HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » We failed her. Big time. ...

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:06 PM

We failed her. Big time. Boston Children’s was experimenting on Justina Pelletier,

Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:31 PM - Edit history (11)

and most progressives got snowed by the Harvard docs. We listened to the Harvard docs and the social workers who thought the parents were "rude" -- for fighting back -- and we failed Justina.

And so did the “liberal media" which for the most part ignored her case. It has come out now that the teenager had pneumonia twice while she was under the “care” of the State of Massachusetts for her “somatic disorder.” I bet you didn’t know that. It wasn’t on MSNBC.

Why did most progressives and the liberal media fail to champion Justina Pelletier? The right-wing wants to use cases like this -- why do we let them? Why do we leave the field completely wide open? We care just as much about the safety and health of children as they do -- I would argue that we care a lot more. So why did progressives -- in politics, in the media, and in the public -- largely sit by while Justina was being held without treatment for more than a year?

I think the reason we let the right wing take the reins on this case was simple. The first person the family turned to was their parish priest, and from that point they got support from various religious groups, who were connected to right-wing figures – who correctly saw what was going on and worked hard to free her. Since right-wing people can NEVER be right about ANYTHING – and this was HARVARD, after all – many progressives decided that the parents and their right wing associates must be wrong. They decided to trust Boston Children’s and the State of Massachusetts that they were acting in Justina’s best interests. And they were not.

The people from Harvard who convinced Massachusetts to make her a ward of the state had a vested interest in her case: they were conducting research in somatoform disorder, and she appeared to fit the bill. Based on a 25 minute interview and a 12 hour hospital stay, they decided that her devastating symptoms were psychological, rather than caused by a physical disease – and that the parents were guilty of “overmedicalizing” her. (I am not saying that these doctors deliberately, and with malice, decided to use this girl for their purposes. I believe that their personal biases unconsciously influenced their diagnosis and that the Children's hospital and the state failed to protect her.)

In making this diagnosis, the Harvard docs refused to speak to the specialist at Tufts University who had been treating her and her older sister for mitochondrial disease for years. Then they got the state to take custody away from her parents and put her in a locked psychiatric ward for more than a year, where they could control every moment of her day and everything she put in her mouth. They withdrew all the medication prescribed by her doctor at Tufts, a top specialist in mitochondrial disease, put her through "behavioral modification," and studied her while she deteriorated. For more than a year. While she got pneumonia twice.

And they could do all this because Massachusetts had a law and Boston Children’s had a policy that allowed wards of the state to be experimented on, even in research with significant risk that carried no benefit for the child.

Yes, you read that right. Even significant risk with no direct benefit.


After 16 months in State custody, she was finally released back to her parents – free and clear. Her parents’ care of her is not being supervised by either Massachusetts or her home state of Connecticut – because it turns out they had done nothing wrong. Connecticut always refused to get involved and never even opened a file on her because they had no evidence – other than what Massachusetts was claiming to them about “overmedicalizing” – that would support their own investigation.

The judge who had been involved had placed a gag order on everybody involved, but the father finally decided to break it last fall and go public. Unfortunately, other than the Boston Globe, which ran detailed and supportive investigative pieces on her case, and the Hartford Courant, most of the media coverage was dominated by right-wing and religious organizations. And in this case Fox news got it right.

The left-wing got snowed by Harvard , and possibly by the fact that this was a blue state. Too many progressives – who would otherwise care about this sort of thing – decided there must be something wrong with the parents. We just didn’t know the whole story, people said. And the father was so rude to the social workers! We needed to trust the hospital and the social workers that they were doing the right thing.

Well, they weren’t. And that’s why Washington’s Representative Jim McDermott, a psychiatrist himself (and one of the co-chairs of the Foster Youth committee) is among a group of four in the house (two Democrats and two Republicans) to introduce a bill that would prevent this from ever happening again. No state will ever be allowed to experiment on its wards in research that involves risk and carries no direct benefit to them.

It boggles my mind that this has been legal anywhere but it has. In 2014. In liberal Massachusetts.

Most of the "liberal media" got snowed by the fancy docs at Harvard. The Boston Globe, and the Hartford Courant did not. Fox News didn't either. A hat tip to Fox, for getting it right – for once.


Guardian LV: http://www.donotlink.com/framed?53149

Rep. Jim McDermott highlighted the “strength and bravery” of Justina Pellier and her family, calling it “a guidestar” for the nation. It was their responsibility to make sure children were not the “subject of risky medical experimentation,” he said and for this reason he was working with the other three reps “to pass Justina’s law as quickly as possible.”

