help a local baby was taken away for having a uc! - Page 9 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#241 of 394 Old 04-15-2006, 08:00 PM
Banned
 
Penalt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just to add to what my DL has been saying. During the mayhem we encountered with DS, I did become paranoid. Every time the phone or doorbell rang I jumped about 3 feet straight up and I don't doubt my pulse rate about doubled. And I 'knew' I was being a good dad and we were being a good family. Once you discover there are literally no restrictions to a SW's power, paranoia becomes a natural response.

They can, quite literally, break any law if they feel it is justified. They may get disciplined somewhere down the line but its very doubtful anything significant will occur. Where we live they also have a policy of not allowing themselves to be recorded in any form. If you show up at a meeting with a lawyer in tow or insist on having one present they immediately begin removal proceedings because at that point it is obvious that you have something to hide. At least according to one lawyer who we consulted with who was experienced in dealing with cps.

I've never really recovered from that period of our lives. A few months later my heart went into atrial fibrillation and I had to be hospitallized. I've since been converted back to a normal rhythm but any stress level causes me problems. Today, just walking around Wal-Mart my blood pressure was 158/95. I know the wounds my DL has suffered run much deeper.

Some of you here have wondered in the past why my DL tends to blunt, acerbic posts. Know you know why. Its not an excuse, its just that we were damaged by our enounters with cps. Her damage is greater because she actually lost her daughter. Even today if somone knocks when we are not expecting someone we go into defense mode.
Penalt is offline  
#242 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 04:09 AM
 
kaylee18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wanted to note that it is illegal for a hospital to run a drug test without the consent of the person who is being tested. Therefore, if a mom in labor refuses to sign standard admissions forms or anything else that authorizes drug testing, it may not legally be conducted. This is regardless of any state law regarding "mandatory" testing.

The Active Labor Act also requires hospitals to offer requested treatment to any laboring woman up to the point that the baby is born, regardless of her refusal to sign their forms.

Any hospital employee who states otherwise is in error and should be informed that a lawsuit will be forthcoming if s/he persists in attempting to coerce the mother into circumventing the law.
kaylee18 is offline  
#243 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 04:15 AM
Banned
 
Mamid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If a mother refuses drug testing before or during labour, they will covertly test the baby and then turn the results over to the police and CPS if they are positive. They don't need the baby to test either - they have the placenta and all the blood that remains in there.

Google "forced treatment pregnant women" or "forced treatment newborns." It scares me. On the one hand, children deserve to not be born high on drugs. But on the other hand, if you incarcerate women for child abuse on a fetus, women living marginal lives will not willingly choose medical care with their babies for fear of imprisonment and loss of children.

Its too late.. I need sleep... *thud*snore*
Mamid is offline  
#244 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 04:16 AM
 
mamaverdi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylee18
The Active Labor Act also requires hospitals to offer requested treatment to any laboring woman up to the point that the baby is born, regardless of her refusal to sign their forms.
But once the baby is born, THEY have the baby. And then what is one to do?


mv
mamaverdi is offline  
#245 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 06:30 AM
 
kaylee18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamaverdi
But once the baby is born, THEY have the baby. And then what is one to do?
One is to stay out of the hospital if at all possible and mention only a "homebirth" (not a UC) if necessary to medical people. "Sorry, I consider that a private issue and would rather not discuss it," can go a long way.

In case one must go to the hospital during labor, here is my perspective on what one is to do:

Create a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care ahead of time, naming the dp or other trusted party as patient advocate for mom and baby. State in the form specifically which routine measures you decline; require explicit written consent of dp or mom for all procedures; and state that the document exercises the patients' rights of refusal, and as such, supersedes any blanket consent forms that the medical facility may require. This provides a second layer of protection if ignorant staff delay your admittal by insisting you sign the blanket waiver, in which case you may decide to sign in order to expedite matters without giving up your rights. Include a statement that the baby is not going to be admitted once born, unless authorized in writing by a parent. Provide 2 copies to the medical staff, and request both verbally and in writing that one copy be added to your chart while the other is kept on hand for reference (bring a third copy that you keep).

Refuse to sign the blanket consent forms, make it clear that you wish to approve every procedure ahead of time in writing, and write one-sentence consent papers as necessary to authorize needed procedures.

Remind medical staff prior to the birth that the baby is not to be admitted unless authorized in writing by a parent. If in distress, the baby falls under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act as having an "unstable condition," which means that the hospital must provide the child with necessary services parents request, even if they have not signed a blanket consent form. This also will prevent covert drug testing of baby or placenta from being done legally.

Remind the hospital (and CPS if they show up) that parents are aware of their rights and are going to continue to make decisions in the best medical interest of themselves and their child.

If child needs to be admitted for treatment, have a parent accompany child at all times. This will prevent routine unwanted procedures from being performed accidentally, and will also prevent drug testing of baby from being done illegally (illegally obtained results are not admissible in court, but it's less of a hassle if they are not obtained in the first place).

