Posted on 07/01/2006 11:43:05 AM PDT by junker
SEATTLE - An ailing 9-month-old baby had surgery Friday to insert a catheter that will allow for future kidney dialysis. His mother had tried desperately to prevent the surgery, seeking to pursue alternative natural treatments.
Earlier Friday, a Tacoma judge refused Tina Carlsen's request to block the surgery. Carlsen, 34, of Sumner, spent five days in jail after she took her son, Riley Rogers, out of a Seattle hospital on June 22, prompting a two-day statewide Amber Alert.
I'm not a big fan of foster homes and social workers, but it sounds like time to take that child away from the mother. This "natural cures" stuff can be dangerous when you take it so far as to refuse necessary surgery. What's unnatural about that anyway? Even the ancients performed surgery.
If dialysis is unnatural, so are vaccinations. We're all living against God's will at this rate.
I'm curious to know when you feel that it would be inappropriate to take a child away from its mother? If the mother refuses to have a c-section? If the mother refuses to vaccinate her child? If a mother refuses for her child to have chemo? Is their any medical emergency where you feel the parental rights should trump the medical personelles professional opinion?
Here is
"It used to be called extortion when a person obtained money or property from another through coercion or intimidation. Now it is just good medical care. Parents not only have the threat of losing custody of their children, they now have the piling on effect of having to pay all the medical bills, legal fees, time away from jobs, not to mention the mental anguish of being separated from beloved children."
Jenny
The right thing to say to these clowns is, "Human intelligence is natural, God-given. Using it, glorifies Him." That's my opinion.
Don't get me wrong; I'm very skeptical of government interference on parental authority and the frightening doors that can open. Nontheless, there does need to be a line drawn. If a parent is willfully putting their child in grave danger someone has to intervene in the interest of the child. It's a gray area, but if you're talking kidney dialysis you are talking about a medical emergency treament for a critically sick person. C-sections are a bit less extreme, but usually failing to have a necessary c-section is dangerous for both mother and child; she'd be putting them both at risk. Vaccinations are a preventative measure, so that's a whole other ballpark. Here's a question for you: if a child goes into cardiac arretst and requires CPR and defibrillation, can the parent legally stop emergency personnel from administering it? There comes a point were it simply becomes murder.
In general parents' rights should trump those of the state, but at some point (and life-threatening illness is probably beyond that point) it is legitimate to protect kids from crazy parents. No one should have their child taken just for different parental choices, but waiting until the baby dies and then imprisoning the mother for negligent homicide isn't a very good solution either.
Since the baby seems to have gotten the surgery she needs, hopefully she can be returned to her mother with instructions that mom's witch doctors and herbalists are fine as long as the child receives real medical care as well.
The threshold of when to intervene would have to be arbitrary, between no intervention at all and complete state ownership from the moment zero. Some cases are more egregious than others, and thus are easier. For example, in a hypothetical example of parents refusing the treatment for a child on religious grounds, would you countenance prosecuting them for human sacrifice or ritual murder if such child dies as a result?
Interesting. The State can force a mother of a 9 month old to permit life saving surgery on the child. At 9 months in the womb, the mother would have been free to terminate that same child.
Works for me.
Responsible "alternative" health care practitioners won't hesitate to tell a patient to seek traditional treatment for severe medical conditions. You don't mess around with renal failure by suggesting vitamins and herbs.
'if a child goes into cardiac arretst and requires CPR and defibrillation, can the parent legally stop emergency personnel from administering it?"
I don't think so, but I can't imagine too many parents who would have a problem with EMT's doing this.
The fact is that this mother fought with the docs for weeks. If the child was so sickly, it would have died right? Kidney failure usually kills a person quickly. I don't know all the details of the illness, but surgery causes scar tissue, and drugs cause more toxicity in the body. When it is an eliminative organ problem, personally, I would seek alternative health care for me or one of my children. Herbs and essential oils very effectively clear blockages in the eliminative organs.
I have used lavender oil with great success for kidney issues.
Jenny
This is a tough case and I don't think it was handled as well as it should have been but I'm on the side of this child having a long and healthy life. Allowing this child to go into acute renal failure because mom has faith in naturopathic remedies to cure kidney disease is not fair to the child. I don't care how much "faith" mom has in it. I'm not saying that naturopathy is all bunk, it can be useful in controlling negative symptoms in the traditional treatment of many diseases when coordinated with the primary provider. But...it's not a magic bullet and you don't "bet" on your child's future by risking his life on an unproven treatment when there is an alternative.
"This is a tough case and I don't think it was handled as well as it should have been but I'm on the side of this child having a long and healthy life. Allowing this child to go into acute renal failure because mom has faith in naturopathic remedies to cure kidney disease is not fair to the child."
How do you think it should have been handled?
And WHO gets to decide? Parents make decisions every day that impact the long term health of their children. Mistakes, often deadly mistakes are often made. Are we just going to hand over all of our sovereignty and let the professionals raise the children, or are we going to as a society support the jailing of Non-compliant moms and dads who don't want to be obedient to current medical dogma? It just sickens me to think of that mother sitting in jail for five days.
"But...it's not a magic bullet and you don't "bet" on your child's future by risking his life on an unproven treatment when there is an alternative."
If that was the case, really truly the case, then every single parent who bottle feeds a baby with fake baby formula is betting on that child's life every single time they heat up that "crap in a can" in the microwave.
Breastfeeding gives babies the absolute best protection to every sort of disease on the planet, yet parents every day bottle feed. Are we going to go lock up all those parents who are making poor decisions for and in behalf of their children??
I just hate the criminalization of natural mothering. Parents should be supported in choosing whatever they think is best for their kids. Some of them will make poor choices, and yes, some babies will die. But putting mothers in jail simply for choosing what she thinks is best for her child is wrong in my opinion.
Jenny
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.