(Rep. McDermott, D-Washington, is one of the most liberal members of the house and a psychiatrist himself.)


Justina speaks out: (This interview is from the Blaze because I can't find an interview with Justina on a more reputable site.)

The Blaze: http://www.donotlink.com/framed?53147



___________

The Boston Globe investigation:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

443 replies, 37250 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 443 replies Author Time Post
Reply We failed her. Big time. Boston Children’s was experimenting on Justina Pelletier, (Original post)
pnwmom Jul 2014 OP
tularetom Jul 2014 #1
pnwmom Jul 2014 #5
kcr Jul 2014 #22
pnwmom Jul 2014 #51
kcr Jul 2014 #54
pnwmom Jul 2014 #60
kcr Jul 2014 #61
pnwmom Jul 2014 #79
kcr Jul 2014 #81
pnwmom Jul 2014 #98
kcr Jul 2014 #102
pnwmom Jul 2014 #109
kcr Jul 2014 #112
pnwmom Jul 2014 #114
kcr Jul 2014 #116
pnwmom Jul 2014 #119
kcr Jul 2014 #122
pnwmom Jul 2014 #127
kcr Jul 2014 #130
pnwmom Jul 2014 #137
kcr Jul 2014 #143
pnwmom Jul 2014 #149
kcr Jul 2014 #151
pnwmom Jul 2014 #158
kcr Jul 2014 #160
pnwmom Jul 2014 #166
kcr Jul 2014 #169
pnwmom Jul 2014 #173
kcr Jul 2014 #180
pnwmom Jul 2014 #182
kcr Jul 2014 #183
pnwmom Jul 2014 #185
kcr Jul 2014 #197
liberalhistorian Jul 2014 #287
kcr Jul 2014 #303
liberalhistorian Jul 2014 #308
kcr Jul 2014 #309
pnwmom Jul 2014 #436
liberalhistorian Jul 2014 #285
kcr Jul 2014 #302
liberalhistorian Jul 2014 #310
kcr Jul 2014 #311
pnwmom Jul 2014 #326
kcr Jul 2014 #331
pnwmom Jul 2014 #334
kcr Jul 2014 #335
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #341
kcr Jul 2014 #350
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #356
kcr Jul 2014 #358
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #360
kcr Jul 2014 #364
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #368
kcr Jul 2014 #373
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #376
kcr Jul 2014 #378
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #383
kcr Jul 2014 #384
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #392
kcr Jul 2014 #394
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #403
kcr Jul 2014 #406
pnwmom Jul 2014 #438
pnwmom Jul 2014 #437
liberalhistorian Jul 2014 #284
KT2000 Jul 2014 #2
seaglass Jul 2014 #3
pnwmom Jul 2014 #6
freshwest Jul 2014 #276
pnwmom Jul 2014 #277
Lee-Lee Jul 2014 #14
pnwmom Jul 2014 #17
alarimer Jul 2014 #235
pnwmom Jul 2014 #267
me b zola Jul 2014 #4
moriah Jul 2014 #7
pnwmom Jul 2014 #9
moriah Jul 2014 #13
pnwmom Jul 2014 #15
moriah Jul 2014 #18
pnwmom Jul 2014 #21
hedgehog Jul 2014 #260
pnwmom Jul 2014 #268
hedgehog Jul 2014 #273
pnwmom Jul 2014 #279
moriah Jul 2014 #278
pnwmom Jul 2014 #288
disequilibrium1 Jul 2014 #289
pnwmom Jul 2014 #434
hedgehog Jul 2014 #259
pnwmom Jul 2014 #269
moriah Jul 2014 #280
pnwmom Jul 2014 #435
moriah Jul 2014 #442
pnwmom Jul 2014 #443
gaspee Jul 2014 #8
pnwmom Jul 2014 #10
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #11
pnwmom Jul 2014 #12
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #16
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #80
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #100
pnwmom Jul 2014 #282
FSogol Jul 2014 #19
pnwmom Jul 2014 #23
FSogol Jul 2014 #28
pnwmom Jul 2014 #30
FSogol Jul 2014 #32
pnwmom Jul 2014 #34
kcr Jul 2014 #63
Puzzledtraveller Jul 2014 #174
pnwmom Jul 2014 #176
kcr Jul 2014 #181
pnwmom Jul 2014 #184
kcr Jul 2014 #186
pnwmom Jul 2014 #188
kcr Jul 2014 #193
pnwmom Jul 2014 #201
kcr Jul 2014 #207
pnwmom Jul 2014 #215
kcr Jul 2014 #219
pnwmom Jul 2014 #222
kcr Jul 2014 #224
pnwmom Jul 2014 #227
kcr Jul 2014 #229
pnwmom Jul 2014 #232
kcr Jul 2014 #233
pnwmom Jul 2014 #236
kcr Jul 2014 #252
pnwmom Jul 2014 #255