Document in writing the names and offices of all persons entering the room, and audio/video record all conversations with CPS officials, remaining calm and stating clearly that their services are not needed, that the mother and child will both receive all needed medical treatment. Laws regarding recording of conversations vary from state to state, so check local laws -- MA and NH are especially strict.

Contact one's lawyer and write a request for a legal stay if the hospital tries to obtain a court order to remove medical power of attorney from parents (this, btw, is not often threatened, and is threatened much more often than it is actually done. Hospitals discipline and report physicians for requesting court orders in non-emergency situations).

Have a parent remove the baby (if healthy) from the hospital as soon as possible, re-entering only if mother has to stay for treatment and baby needs to nurse, in which case re-iterate that the baby is not being admitted.

Take the baby to a pediatrician sympathetic to parents' medical choices for any medical examination or treatment required.
kaylee18 is offline  
#246 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 10:34 AM
Banned
 
Mamid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In Canada, you show up at a hospital, it is assumed that you are requesting medical aide, so if you are rendered unable to assert your rights and opinions, the hospital will make all the choices for you.

A woman in labour is also considered to be "not of her right mind" although no one will tell her that to her face. Once any drug is taken for pain relief, she is no longer capable of making decisions for herself at all. Her husband/partner doesn't need to have consent from her before hand to get her treatment that may or may not be against her will either.

In fact, the doctors are well versed in the psychological warfare of birth. "You want a healthy baby, don't you?" As if that is the only thing that matters. Lay down that guilt trip and only the most stubborn women will refuse to do "what's right for the baby."

And if mom refuses, even though she isn't in a capacity to choose anyway? In comes CPS to have a talk after the birth. UGH.
Mamid is offline  
#247 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 02:20 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I wanted to note that it is illegal for a hospital to run a drug test without the consent of the person who is being tested. Therefore, if a mom in labor refuses to sign standard admissions forms or anything else that authorizes drug testing, it may not legally be conducted. This is regardless of any state law regarding "mandatory" testing.
When I was pregnant with my first child and at my first prenatal appointment with a doctor, I mentioned that I had smoked a small amount of pot twice within what were probably the first days after conception. (It was an unplanned and unexpected pregnancy.) Not knowing anything about the process of fetal development at that point, I was concerned. The doctor reassured me that there was no chance there would be any effects on the baby.

When I transferred care to a midwife, I requested my records. The doctor had had me tested for several different kinds of drugs, some of which I'd never heard of before, without my knowledge and without my consent. I tested negative, but now I know what a close call that was. If I had gone for my initial prenatal appointment when I first pregnant (rather than at the usual 12 weeks) I would have tested positive for THC, and likely would have had CPS breathing down my neck.
cottonwood is offline  
#248 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 02:26 PM
 
littleteapot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mystery Island
Posts: 3,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamid
In Canada, you show up at a hospital, it is assumed that you are requesting medical aide, so if you are rendered unable to assert your rights and opinions, the hospital will make all the choices for you.

A woman in labour is also considered to be "not of her right mind" although no one will tell her that to her face. Once any drug is taken for pain relief, she is no longer capable of making decisions for herself at all. Her husband/partner doesn't need to have consent from her before hand to get her treatment that may or may not be against her will either.

In fact, the doctors are well versed in the psychological warfare of birth. "You want a healthy baby, don't you?" As if that is the only thing that matters. Lay down that guilt trip and only the most stubborn women will refuse to do "what's right for the baby."

And if mom refuses, even though she isn't in a capacity to choose anyway? In comes CPS to have a talk after the birth. UGH.

Except with a sad face. They did this to me when my son was crowning breech. The doctor put his hand right up me and shoved my baby back toward my womb (which is quite possibly one of the worst and most overwhelming pains I've ever experienced) and said, "Do you want your baby to die? Do you?" and everyone screamed about a c-section. I didnt' even really realize I was in labour five minutes earlier, so I was in shock.
They actually put the pen in my hand, closed my fist around it, and then put the consent form under it - completely ignoring every time I'd said, "I want to deliver vaginally" over and over and over again. At first they just kept saying "no" or forms of, but after a while it was like I wasn't even speaking the words - no one even looked at me.

photosmile2.gifBabs + trekkie.gifCurtis - Parents of Tempest blahblah.gif(08/07/03 autismribbon.gif), Jericho angel2.gif(11/01/05 ribboncesarean.gif), Xan moon.gif(10/03/06 uc.jpghbac.gif), Zephyra baby.gif(06/02/11 hbac.gif). mdcblog5.gif @ babyslime.livejournal.com

littleteapot is offline  
#249 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 02:49 PM
 
majazama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: mountains of bc
Posts: 4,664
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleteapot

Except with a sad face. They did this to me when my son was crowning breech. The doctor put his hand right up me and shoved my baby back toward my womb (which is quite possibly one of the worst and most overwhelming pains I've ever experienced) and said, "Do you want your baby to die? Do you?" and everyone screamed about a c-section. I didnt' even really realize I was in labour five minutes earlier, so I was in shock.
They actually put the pen in my hand, closed my fist around it, and then put the consent form under it - completely ignoring every time I'd said, "I want to deliver vaginally" over and over and over again. At first they just kept saying "no" or forms of, but after a while it was like I wasn't even speaking the words - no one even looked at me.
I see you are in B.C., LTP, in which hospital did this happen? Is the doctors intervention what caused your son to die?
majazama is offline  
#250 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 02:52 PM
 
littleteapot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mystery Island
Posts: 3,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama
I see you are in B.C., LTP, in which hospital did this happen? Is the doctors intervention what caused your son to die?
Oh no no... he had classic potters. Born without kidneys. 100% fatal.

photosmile2.gifBabs + trekkie.gifCurtis - Parents of Tempest blahblah.gif(08/07/03 autismribbon.gif), Jericho angel2.gif(11/01/05 ribboncesarean.gif), Xan moon.gif(10/03/06 uc.jpghbac.gif), Zephyra baby.gif(06/02/11 hbac.gif). mdcblog5.gif @ babyslime.livejournal.com

littleteapot is offline  
#251 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 02:56 PM
Banned
 
Mamid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I had an argument with my OB for DS's birth becuase he was breech until nearly 37 weeks. I wanted to deliver him naturally. But because of "some study" the standard of care for breeches was cesarean and if DS hadn't turned, he was going to schedule me for a version at 38 weeks to be induced the same day.

DP found out which study the sOB referred to. The Hannah Study. I had brought my copy of "Thinking woman's guide" with me and had permission from Henci to copy out the breech birth chapter but the sOB refused to talk to me about a breech birth other than cesarean.

I too would like to know what hospital and specifically, if you pm me, which sOB it was.
Mamid is offline  
#252 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 03:03 PM
 
littleteapot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mystery Island
Posts: 3,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Mamid, I PM'd you.

I was told sometime later by multiple sources that they don't "do breech" at the local hospital, and the OB fed me some bull**** the next day: "It's shown that babies born at 34 weeks do better by c-section" followed by, "If I'd known your baby was going to die anyway I might have considered allowing you a vaginal birth"
With emphasis on the might.

photosmile2.gifBabs + trekkie.gifCurtis - Parents of Tempest blahblah.gif(08/07/03 autismribbon.gif), Jericho angel2.gif(11/01/05 ribboncesarean.gif), Xan moon.gif(10/03/06 uc.jpghbac.gif), Zephyra baby.gif(06/02/11 hbac.gif). mdcblog5.gif @ babyslime.livejournal.com

littleteapot is offline  
#253 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 03:25 PM
Banned
 
Mamid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just read it.



Your story is so much like when I lost my oldest DC. They didn't even know what sex it was because it had both a penis and a vagina. The initial said it was a boy. I refused to let him get autopsied because I wanted that 19 week fetus to have some dignity. He didn't have a chance.

One of these years, I'll post his story.
Mamid is offline  
#254 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 03:26 PM
Banned
 
Mamid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, I got told the "we don't do breech because it isn't the standard of care" and I was at Women's hospital! You would think that THE maternity hospital in BC would be the one to do breeches.

I also learned the hard way that your "birth plan" isn't worth using for TP even if you have copied it word for word from their own standard birth plans and simply changed a few key phrases.

I guess I was lucky with DS in a way. He came an hour and 43 minutes after we got to Women's.
Mamid is offline  
#255 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 04:01 PM
 
sapphire_chan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 27,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pam_and_Abigail
Hope you don't mind I altered the order of your questionnaire- this thread has made me feel quite cynical about the system...

Question 1: You walk into a home with an income below the poverty line. There are dirty dishes in the sink, the floor needs to be washed, the child is sitting in just a diaper, and the mother is rushing about with a skirt half-zipped, a blouse half-buttoned, one earring and one stocking on, trying to comb her hair. What action does this situation warrant?
A. I would immediately begin proceedings to get the child removed from the home.
B. I would document the state of the home in my report, but would take no special action.
C. I would apologize and ask if I could return when she is home from work and leave.
D. I would apologize, schedule a new time for a home visit, and prepare a packet on assistance programs before the visit.

