ask me.

What exactly is your point? That a sick child in a wheelchair is the fault of DCF? Your logic is a tad twisted, imo.

The parents were verbally abusive to others and it was witnessed. iirc, the Judge noted it in his opinion.

The world has many sick children in wheelchairs. DCF didn't place them in the wheelchair. DCF didn't make them sick.

all, JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Gosh, I go to a dermatologist, a rheumatologist, an internist, a gynecologist, and a gastroenterologist. Guess who is running the coordination of care? Me! If it comes down to it, my rheumatologist gets the final say--and that's only because I give it to him) because my main condition (inflammatory arthritis) can have an effect on all other systems. But you know what? In a post-managed-care insurance health-care world, this idea that various doctors all have time to call each other up and consult about a given patient's care isn't too realistic, especially given that which doctors participate in which health plans can vary even within the same practice.

Maybe I'm just too cynical after living in the Atlanta area for so long, but given that CPS locally often work proactively to return children to parents who are KNOWN abusers, known drug users, etc. I am really wondering why--if these parents are so unfit that there is obviously NO effort to reunite this family--that there haven't been specific charges filed.

With all due respect, this child is in the protection of DCF after an investigation concluded it is in her best interest to NOT be in her parents' custody. I don't know of any other case where CPS has been criticized for trying to keep an ill child safe.

 

[MyBelle]

Then why should facility in CT be?

The father threatened a lawsuit before he lost custody. No custody, no lawsuit. Wayfair has no worries, imo.

An excellent example of how Daddy's "free speech" had direct consequences.

 

[Minette]

With all due respect, this child is in the protection of DCF after an investigation concluded it is in her best interest to NOT be in her parents' custody. I don't know of any other case where CPS has been criticized for trying to keep an ill child safe.

And if the child had an agreed-upon diagnosis and was demonstrably better after being separated from her parents for a reasonable period then I would agree with you 100%. But from I can tell, her parents were following medical advice and had even taken her to another state for treatment based on that medical advice and are basically being punished for being jerks.

OK, maybe they are jerks. But do they beat, rape, or deny medical care to their child?? I don't think so based on my reading. They may want a different sort of medical care for their child than DCF's doctors want, but then where is the unbiased third party medical opinion in this case?

 

[Minette]

What concerns me the most is having a child isolated on a psychiatric ward with limited contact with the family, friends, etc. given a lack of specific allegations of abuse by the parents. I come from a background of having a paranoid schizophrenic mother who was at times a danger to herself due to lack of self care and abuse of her meds and even so she was NEVER isolated like that after the first time she was hospitalized in the early 1960's (and given electric shock 'therapy,' insulin shock 'therapy,' cold bath shock 'therapy' and a host of other completely useless treatments. During later hospitalizations we were allowed to visit fairly freely (and unsupervised, and yes we were young children visiting with our father) and she had access to all kinds of rec opportunities, socialization with other patients, etc. Of course, once the appropriate treatments (anti-psychotic meds) became available she rarely needed hospitalization but you can't tell me that if Justina isn't actively trying to hurt herself or others she needs to be isolated like that with no home visits, limited parental visitation, etc. IMO, the treatment goals for patients with mental illnesses (assuming that is even the case here) should include integrating them with society to the greatest extent possible that accommodates their safety and the safety of others. I really haven't read anything that indicates that this child needs to be locked up for her safety or other's safety, so what gives?

And sure, her parents may be obnoxious and under the spell of right-wing factions, but so what? If they aren't harming their child or neglecting her to the point of harm (and I really haven't seen evidence that they have been) then how are they worse than all the parents who actively rape, beat, and neglect their children and are then reunited with them?

I don't get why THESE parents are considered to be doing such egregious harm (which is never quite specified) compared with others.

 

[MyBelle]

Yea, apparently lots of us can be turned into DCF for doctor shopping. Thankfully, DCF isn't interested in us adults.

You are not correct. I know in my state, DCFS does track doctor and pharmacy expenditures for adults receiving Medicaid. Doctor shopping is not allowed and every physician knows it.

 

[jjenny]

The father threatened a lawsuit before he lost custody. No custody, no lawsuit. Wayfair has no worries, imo.

An excellent example of how Daddy's "free speech" had direct consequences.

Then why would CT have any worries? I don't follow your logic here.
Father doesn't have custody. Child would be transferred to CT from MA without father regaining custody.
So why do you blame the father for CT facility not taking her?

 

[Minette]

But doctor shopping is generally associated with drug seeking behavior and THAT is why it is flagged and frowned upon. If it is just a question of disagreeing with a diagnosis, then I don't see why that is the government's business.