kcr Jul 2014 #256
pnwmom Jul 2014 #257
kcr Jul 2014 #306
pnwmom Jul 2014 #313
kcr Jul 2014 #315
pnwmom Jul 2014 #316
kcr Jul 2014 #322
pnwmom Jul 2014 #325
kcr Jul 2014 #328
pnwmom Jul 2014 #339
kcr Jul 2014 #344
pnwmom Jul 2014 #346
kcr Jul 2014 #347
pnwmom Jul 2014 #354
kcr Jul 2014 #357
pnwmom Jul 2014 #361
kcr Jul 2014 #363
pnwmom Jul 2014 #366
kcr Jul 2014 #370
pnwmom Jul 2014 #372
kcr Jul 2014 #374
pnwmom Jul 2014 #379
kcr Jul 2014 #380
pnwmom Jul 2014 #381
kcr Jul 2014 #385
pnwmom Jul 2014 #386
kcr Jul 2014 #389
pnwmom Jul 2014 #395
kcr Jul 2014 #398
pnwmom Jul 2014 #400
kcr Jul 2014 #401
pnwmom Jul 2014 #402
kcr Jul 2014 #404
pnwmom Jul 2014 #414
kcr Jul 2014 #415
pnwmom Jul 2014 #420
kcr Jul 2014 #422
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #407
kcr Jul 2014 #409
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #412
kcr Jul 2014 #413
pnwmom Jul 2014 #418
kcr Jul 2014 #421
pnwmom Jul 2014 #423
pnwmom Jul 2014 #416
kcr Jul 2014 #417
pnwmom Jul 2014 #419
ck4829 Jul 2014 #20
pnwmom Jul 2014 #25
SidDithers Jul 2014 #24
kcr Jul 2014 #26
pnwmom Jul 2014 #52
kcr Jul 2014 #57
pnwmom Jul 2014 #64
kcr Jul 2014 #67
pnwmom Jul 2014 #72
kcr Jul 2014 #74
pnwmom Jul 2014 #77
kcr Jul 2014 #82
pnwmom Jul 2014 #93
kcr Jul 2014 #97
pnwmom Jul 2014 #101
kcr Jul 2014 #103
pnwmom Jul 2014 #107
kcr Jul 2014 #110
pnwmom Jul 2014 #117
kcr Jul 2014 #120
pnwmom Jul 2014 #132
kcr Jul 2014 #138
pnwmom Jul 2014 #27
McCamy Taylor Jul 2014 #29
YarnAddict Jul 2014 #38
McCamy Taylor Jul 2014 #106
pnwmom Jul 2014 #141
ieoeja Jul 2014 #31
pnwmom Jul 2014 #33
Trajan Jul 2014 #205
pnwmom Jul 2014 #270
DesertDiamond Jul 2014 #35
pnwmom Jul 2014 #39
Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #36
pnwmom Jul 2014 #40
Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #48
pnwmom Jul 2014 #49
YarnAddict Jul 2014 #37
Post removed Jul 2014 #41
pnwmom Jul 2014 #46
pnwmom Jul 2014 #43
YarnAddict Jul 2014 #47
pnwmom Jul 2014 #50
YarnAddict Jul 2014 #53
pnwmom Jul 2014 #56
YarnAddict Jul 2014 #58
pnwmom Jul 2014 #62
fcefxer Jul 2014 #292
YarnAddict Jul 2014 #293
kcr Jul 2014 #305
pnwmom Jul 2014 #427
pnwmom Jul 2014 #426
Helen Borg Jul 2014 #42
pnwmom Jul 2014 #44
hack89 Jul 2014 #45
kcr Jul 2014 #55
hack89 Jul 2014 #65
kcr Jul 2014 #69
hack89 Jul 2014 #70
kcr Jul 2014 #78
hack89 Jul 2014 #84
kcr Jul 2014 #88
hack89 Jul 2014 #99
kcr Jul 2014 #105
merrily Jul 2014 #124
kcr Jul 2014 #125
hack89 Jul 2014 #133
kcr Jul 2014 #153
hack89 Jul 2014 #157
kcr Jul 2014 #161
hack89 Jul 2014 #208
kcr Jul 2014 #209
hack89 Jul 2014 #211
kcr Jul 2014 #217
hack89 Jul 2014 #218
kcr Jul 2014 #220
hack89 Jul 2014 #223
kcr Jul 2014 #228
hack89 Jul 2014 #240
pnwmom Jul 2014 #272
merrily Jul 2014 #123
kcr Jul 2014 #128
merrily Jul 2014 #134
kcr Jul 2014 #136
merrily Jul 2014 #144
kcr Jul 2014 #146
merrily Jul 2014 #152
kcr Jul 2014 #154
merrily Jul 2014 #156
kcr Jul 2014 #165
merrily Jul 2014 #171
kcr Jul 2014 #189
merrily Jul 2014 #191
pnwmom Jul 2014 #317
kcr Jul 2014 #323
pnwmom Jul 2014 #324
kcr Jul 2014 #333
pnwmom Jul 2014 #336
kcr Jul 2014 #337
pnwmom Jul 2014 #338
kcr Jul 2014 #348
pnwmom Jul 2014 #353
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #340
kcr Jul 2014 #345
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #349
kcr Jul 2014 #351
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #359
kcr Jul 2014 #362
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #365
kcr Jul 2014 #367
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #369
kcr Jul 2014 #371
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #375
kcr Jul 2014 #377
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #382
kcr Jul 2014 #390
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #393