Your results:
If you answered...
A. You will make an excellent social worker and we're pleased to have you.
B. While this answer does not disqualify you, it is recommended that you try to instill your work with less compassion.
C. Please try not to burn yourself out by doing too much, we need people like you to stay in our department for a long time.
D. You are obviously unsuited for this line of work and your application is hereby rejected.
Yeah, that does seem to be how things actually go. But if you think about it, in Mamid's experiences there were a few good ones. It's just there were mostly OCD neat freaks with the common sense of fruit flies.
sapphire_chan is offline  
#256 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 05:13 PM
 
Lizzardbits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Minnesota
Posts: 853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamaverdi
It's not abusers who are the targets of CPS; it's poor people.
Isn't that^^^ the truth!!! At least in my case, it was.

Karin, Wife to Dear Sweet English Husband~Soon to be Legally American. Mom to Zach~13, Lily~9, Alex~2, and Izzy or Zeke arriving July 2010! Living a life full of LOVE!
Lizzardbits is offline  
#257 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 10:17 PM
 
kaylee18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamid
In Canada, you show up at a hospital, it is assumed that you are requesting medical aide, so if you are rendered unable to assert your rights and opinions, the hospital will make all the choices for you.

A woman in labour is also considered to be "not of her right mind" although no one will tell her that to her face. Once any drug is taken for pain relief, she is no longer [considered] capable of making decisions for herself at all. Her husband/partner doesn't need to have consent from her before hand to get her treatment that may or may not be against her will either.
Dp's consent will be required if the appropriate legal documentation is presented. Blanket consent forms are what permit this to take place legally.
I'm not saying it ought to be that way, because it's incredibly screwed up. I'm not saying parents bring this upon themselves by not undergoing legal gymnastics, because they shouldn't have to. I am saying that, for those who in future may be in this situation, there is a way to assert your rights even in such a messed-up system.

Quote:
I also learned the hard way that your "birth plan" isn't worth using for TP...
Yes indeed. Power of attorney and advance directives will get you much farther than a "birth plan," which has no legal standing at all.

Quote:
In fact, the doctors are well versed in the psychological warfare of birth. "You want a healthy baby, don't you?" As if that is the only thing that matters. Lay down that guilt trip and only the most stubborn women will refuse to do "what's right for the baby."
I guess I'm just a most stubborn woman. Physicians are full of BS, and should always be regarded from an informed and skeptical perspective.

In response to "You want a healthy baby, don't you?" I'd say, "No, I want a baby with whatever level of health he is genetically capable of enjoying."
I would give up any and all measures of my comfort and health if it made a child of mine more likely to experience such health, but in general it won't. In general, I think UC is the way to go to reduce health risks to the baby. A 30% chance of C-section (besides all the other interventions) poses a huge risk to a baby's health.

Quote:
And if mom refuses, even though she isn't in a capacity to choose anyway? In comes CPS to have a talk after the birth. UGH.
Not necessarily; I've read plenty of birth stories involving assertive parents who prevented physicians from cutting them, signed out AMA, refused shots, etc., and CPS was not called. Even when CPS shows up, though, there are ways of minimizing your risks with regard to them. Again, not that it ought to be that way, but you do have defenses at your disposal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds
The doctor had had me tested for several different kinds of drugs, some of which I'd never heard of before, without my knowledge and without my consent.
Without your knowledge, yes. Without your consent? Unlikely. The tests were probably authorized by a blanket consent form that you signed before getting care. Again, they can legally test your blood for anything they want to test it for, if you sign the blanket consent forms. If you signed no consent forms at all (again, unlikely), then the tests were illegal and complaints should be filed with the medical board and the courts.

....

I had read Jericho's birth story a while ago, and was appalled at the sOB's behavior. It was one inspiration for the measures that dh and I are taking to ensure that my and our children's legal rights are defended, in case we require medical care. I am sorry both about the loss of Jericho and the abuse inflicted by the physicians involved.
kaylee18 is offline  
#258 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 10:43 PM
Banned
 
Mamid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
In response to "You want a healthy baby, don't you?" I'd say, "No, I want a baby with whatever level of health he is genetically capable of enjoying."
I got that guilt trip with both DS and DD.

"I've already buried one child. Your point is?"

That shut one abusive trainee OB up long enough for DP to arrive and back me.

OT - I have my test results from Canadian Blood Services. I'm O+ but there's an anomoly in my results. Red Cell Antibody Screen: NEG. Clinically significant red cell antibodies were not detected.
-> follow up specimens requested for next pregnancy.

Like WTF? HUH?

If I'm O+ why do they need more specimens? They have them for all my previous pregnancies except my 19w angel. Why do they need more? WTF?
Mamid is offline  
#259 of 394 Old 04-16-2006, 10:43 PM
Banned
 
Mamid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Without your knowledge, yes. Without your consent? Unlikely.
Without your knowledge IS without your consent. Once they have the blood, they can test it for anything they want.
Mamid is offline  
#260 of 394 Old 04-17-2006, 05:01 AM
 
kaylee18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamid
Without your knowledge IS without your consent.
No, that's not true. When you sign a blanket consent form, you give consent for tests to be performed without your knowledge. That's one major thing that admissions consent forms are for. They are intended to enable the medical personnell to legally perform any medical procedure they darn well please. Once you've signed a form that [effectively] says, "I hereby waive my right not to have tests performed without my knowledge," you have waived your right not to have tests performed without your knowledge. You have therefore given consent.

