Posted on 08/10/2005 12:35:31 PM PDT by msjhall
BOISE --- Back in 2002, Corissa Mueller took her then five-week-old daughter Taige to St. Luke's hospital.
Corissa believed the little girl had a cold, but the doctor thought it was more.
He requested a spinal tap and antibiotics for what the hospital says was a five to ten percent chance the little girl had meningitis. Corissa refused treatment.
Police were called and her little girl was taken away.
Today, three years later, the Muellers were in federal court with a claim against Saint Luke’s, Child Protective Services, the doctor and three police officers.
(Excerpt) Read more at ktvb.com ...
HOW COULD ANYONE COULD SUPPORT THE ACTIONS OF THE DR?
11. Corissa had advised defendant MacDonald that Dr. Erickson had explained to her
the tests and procedures that St. Luke's E.R. would want to perform on her daughter, and that, in
concert with Dr. Erickson's advice, she desired to wait until she had an opportunity to discuss
with Dr. Erickson the lab results from the initial tests before the administration of any antibiotics
or any spinal tap. Further, Corissa explained to defendant MacDonald her concerns from her
own research regarding injecting her 5 week old baby with antibiotics and performing a spinal
tap on the infant. Corissa did request and consent to a urinalysis, blood test, chest x-ray, and an
IV for nourishment, all of which were performed.
12. Defendant MacDonald stated that it was hospital protocol to administer antibiotics
and a spinal tap to infants six weeks and younger who have a temperature of 100.4° F. or above.
He told Corissa that there was a 5% risk of meningitis associated with flu-like symptoms.
13. In assessing the contrasting risks of antibiotics and a spinal tap against the slight
5
risk of meningitis in light of the flu-like symptoms that all of her family had suffered, Corissa did
not consent to the administration of antibiotics or a spinal tap at that time, and stated that she
wanted to wait until the lab results were returned on the initial tests.
14. During this period, Corissa contacted Dr. Erickson several times.
15. Corissa's decision not to give antibiotics and not to have an invasive and
potentially dangerous spinal tap performed on her five week old child was reasonable under the
circumstances, and well within her prerogative as parent of Taige Mueller. Taige Muller was not
in any imminent danger, and the risks of performing the spinal tap were at least as great as the
risks of not performing it. Each of the defendants knew or should have known that Corissa's
judgment was reasonable.
16. When the lab results came back all negative and normal, Corissa contacted Dr.
Erickson and discussed her progress further. At approximately 12:23 a.m., on August 13, 2003,
following administration of fluids to her daughter, Taige's temperature had dropped to 98.9° F.
At that time Taige was nursing well and the rash she had developed was less severe. At
approximately 1:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 13, 2002, Corissa asked a nurse if he would begin
the discharge procedure, since she wanted to take Taige home if her temperature continued to
remain down.
17. Unbeknownst to Corissa, defendant MacDonald had called Child Protective
Services ("CPS") of the Idaho Health and Welfare Department and was planning to enforce
hospital protocol without her permission.
6
18. Sometime after 1:00 a.m., defendant MacDonald came in with defendant Rogers,
who introduced himself to Corissa. Defendant Rogers advised Corissa that, although she was not
being accused of child abuse, she was endangering her child by postponing the antibiotics and
spinal tap. Corissa attempted to explain to him her reasoning for postponing and avoiding these
procedures and her view regarding the conflicting dangers involved. Defendant Rogers then
threatened to declare Taige in imminent danger despite the fact that he knew (or should have
known) that she was not.
19. At approximately 1:40 a.m., defendant MacDonald came in and requested to take
Taige's temperature. Corissa handed the child to him on the table so he could take the
temperature. MacDonald subsequently kept Taige and refused to return her.
20. Neither defendant MacDonald nor the police officers inquired concerning Taige's
feeding history.
21. Neither defendant MacDonald nor anyone else at St. Luke's nor anyone associated
with CPS nor any of the City Defendants attempted to contact, or did contact, Eric Mueller
before they interfered with his rights of parental custody.
22. Detective Rogers then stepped in front of Corissa preventing her access to the
telephone and shoved a form "Notice to the Court" (Idaho Code § 16-1613) into her mid-section
stating that the child had been seized and removed to a shelter. Corissa turned around to see her
child being taken away by defendant MacDonald, and she was dragged protesting down the hall
by two police officers, defendants Green and Snyder.
7
23. Although the Notice to the Court under Idaho Code § 16-1613 is supposed to
inform the Court of the place to which the child is being taken, the Notice given to Corissa did
not.
24. In fact, Taige was not taken to a shelter much less "removed" to anywhere, as the
Notice stated. Rather, she was kept in the hospital and forced to undergo medical procedures to
which her mother had objected. The statute under which Detective Rogers purported to act
(Idaho Code § 16-1612) does not authorize transfer of legal custody to the state nor does it
authorize the state to make medical decisions for a minor. Because Taige was not in any serious
danger, it also did not authorize Taige's seizure.