kcr Jul 2014 #396
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #405
kcr Jul 2014 #408
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #410
kcr Jul 2014 #411
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #439
pnwmom Jul 2014 #425
alp227 Jul 2014 #59
pnwmom Jul 2014 #68
Louisiana1976 Jul 2014 #66
frazzled Jul 2014 #76
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #96
frazzled Jul 2014 #145
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #179
pnwmom Jul 2014 #203
pnwmom Jul 2014 #104
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #71
pnwmom Jul 2014 #75
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #85
pnwmom Jul 2014 #87
kcr Jul 2014 #89
pnwmom Jul 2014 #92
kcr Jul 2014 #95
kcr Jul 2014 #86
pnwmom Jul 2014 #90
kcr Jul 2014 #91
merrily Jul 2014 #113
kcr Jul 2014 #115
merrily Jul 2014 #118
kcr Jul 2014 #135
merrily Jul 2014 #139
kcr Jul 2014 #140
merrily Jul 2014 #148
kcr Jul 2014 #150
merrily Jul 2014 #155
kcr Jul 2014 #159
merrily Jul 2014 #175
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #162
kcr Jul 2014 #178
pnwmom Jul 2014 #192
kcr Jul 2014 #194
pnwmom Jul 2014 #200
kcr Jul 2014 #206
pnwmom Jul 2014 #212
kcr Jul 2014 #216
pnwmom Jul 2014 #226
kcr Jul 2014 #231
pnwmom Jul 2014 #239
kcr Jul 2014 #242
pnwmom Jul 2014 #244
kcr Jul 2014 #245
pnwmom Jul 2014 #247
kcr Jul 2014 #250
pnwmom Jul 2014 #271
kcr Jul 2014 #307
pnwmom Jul 2014 #312
kcr Jul 2014 #314
pnwmom Jul 2014 #318
pnwmom Jul 2014 #440
pnwmom Jul 2014 #163
kcr Jul 2014 #167
pnwmom Jul 2014 #170
kcr Jul 2014 #177
pnwmom Jul 2014 #187
kcr Jul 2014 #195
pnwmom Jul 2014 #199
kcr Jul 2014 #210
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #204
kcr Jul 2014 #213
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #225
kcr Jul 2014 #230
pnwmom Jul 2014 #234
kcr Jul 2014 #237
pnwmom Jul 2014 #241
kcr Jul 2014 #243
pnwmom Jul 2014 #246
kcr Jul 2014 #248
pnwmom Jul 2014 #249
kcr Jul 2014 #251
pnwmom Jul 2014 #253
kcr Jul 2014 #254
pnwmom Jul 2014 #428
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #238
onyourleft Jul 2014 #73
pnwmom Jul 2014 #202
WinkyDink Jul 2014 #83
merrily Jul 2014 #131
merrily Jul 2014 #94
pnwmom Jul 2014 #111
merrily Jul 2014 #121
pnwmom Jul 2014 #129
merrily Jul 2014 #164
pnwmom Jul 2014 #221
merrily Jul 2014 #258
Crunchy Frog Jul 2014 #108
countryjake Jul 2014 #126
pnwmom Jul 2014 #147
countryjake Jul 2014 #196
pnwmom Jul 2014 #198
hedgehog Jul 2014 #261
hedgehog Jul 2014 #262
pnwmom Jul 2014 #266
pnwmom Jul 2014 #265
Jefferson23 Jul 2014 #142
libodem Jul 2014 #168
pnwmom Jul 2014 #190
Puzzledtraveller Jul 2014 #172
Lucinda Jul 2014 #214
Savannahmann Jul 2014 #263
pnwmom Jul 2014 #264
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #274
kcr Jul 2014 #301
Savannahmann Jul 2014 #319
kcr Jul 2014 #321
Savannahmann Jul 2014 #327
kcr Jul 2014 #329
Savannahmann Jul 2014 #330
kcr Jul 2014 #332
Savannahmann Jul 2014 #342
kcr Jul 2014 #343
Savannahmann Jul 2014 #355
riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #387
kcr Jul 2014 #399
Savannahmann Jul 2014 #424
pnwmom Jul 2014 #432
pnwmom Jul 2014 #431
Savannahmann Jul 2014 #441
pnwmom Jul 2014 #430
pnwmom Jul 2014 #429
pnwmom Jul 2014 #433
cherokeeprogressive Jul 2014 #388
Orrex Jul 2014 #275
pnwmom Jul 2014 #281
Orrex Jul 2014 #283
pnwmom Jul 2014 #286
Post removed Jul 2014 #290
pnwmom Jul 2014 #291
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2014 #294
pnwmom Jul 2014 #295
friendly_iconoclast Jul 2014 #296
pnwmom Jul 2014 #297
proverbialwisdom Jul 2014 #298
pnwmom Jul 2014 #299
proverbialwisdom Jul 2014 #300
pnwmom Jul 2014 #304
proverbialwisdom Jul 2014 #320
Octafish Jul 2014 #352
LittleBlue Jul 2014 #391
pnwmom Jul 2014 #397

Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:29 PM

1. After reading this, I'm as outraged by this case as you are, but you realize

that by posting a link to "the blaze" and complimenting Fox, you've turned this thread into an attack on the validity of the story.

Yes, that's the point you were trying to make but not everybody is going to see it that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:39 PM

5. The problem is that they are the ONLY places where you can find an interview

with Justina now.

So the choice now is to ignore her case, or link to otherwise sketchy sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:40 PM

22. It's always been right wing sources. They've taken up this cause.

I definitely don't see itl ike the OP does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #22)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:52 PM

51. How do you see it?

And did you read the investigative reports in the Boston Globe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #51)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:57 PM

54. She wasn't kidnapped to beging with and I doubt highly that she was tortured or expiremented on

I see it as a case of extreme anti-government whackos taking up a cause and nothing they report should be taken seriously. I have read the Boston Globe and other news sources. It's a local story here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #54)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:04 PM

60. She wasn't kidnapped? The parents lost custody for more than 16 months

because the psychiatrists at Boston Children disagreed with the mitochondrial specialists at Tufts.

Maybe that's not the legal definition of "kidnapping" but it was wrong. Blatantly wrong.

And are you saying that the reporters at the Globe are "extreme anti-government whacks"?

I want to know why the rest of the MSM didn't follow through on what The Boston Globe started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #60)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:05 PM

61. Losing custody isn't the same as being kidnapped. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #61)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:28 PM

79. It's just a matter of diction in circumstances like this. But you were the person

to use the word kidnapped, not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #79)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:29 PM

81. Only if you frame it the way the RW lunatics are. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #81)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:42 PM

98. To the family, that's exactly how it felt. They brought their sick child to see a G.I. doc

and the next thing they knew, she was in the custody of psychiatrists and the state. And they were deprived of her for 16 long months and the judge actually awarded something he called "permanent custody" to the state.

Of course they felt like she'd been kidnapped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #98)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:44 PM

102. As opposed to all the other families who've lost custody, who admit their wrongdoing

and say the government had every right. So, it makes perfect sense to believe them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #102)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:55 PM

109. The critical difference here is that the state's only claim against them is that they were

"overmedicalizing" because she had somatic disorder, not mitochondrial disease.

So the only people guilty of "wrongdoing" were with the state and the hospital.

The state is no longer pretending that the parents did anything wrong. They're just waiting for the inevitable lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #109)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:58 PM

112. And it could possibly be true

Parents sometimes do this, and sometimes the kids die when they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #112)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:00 PM

114. The state shouldn't grab custody for 16 months because of something that could "possibly be true."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #114)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:02 PM

116. Of course not

But there's no evidence that's what happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #116)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:05 PM

119. There's zero evidence that the parents were overmedicalizing her.

The judge put her back with her original doctors -- the ones the parents chose for her.