So don't sign the admissions form.
kaylee18 is offline  
#261 of 394 Old 04-17-2006, 02:47 PM
Banned
 
Mamid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If you don't sign admission forms, they won't treat you.

Catch 22.
Mamid is offline  
#262 of 394 Old 04-17-2006, 05:16 PM
 
kaylee18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamid
If you don't sign admission forms, they won't treat you.

Catch 22.
Not true in the case of active labor. In the US, EMTALA requires them to treat you if you are in labor or have a need for emergency treatment, regardless of whether you sign their admissions form. Just say, "I am in active labor, and am requesting treatment under EMTALA. Dp or I will provide consent forms for the services we are requesting. We will not be signing the admissions form." Hospital personnell are aware of COBRA (of which EMTALA is a part) and of the ramifications of breaking federal law. Similar legal protection exists in Canada.

The admissions form can also be 'customized' prior to signing if you have no emergency and are not in active labor. This is a much less desirable option, but it confers some legal protection. ICAN has details on EMTALA and admission form customization.

Consent forms signify consent. If you don't consent, don't sign.

I know this is easier said than done. I know coercion is often illegally applied in these situations. It sucks that the system has gotten to the place it is. But we do still have rights, and ways of defending them.
kaylee18 is offline  
#263 of 394 Old 04-17-2006, 05:58 PM
Banned
 
Mamid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The problem is that if you show any "suspicious" signs, they will test you or your baby's blood for drug use and more. No prenatal care is a sign of a drug user (nevermind that I can't find a doctor here). If you are acting "odd" as well. If you refuse a treatment or many other reasons. The staff will do a covert test and if it is positive, the authorities will be informed.

Hospitals also have in-house social workers that are in direct contact with CPS and other agencies. Sometimes they work to our benefit (like DP's heart attack and getting the welfare worker to believe me when I said that he was in the ICU) or they will report to CPS even if there is no abuse found, nevermind suspected.

Its covert. See, the placenta and after birth are all by products and once down to pathology, they can do a ton of stuff with it without needing any consent. After all, its just a waste product.

Formed signed or not, I sincerely doubt a judge will reverse a test that was performed when it came out positive. Maybe rule it inadmissable in evidence, but since when have legalities that stopped CPS?
Mamid is offline  
#264 of 394 Old 04-17-2006, 06:45 PM
 
kaylee18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamid
The problem is that if you show any "suspicious" signs, they will test you or your baby's blood for drug use and more. ... The staff will do a covert test and if it is positive, the authorities will be informed.
They cannot do this legally if you did not consent. If they do it illegally, that action is grounds for both criminal and civil charges against the hospital and individual staff members. If they are informed ahead of time that you are aware of this fact, they are even less likely to perform illegal tests.

Quote:
Hospitals also have in-house social workers that are in direct contact with CPS and other agencies. Sometimes... they will report to CPS even if there is no abuse found, nevermind suspected.
A major reason not to sign any waiver of rights.

Quote:
See, the placenta and after birth are all by products and once down to pathology, they can do a ton of stuff with it without needing any consent. After all, its just a waste product.
If they run a test on you or your baby without your consent, the testing is illegal and the results are inadmissible, regardless of where samples are obtained. Waste product or not. The results are applicable to you; therefore, the test has been performed on you.

Quote:
Formed signed or not, I sincerely doubt a judge will reverse a test that was performed when it came out positive. Maybe rule it inadmissable in evidence, but since when have legalities that stopped CPS?
Legalities have stopped CPS many times. Legalities are stopping CPS in the (homeschooling) Creighton family case right now. There is also a slew of caselaw from past incidents showing legalities stopping CPS. That is why CPS is so keen on getting parents to sign forms. Signing forms gives them legality. They want legality. Illegal actions will catch up with them, and they know it. This knowledge doesn't always stop them from doing illegal things, but in many cases it will.
In any case, refusing to sign gives you legal recourse when CPS or medical people proceed with illegal actions. If you sign, you have agreed, and their actions are made legal.

Results from tests performed without consent are not admissible in court. It is not necessary for the judge to 'reverse' the test. Inadmissible means that CPS cannot use the results to further their case in court. They may still use the test results among themselves to bolster their bravado, but in the end, relying on evidence that is inadmissible in court will bite them in the butt.