25. While there is a provision of Idaho state law that permits a court to order
emergency medical treatment of a child, viz., Idaho Code § 16-1616, no effort was made to
comply with that provision. Each of the defendants in this case deliberately avoided using that
provision because it would have required them to justify their illegal actions before a court.
26. Defendant MacDonald did not have a reasonable belief that Corissa's and/or Eric's
legal guardianship of Taige had been properly taken away.
27. Corissa demanded that her baby, a nursing infant, be returned to her. She
repeatedly asked to use the telephone to call her husband and Dr. Erickson, and was continually
denied the use of the telephone by the police officers. Instead, the police officers threatened to
handcuff her. Green and Snyder invited her to leave and asked her when she was going to go
home. She repeatedly stated and explained to the officers that she could not possibly leave her
8
baby.
This wasn't thought of in the ER, it was an idea that my wife brought up to her neurologist 7 days after she entered the hospital.
How often does one experience the symptoms of bacterial meningitis for 7 days and survive?
Exactly, thank you.
Yeah, well I agree with your conclusion, but I would caution that what you posted is just the allegations. Lawyers often allege a lot more than they can prove. It's not unethical to do that as long as you have some basis for the allegation.
I will try and keep up with this case and post updates
"...stylin19a (In golf, some are long, I'm "Lama Long")"
And some are "Long Knockers." Sorry, off the topic... couldn't resist....
boy, longknockers...could have some fun with that
like here: http://www.missioncreep.com/newberry/sorry/image5.html
LOL!! Where do you think I got the name? Used to live in Philly....
LOL!! Where do you think I got the name? Used to live in Philly....
And if she would have had it and the hospital would have not run the tests they would still SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE SUE!
I think everyone can agree that lawsuits are ruining health care!
Does anyone know if any naturopath's are given hospital privileges? I ask, because I am a lot more comfortable with an ND who will spend the time to get to know a patient than I am with many of the doctors I have seen who just rush people in and out as quickly as possible.
Follow the money...........
BTW, do NOT read the Dean Koontz book "The House of Thunder."
Brilliant, you're simply not living up to your name with this post. The only way the doctor could be "completely convinced" that the child had meningitis would be to check the spinal fluid for white blood cells.
I am the parent of a child who did in fact contract meningitis at eight weeks old. I don't know what the "odds" of her having it before the diagnosis were and frankly, I don't care! Any chance that my child would possibly have a deadly disease is good enough for me. I also had a friend who died of undiagnosed meninigitis in two days. It's not something to fool around with. Yes, a spinal tap is horrible and I cried my heart out hearing my child's screams but it saved her life.
Give me a break, we're supposed to trust the judgment of these parents over doctors who have been through medical school and work in an emergency room with the sole goal of saving lives? If the child did in fact have meningitis and died or became severely disabled, they would certainly be falling all over themselves to sue and claim that they shouldn't have been allowed to make the decision. Either way, they want to make a buck! I'm all for individual rights, but not when it comes to the life of a child.
So you're saying that the doctor should have called the cops and the cops should have seized the child?
Not necessarily. My daughter had not had contact with anyone who had meningitis. Of course, she was reported to the health department for monitoring. Her pediatrician took to calling her the "World Famous Baby". She recovered beautifully, except that her teeth were a little damaged from the week of heavy-duty antibiotics. We caught it early.
Doctors don't mess around with infants this young who present with a high fever and irritability. As an earlier poster pointed out, they can't complain of the classic symptoms of stiff neck, light sensitivity, headache.
No, I think the doctor should have let her go "against medical advice". If they want to have a dead baby, too bad. After all, this mom could have legally aborted her just five short weeks before. I think these parents were stupid and they are likely very lucky that their infant did not have a deadly disease.
However, your comment was predicated on the statement that the doctor should have been "completely convinced" it was meningitis before recommending the spinal tap. Something that is impossible without the spinal tap.
Now you're changing the argument! Not brilliant!
Yes we should. You presume that the state and the doctor care more for the well being of the child than the parent. The other poster is correct, make her sign a release form and send them on their way. Medicine is the most imperfect of all sciences. All too often the cure is worse than the disease. Even though we know some parents are going to be stupid, act stupid, and/or make the wrong decision, it still should remain their decision, not the states. This doctor better have good malpractice insurance, he's going to need it.
No I'm not changing the argument. I'm saying that if he'd done the test, and it showed she had meningitis, then he would have been justified in calling the cops. Short of that, he was not justified in calling the cops. That's exactly what you just said. How is your conclusion different from mine?
See my post before. I agree that he should have signed her out "AMA". However, these parents are idiots. They bring their infant to the emergency room for a suspected cold but don't want to have a test to see if she has a deadly disease?
If you don't want to subject yourself to the evil medical establishment, don't go to the emergency room. Those people are there to treat patients and save lives!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.