So the only evidence is that the parents lost custody for nothing but a huge mistake. And maybe some research results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #119)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:08 PM

122. And you know this how? From the parents and their media representation?

We're getting their side of the story. Of course they say there's no evidence. I've read things that make me think the hospital may have been right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #122)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:16 PM

127. From the Boston Globe and the Hartford Courant.

There has never been any charge in court that there was any other issue besides overmedicalizing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #127)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:18 PM

130. So? That can't possibly be a reason to remove a child from care?

Children die because of it. It certainly causes a lot of pain for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #130)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:25 PM

137. It was NOT a good reason to remove a child from care

when they hadn't even bothered to consult with the doctors she and her sister had been seeing for years.

You don't steal custody away from parents based on a "hunch." And that word comes from the mitochondrial specialist himself. He said that the Harvard docs had diagnosed her based on nothing more than a hunch. And he was right. They slapped the diagnosis of somatic disorder on her within 12 hours of her arrival there, based on nothing more than than their gut feelings. And their gut feelings were wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #137)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:30 PM

143. How do we know they didn't bother? Did they admit that themselves?

Or is this another claim by the parents and those exploiting the situation to forward their own agenda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #143)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:39 PM

149. Because I believe the Tufts doctor, and that was his sworn testimony at a hearing.

He also spoke to the Boston Globe reporters -- and you say you read that, so I don't know why you're asking this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #149)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:42 PM

151. One doctor, who isn't convinced his own diagnosis may be wrong.

And it isn't evidence they didn't consult with any of her doctors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #151)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:51 PM

158. He testified that the doctors wouldn't speak with him. That was evidence.

And he was her primary physician, and the person who diagnosed her with the illness they were disputing, so there is no excuse for not talking to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #158)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:53 PM

160. That's not evidence they didn't consult with anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #160)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:58 PM

166. They didn't consult with the ONE person who knew more about her case and

the diagnosis they were disputing than anyone else.

Her former G.I. specialist was also prevented from seeing her by the psych docs at B.C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #166)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:02 PM

169. Doctors are never wrong. Except when the ones not on your side.

They didn't consult with the doctor who didn't see the parents were overmedicalizing. What a shock. Also not surpring that that doctor is the ONE doctor who knows the most about her! None of all the other doctors she'd seen, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #169)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:04 PM

173. So why should the state be able to choose the diagnosis of the psychiatrists

instead of letting the parents decide which diagnosis to believe?

If your child gets sick, do you want the state to be telling you which doctors you must go to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #173)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:09 PM

180. It's your and the parent's claim that that's what happened.

I need actual evidence that a hospital conspired to kidnap a child based on a disagreement over a diagnosis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #180)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:11 PM

182. I'm not alleging a conspiracy. But there is overwhelming evidence

that her parents lost custody for 16 months because of a disagreement over a diagnosis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #182)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:12 PM

183. What evidence?

The only evidence I've seen is the parent's claims. You want to believe them and that's fine, but I need actual evidence beyond their claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #183)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:14 PM

185. Read the court documents. You can find them. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #185)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:38 PM

197. I have.

It would be helpful if you pointed out where the evidence is there. Maybe I missed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #122)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 02:43 PM

287. The Boston docs refused to even

speak to Justina's own Connecticut doctor, one of the foremost specialists in mitochondrial disease, or any of his team who'd been treating her for YEARS. REFUSED TO EVEN SPEAK TO THEM. Why? Because they weren't interested in anything that would have disputed what their own biases wanted it to be. They decided after just a short interview lasting less than a half hour, and a few hours of hospitalization, that THEIR diagnosis that it was all just in her head was the correct one, period, and the parents should be criminalized for following the treatment of the previous internationally-respected doctor. Meanwhile, in their custody, she rapidly deteriorated and became more and more physically ill. They couldn't blame the parents this time because they refused the parents access to her. They just plied her with more and more of their happy pills.

It's truly frightening when what should be just a medical dispute between medical experts becomes a criminalization of the parents for following said medical experts, and the child being taken away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #287)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:30 AM

303. Claims made by the parents and their supporters

You and others are just assuming they're telling the truth about the doctor's actions and motivations behind them. You don't know, and it's aggravated by the fact that hospitals are hesitant to disclose patient info. So only one side is being told. A side making extraordinary claims. Hospitals colluding with social workers and the government to steal a child based on a disagreement over a diagnosis requires some hefty evidence to back that up. It would require believing that all these people that work for the hospital and the state are evil people acting with malice. It isn't credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #303)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:59 AM

308. Sorry, but her own CT doctors

have supported that claim and I doubt if they would risk their own professional credibiity by lying, especially considering that one of them is an internationally-renowned expert. Your unwillingness to believe what is now well-documented is truly astounded. The Boston Globe is a liberal paper and it has done extensive investigative research into this and similar cases within that particular hospital involving the same "experts" and workers, and their research completely backs the parents. And as someone who was once in the legal field, and who's married to an attorney, I know full well that these kinds of things happen a lot more frequently than people would like to think.