Again, a test performed without your consent is also grounds for criminal and civil charges against the hospital and medical staff. That is why hospitals are so keen on getting patients to sign admissions forms. It gives them legality.
kaylee18 is offline  
#265 of 394 Old 04-17-2006, 07:31 PM
Banned
 
Mamid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
If they run a test on you or your baby without your consent, the testing is illegal and the results are inadmissible, regardless of where samples are obtained. Waste product or not. The results are applicable to you; therefore, the test has been performed on you.
Quote:
Legalities have stopped CPS many times.
That doesn't matter to them when they are building the case against you. It only matters when and if it is brought up in court. Meanwhile, your baby, who was apprehended for your suspected drug use because their blood tested positive, has been in foster care for months if not years and has been denied the right to mother's milk, mother's touch and more.

If you have one of "their" lawyers who tells parents to simply go along with whatever CPS wants, you can expect to loose your child. If you have one of them that fights CPS, then things will be thrown out of court.

See.. CPS rarely puts criminal charges on parents for suspected abuse. The trial is in family court not criminal court so the same things that would get thrown out in criminal are admissable in family even if unfounded or obtained illegally.

Not signing the permission slips at the hospital can be considered child neglect - specifically medical - and the hospital can and will take custody of the newborn so that the tests can be performed even without your permission. Just ask any Jehovah's Witness about what hospitals can and can't do. How many of them, specifically their children, have undergone forced blood transfusions? You might not agree with their faith, but you have to agree with their right to choose, because that's the same right you have.

Then there's the case of the woman who was in labour and left the hospital because the doctors wanted to do a cesearean, went to another and got a natural birth while the first hospital managed to procure a court order that gave them custody of the fetus - and the woman - because they expected her to return at any moment.

Or the cancer patient who's baby was sliced out of her because the doctors wanted to save the baby. Baby lived a few hours. She died a few days later. Her family finally successfully sued, but that took years.

Hospitals see the court cases as something down the road that might happen. In the immediate present, all they care about is "a healthy baby" parental consent be damned. If there is any suspicion, they test. Even if there isn't, a lot test just as part of routine.
Mamid is offline  
#266 of 394 Old 04-17-2006, 09:00 PM
 
kaylee18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamid
That doesn't matter to them when they are building the case against you. It only matters when and if it is brought up in court. Meanwhile, your baby, who was apprehended for your suspected drug use because their blood tested positive, has been in foster care for months if not years and has been denied the right to mother's milk, mother's touch and more.
You have a right to make medical, educational, and other parental decisions for your child even if the child has been removed from your custody. You can insist (using legal documentation) that the baby be fed your pumped milk and nursed during visits. It can be difficult to produce enough milk while pumping, and artificial nipples used to administer breastmilk can also hinder the nursing relationship. So the situation would still suck. Which is a major reason to stay far, far away from hospitals and not to share information with them unnecessarily. But at least you can retain all decision-making rights that have not been legally revoked.
You also have a right to have your case heard within a reasonable period of time. In the Creighton case, for example, HSLDA is assisting, and the children have been returned within a couple weeks of their removal. They should never have been taken in the first place, of course, but the family did not have to wait months or years to have their case heard.

Quote:
If you have one of "their" lawyers who tells parents to simply go along with whatever CPS wants, you can expect to lose your child.
: (<-insert sad face here) Very much so.

Quote:
If you have one of them that fights CPS, then things will be thrown out of court.
Absolutely.

Quote:
See.. CPS rarely puts criminal charges on parents for suspected abuse. The trial is in family court not criminal court so the same things that would get thrown out in criminal are admissable in family even if unfounded or obtained illegally.
You can file a motion to have the case transferred to criminal court, or to another jurisdiction within family court. Also, even in family court, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable.

Quote:
Not signing the permission slips at the hospital can be considered child neglect - specifically medical - and the hospital can and will take custody of the newborn so that the tests can be performed even without your permission.
Not quite. Court orders are obtained to administer lifesaving medical treatment that is being refused by the parents, not to take custody because parents would not sign admissions forms. Refusal to seek treatment on a child's behalf for life-threatening or for treatable, potentially permanently debilitating conditions constitutes medical neglect. Refusal to sign admissions forms does not constitute medical neglect. If you are writing and signing one-sentence permission forms for necessary treaments, the hospital does not have a leg to stand on.

[hospital]"Hello, I'm calling from XX Hospital and I want to get an emergency court order on behalf of ZZZ."

[judge]"Okay, filling out form now. What treatments do you want the court order to authorize?"

"Hep b vaccine. And eye ointment. And the Vitamin K injection and a blood test."

"What life-threatening symtoms are you seeing?"

"Well... um... the patient appears healthy. It's just that the parents are refusing to sign our standard admissions form."

"I see. Now listen. You can't get an emergency court order unless there's an emergency. Next time you wake me up at 2 in the morning, you'd better have a better reason than THAT."
You can also file an emergency motion for a stay of a court order that is being sought in order to administer non-lifesaving or arguably lifesaving treament.