 

[jjenny]

You are not correct. I know in my state, DCFS does track doctor and pharmacy expenditures for adults receiving Medicaid. Doctor shopping is not allowed and every physician knows it.

What exactly is doctor shopping? If don't like how my doctor is treating me, in your view, I shouldn't be allowed to change?
Sounds like complete disregard for freedom of choice if you ask me.

 

[Gardenlady]

And if the child had an agreed-upon diagnosis and was demonstrably better after being separated from her parents for a reasonable period then I would agree with you 100%. But from I can tell, her parents were following medical advice and had even taken her to another state for treatment based on that medical advice and are basically being punished for being jerks.

OK, maybe they are jerks. But do they beat, rape, or deny medical care to their child?? I don't think so based on my reading. They may want a different sort of medical care for their child than DCF's doctors want, but then where is the unbiased third party medical opinion in this case?

We do not know what her medical condition is presently. We have the word of the parents that she is "worse" and pics released by the parents. A picture captures one moment in time. I am absolutely positive that I could post a pic of any of my kids that would make you think they're ill, when they aren't.

If the condition is psychological, treatment does not often improve the person overnight. If it is partially psychological, partially physical, again, same thing. We have no way of knowing WHAT her progress has been. Because we rightfully do not have access to Justina's private health information.

We don't even know the full reasons she was removed from her parents' care. Again, this is private information, known to those who need to know it in order to keep her safe, get her well, and hopefully get her parents to finally, maybe, agree to a plan to get her home if it is safe to do so. So neither I nor anyone else can answer your question of beating, raping, or denying medical care.

Further - in addition to denying care, there is also the possibility of subjecting her to unnecessary procedures. This happens a LOT.

 

[Gardenlady]

But doctor shopping is generally associated with drug seeking behavior and THAT is why it is flagged and frowned upon. If it is just a question of disagreeing with a diagnosis, then I don't see why that is the government's business.

Drug seeking is not the only reason for doctor shopping to be a flag.

 

[jjenny]

What exactly is your point? That a sick child in a wheelchair is the fault of DCF? Your logic is a tad twisted, imo.

The parents were verbally abusive to others and it was witnessed. iirc, the Judge noted it in his opinion.

The world has many sick children in wheelchairs. DCF didn't place them in the wheelchair. DCF didn't make them sick.

all, JMO

But DCF is the one that claim she has somatoform. So why isn't she cured? All this time and nothing to show for it.

 

[jjenny]

Drug seeking is not the only reason for doctor shopping to be a flag.

What is? I am not following what you are trying to say. Should someone be allowed to change a doctor or not? Are we supposed to be treated like prisoners without any freedom of choice here?

 

[MyBelle]

And if the child had an agreed-upon diagnosis and was demonstrably better after being separated from her parents for a reasonable period then I would agree with you 100%. But from I can tell, her parents were following medical advice and had even taken her to another state for treatment based on that medical advice and are basically being punished for being jerks.

OK, maybe they are jerks. But do they beat, rape, or deny medical care to their child?? I don't think so based on my reading. They may want a different sort of medical care for their child than DCF's doctors want, but then where is the unbiased third party medical opinion in this case?

Apparently, the Judge concluded they wanted to deny medical care to their child. They disagreed with the doctors' diagnosis. They threatened to sue the CT institution if they accepted her care. It was the doctors who called in DCF, not the other way around, iirc.

 

[MyBelle]

But doctor shopping is generally associated with drug seeking behavior and THAT is why it is flagged and frowned upon. If it is just a question of disagreeing with a diagnosis, then I don't see why that is the government's business.

Doctor shopping is often done by those seeking govt benefits for disability.

 

[Minette]

For example, if I decide to go try to find a dermatologist or plastic surgeon to remove a facial scar (and this is a real-life example) I might go to five or six doctors before I find one whose plan of treatment I feel comfortable with. Yes, I was 'doctor shopping.' Either I paid for the consultations out of pocket or they were offered free of charge for an initial visit, but as I wasn't being prescribed any potentially addicting meds (and nor was Justina, as far as I can tell) this 'shopping' was NONE of the government's business.

To my knowledge, the stigma of doctor shopping is ALL about drug-seeking behavior. I have not seen any specific allegations of Munchausen by proxy against these parents so I don't get why 'doctor shopping' is at issue at all, I really don't.

As always, I welcome being educated by those who have more knowledge of a case! :rose:

 

[Minette]

Doctor shopping is often done by those seeking govt benefits for disability.

Is that the case here?