Courts too often simply take the word of "experts" at face value without considering other expert opinions or dissenting facts. I've seen social workers with the same kinds of biases as these ones ruin families for no reason other than their own agenda. They are not always acting within the best interests of those they are supposed to be serving. And neither are doctors.

The fact that the child did far worse under the so-called "care" of the hospital, not even permitted to see her own family except for one measly fucking hour a week, and the fact that the judge has returned her to her family and her CT doctors free and clear from any Boston medical or legal supervision should speak volumes to you. It obviously doesn't, which makes me wonder about your own bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #308)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 04:05 AM

309. That's assuming the claim about it being about a disagreement over a diagnosis is correct.

The fact that a doctor stands by his or her diagnosis doesn't automatically mean those who suspect abuse are wrong. None of those things speak volumes to me because so much of it is based on speculation from facts presented by one side. You are assuming she got worse because of the doctors at Boston and not because she was subjected to unnecessary medical treatments. I'm not. I'm sorry, but a removal of a child from parents is not an outrageous travesty. Not all removals are permanent. Children being returned to their parents doesn't mean the removal wasn't warranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #303)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 07:50 AM

436. Taking a child away from her parents is supposed to require some evidence to back it up.

In this case, BC acted on a psychiatrist's hunch. And that hunch was proven wrong when 16 months later the judge took her care away from the psychiatrists and handed her back to the metabolic specialists who had been treating her before this whole fiasco began.

This isn't a matter of choosing sides anymore. This is a matter of fact, and there's only one fact that matters. The judge decided to take her away from the BC docs and send her back to the Tufts doctors -- just as the parents had been asking for from Day 1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #61)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 02:33 PM

285. In this case, it was, it's just a matter

of semantics. They were rarely permitted to even see her, were severely limited in their topics of conversation with her, no one listened when she got worse and worse because she wasn't receiving treatment for her actual medical condition that she had been specifically diagnosed with by her Connecticut doctors but they were dousing her with their psychotropics for some bogus "psychological" condition, they were criminalized, hounded, harassed, accused of all kinds of crap against their daughter simply because they followed the treatment protocols of her own doctors who knew her best and knew what her medical condition was.

This was nothing more than a medical dispute, and should never, ever have turned into a vendetta against the parents and gone this far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #285)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:26 AM

302. Parents who've had their children removed aren't allowed to see their children whenever they want

The rest of your post is just claims made by the parents. It was just a vendetta against them, and that horrible hospital colluded with the government to take their child away just because they disagreed with a diagnosis. And this outrageous claim is true and we should believe it because the parents say it is. I think some are injecting their biases against doctors, because rarely do I see people so up in arms over a child being removed from parental custody. Why not the similar passionate defense of other parents who lose their children? Actually, there often is, and it's the same right wingers rushing to the defense of these parents. And our side rightfully defends the practice of removing them then because children aren't chattel. But because the story doesn't involve the Pearls, BabyWise manuals and beatings with plumbing supply line, all of a sudden it's different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #302)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 04:05 AM

310. So parents who suddenly and without hardly

any real evidence or due process have their children removed simply because they're following the medical treatment plans and care of an internationlly-known physician should only be permitted to see them for one hour a week? Really? Wow.

And apparently the psychiatrist who said he didn't "believe in" mitochondrial disease must know more than the international medical expert on it (Justina's doctor) and the myriad number of other physicians who treat patients for it, as well as the researchers and authors of numerous articles and research results regarding it. Then again, psychiatrists are starting to consider almost anything to be "all in the head" or "psychosomatic" in origin, despite evidence to the contrary. Brings in more money for them, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberalhistorian (Reply #310)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 04:09 AM

311. What psychiatrist said he didn't believe in it? BCH has specialists in mitochondial disease.

The claim that BC doesn't believe in the diagnosis is bogus. It isn't shocking that the parents think the removal is without any real evidence or due process. I'm not going to automatically believe them and think a hospital had their child removed for no reason any more than I would for any other parent who's had their child removed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #311)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:01 PM

326. What you are saying might have made some sense before but everything is completely

different now.