Quote:
Just ask any Jehovah's Witness about what hospitals can and can't do. How many of them, specifically their children, have undergone forced blood transfusions? You might not agree with their faith, but you have to agree with their right to choose, because that's the same right you have.
Actually, I don't agree that JWs have a right to allow their children to die rather than receive blood transfusions. That is a very different scenario from a healthy newborn not being admitted to a hospital for a well baby check. Also, JWs have, in many situations, successfully refused the administration of blood products because there was not a life-threatening condition in their cases. Incidentally, even when court orders are obtained to give JWs life-saving blood transfusions, the children are not usually taken.

Quote:
Then there's the case of the woman who was in labour and left the hospital because the doctors wanted to do a cesearean, went to another and got a natural birth while the first hospital managed to procure a court order that gave them custody of the fetus - and the woman - because they expected her to return at any moment.
Sounds like an interesting case. Got a link?

Quote:
Or the cancer patient who's baby was sliced out of her because the doctors wanted to save the baby. Baby lived a few hours. She died a few days later. Her family finally successfully sued, but that took years.
A very sad case that I am acquainted with. This is part of the caselaw that hospitals and their risk management departments are now aware of. This scenario has not repeated itself because no hospital in its right mind would go down the same path today. Instead, they push for blanket consent forms to be signed.

Quote:
Hospitals see the court cases as something down the road that might happen. In the immediate present, all they care about is "a healthy baby" parental consent be damned.
It seems to me that hospital staff are very deeply concerned about what might happen down the road legally. That's why they push for signatures on their forms. That's why they actually obtain emergency court orders before performing lifesaving medical procedures on patients whose parents will not consent. Physicians can lose their licenses and livelihood over individual cases of malpractice. This is something that concerns them deeply. So you stand a reasonable chance of protecting yourself by refusing to sign.

Quote:
If there is any suspicion, they test. Even if there isn't, a lot test just as part of routine.
Yes, they want to test if they suspect you. Yes, many hospitals have drug testing as a part of their routine. That's what makes it so crucial not to sign the blanket consent forms and to make it clear that you know your rights: that if they perform routine drug testing on you, you will pursue every possible avenue of recourse.
kaylee18 is offline  
#267 of 394 Old 04-17-2006, 10:48 PM
 
muldey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: RI
Posts: 1,131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylee18

[hospital]"Hello, I'm calling from XX Hospital and I want to get an emergency court order on behalf of ZZZ."

[judge]"Okay, filling out form now. What treatments do you want the court order to authorize?"

"Hep b vaccine. And eye ointment. And the Vitamin K injection and a blood test."

"What life-threatening symtoms are you seeing?"

"Well... um... the patient appears healthy. It's just that the parents are refusing to sign our standard admissions form."

"I see. Now listen. You can't get an emergency court order unless there's an emergency. Next time you wake me up at 2 in the morning, you'd better have a better reason than THAT."
This is what they tried to do to us.The ped called CPS trying to force the vit k and the eye ointment.They said NO,emergency life saving medical treatment ONLY,even though he was in their custody.Didn't stop the dr from telling the nurses to give it to him anyway,if we ever left ds alone with them.Never happened.Dh did allow the hep b (he felt ds would not come home if we refused),and we did allow the blood test.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylee18
Yes, they want to test if they suspect you. Yes, many hospitals have drug testing as a part of their routine. That's what makes it so crucial not to sign the blanket consent forms and to make it clear that you know your rights: that if they perform routine drug testing on you, you will pursue every possible avenue of recourse.
With my friend they did it when she went pee,said they were just measuring her output. : Her dd tested negative for everything,btw.They tested her dd's urine,poop,and blood.No drugs of any kind were found,not even pot.She was 8lbs 12 oz,and the ped wrote on the forms that she was an UNDERWEIGHT baby(what were my kids at 6lbs 10oz and 7lbs 1 oz then??) with drug withdrawals,severe shakes.I held her right after birth,I stayed with her while they cleaned up her mama.She only shook in the freezing cold o.r.(I was shivering!),never after that.They still had her dd for 5 months.She is poor,and could not afford a lawyer,and they knew it.We only had the horrible lawyer we had because my dad payed for her.

Student mama to one awesome,talented and unique dd,15 and one amazing, sweet and strong ds,12(born with heart defect Tetralogy of Fallot,also on the autism spectrum),9 cats,and 2 gerbils.
muldey is offline  
#268 of 394 Old 04-17-2006, 11:42 PM
Banned
 
Penalt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylee18
Actually, I don't agree that JWs have a right to allow their children to die rather than receive blood transfusions. That is a very different scenario from a healthy newborn not being admitted to a hospital for a well baby check. Also, JWs have, in many situations, successfully refused the administration of blood products because there was not a life-threatening condition in their cases. Incidentally, even when court orders are obtained to give JWs life-saving blood transfusions, the children are not usually taken.



Sounds like an interesting case. Got a link?
Much snippage for brevity.

Okay, I am an ex-Jehovah's Witness. Did it until I was 23. My father is an inactive one. My mother was active until her death 5 years ago from cancer. I know about this situation in that all JW's are thoroughly trained on what to do in a 'blood situation'.

JW's firmly believe that to accept blood into their bodies through any means is a direct violation of God's law. Ask, and they will be able to quote you scriptures both old and new testament on this subject. Here is a link to section on their official website on the subject:

http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb...article_07.htm

It is by no means the only section of their website about this. JW's would rather die than accept a blood transfusion. It is as simple as that. They will, however, accept many non-blood substitutes. JW's naturally extend this belief to their children, just as parents of any faith extend their beliefs. JW's Whether or not they have the actual right to do so, they BELIEVE they do. When faced with such an adamantine resolve many physicians will immediatly begin removal or guardianship proceedings rather than attempt to find a way to work with the parents.

Here is an interesting online article about this:

http://www.med.unipi.it/patchir/bloodl/bmr/legal.htm

A section of which states:
The U.S. Supreme Court in Prince v Commonwealth of Massachusetts (3) has ruled that, "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children." The court determined that the right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose children to ill health or death. This ruling has been used in supporting the constitutionality of mandatory vaccination programs and forced school attendance.

Transfusions of minors against parental wishes were tested in Jehovah 's Witnesses v Kings County (Harborview) (4). This was a class action suit that sought to enjoin all physicians and hospitals in the state of Washington from administering blood to plaintiffs in the future. Ten children were included in this suit. The court ruled that Prince v Commonwealth of Massachussetts was pertinent and upheld the state of Washington's child neglect regulations that allowed minors to be removed from their parent's care for necessary transfusions. The law is fairly clear; lifesaving transfusions can be given to minors against parental wishes."

JW's would rather die than allow their beliefs to be violated. A large number of JW's have martyred themselves over the years for refusal to compromise their beliefs. JW's do not glorify dying for their beliefs but they do believe it is better to die for one's beliefs than living with a violation of them. JW's belief in a resurrection for the faithful and so view a death for keeping true to doctrine as a temporary condition only.

I may not believe what they believe anymore but I do understand them.

Oh, littleteapot, trying getting a moxa stick from a local acupuncturist. We used that to get DS to turn and within 30 minutes of its use DS turned. PM me or better yet Mamid for the correct procedure on its use. The stick cost us 5 bucks and we even passed the unused remainder on to our midwife for future use with other women.
Penalt is offline  
#269 of 394 Old 04-17-2006, 11:46 PM
Banned
 
Mamid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fraser Valley
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
The law is fairly clear; lifesaving transfusions can be given to minors against parental wishes.
And that opened a huge can of worms for all parents. If its "lifesaving" for the baby, even if the parents deny consent, they can do almost anything up to and including ceseareans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penalt
This ruling has been used in supporting the constitutionality of mandatory vaccination programs and forced school attendance.
Now.. do you believe me when I say that the hospitals, and CPS, will walk all over parental wishes with regards to children and healthcare?
Mamid is offline  
#270 of 394 Old 04-18-2006, 12:19 AM
 
kaylee18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 725
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamid
And that opened a huge can of worms for all parents. If its "lifesaving" for the baby, even if the parents deny consent, they can do almost anything up to and including ceseareans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penalt
This ruling has been used in supporting the constitutionality of mandatory vaccination programs and forced school attendance.
Now.. do you believe me when I say that the hospitals, and CPS, will walk all over parental wishes with regards to children and healthcare?
Nope... sorry. Mandatory vaccination programs and forced school attendance are not, in fact, constitutional. Every state has a legal vaccine exemption available, with a religious exemption available in all but 2. Homeschooling is also legal in every state, and in every Canadian province. I was homeschooled legally, and know many children who are legally not vaccinated.

Now, there is a procedure in the U.S. that medical staff can follow in order to legally administer lifesaving treatment to children against parents' wishes. However, it only applies to emergency lifesaving treatment, and only to children already born. Vaccines are not emergency lifesaving treatment. Also, infants do not legally exist until they are born, unless crimes are committed against the mother that cause harm to which she objects. Cases in both the US and Canada have affirmed this legal finding. Given this finding, cesarean sections done against the will of the mother and in the absence of a signed waiver have no legality whatsoever.

This is not to say that CPS, and occasionally also medical staff, will not break the law. But if you put them in a position where they would have to clearly and obviously break the law in order to do unwanted, unnecessary things to you or your children, then you and your children are at much less risk than if you legalize their actions by signing waivers.

I am also not saying that when children are lost or harmed after their parents sign waivers, that it is the parents' fault for signing; nor that refusing to sign would provide protection in every case. All I am saying is that it is better to have a legal leg to stand on than not.
kaylee18 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off