You lost this debate. You are wrong and you can't admit it.

Boston Children's has tacitly admitted they did the wrong thing. They recommended to DCF that she be returned back to her parents, under the care of the doctors her parents wanted all along.

They had her for 16 months because they thought they knew better, and they failed MISERABLY.

Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #326)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:18 PM

331. If BC admitted they were wrong, it should be easy for you to show where that happened.

I think I'll stick with what's worked for me for a long time. And that is not trusting right wing sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #331)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:43 PM

334. They recommended she be returned to her old doctors and her family. That is fact. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #334)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:45 PM

335. And that's admitting they were wrong how?

Children are never returned to parents unless it was a conspiracy to take them away for no reason? The only explanation is they're admitting they were wrong? Or could it be the parents finally got their act together and it was safe for her to go back?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #334)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 05:02 PM

341. Save your fingertips.

You're dealing with someone who is pulling out every weak excuse in favor of the offending doctors while simultaneously dismissing out-of-hand coming from the Pelletier camp. The parents being accused of abusing their child are the only ones not afforded the benefit if the doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #341)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 06:28 PM

350. Way to twist my words.

Stating a lack of evidence doesn't mean I'm siding with them and think they're right and Justina's parents and other doctors are wrong. It's stating there's a lack of evidence. This case is no more outrageous than any of the other stories about suspected child abuse. Unlike some who've absolutely made up their minds as to who is guilty and innocent in this story, I haven't. I have no way of knowing for sure. I'm dismissing kooky conspiracy claims put forth by the parents' right wing support. They are people who think children are chattel and parental rights trump all, and object to state interference, so their claims should be taken with a big dose of skepticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #350)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 06:52 PM

356. "It's stating there's a lack of evidence."

kcr (6,863 posts)

102. As opposed to all the other families who've lost custody, who admit their wrongdoing

and say the government had every right. So, it makes perfect sense to believe them

That has no bearing on the Pellitier case. The acts of others are not grounds for bolster the case against for removing Justina from her family.


kcr (6,863 posts)

303. Claims made by the parents and their supporters

You and others are just assuming they're telling the truth about the doctor's actions and motivations behind them. You don't know, and it's aggravated by the fact that hospitals are hesitant to disclose patient info. So only one side is being told. A side making extraordinary claims. Hospitals colluding with social workers and the government to steal a child based on a disagreement over a diagnosis requires some hefty evidence to back that up. It would require believing that all these people that work for the hospital and the state are evil people acting with malice. It isn't credible.


All of which would be admissible in court absent any PROOF they were lying. You assume they are lying by reflexively dismissing everything they say while reflexively accepting as truth everything the Harvard docs claim.

kcr (6,863 posts)

82. Liberal doesn't mean immune to being hoodwinked.

And yet, there is no evidence that Rep. McDermott or others are being hoodwinked. Your reflex is to believe the Pellitiers are the RW are -- doing something.

Here you are accusing, absent of any evidence, the Pellitiers of doctor shopping --
kcr (6,864 posts)

243. I'm not arguing she wasn't sick

Lots of unnecessary medicines and treatments can do that. It's harmful and it can kill. They went to a hospital with expertise in the condition they just knew their daughter had. A condition that isn't easy to diagnose. I can easily see that being a red flag that causes them to consider what the parent's motives are, especially if there are other red flag behaviors that go along with it.


Here you are, without any evidence, accusing the Pellitiers of lying --
kcr (6,864 posts)

254. Is that another contention from the parents?

They froze out another doctor in the same hospital? Hard to believe.

So, anything that doesn't fit your prejudices is discounted.

Here you are, absent any evidence, accusing the Pellitiers of fabricating videos --
kcr (6,864 posts)

167. Video of her in a wheelchair taken by the parents.

Sorry, going to need more than that.


Your bias is more than apparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #356)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 06:57 PM

358. I'm not accusing the Pelletiers of lying. I just require evidence to back up their claims.

The more outrageous the claim, the more solid evidence it will take to convince me. I also always view some sources with high doses of skepticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #358)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:00 PM

360. "I'm not accusing the Pelletiers of lying. I just require evidence to back up their claims."

kcr (6,864 posts)

167. Video of her in a wheelchair taken by the parents.

Sorry, going to need more than that.

There is no reason except your bias for dismissing the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #360)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:14 PM

364. I guess my bias is showing by not accepting a questionable source

It's a bias I'll happily admit to. I prefer a reality-based approach to forming opinions. I'm not the type that mindlessly watches Fox news. I think it's possible the Pelletiers are being exploited by that source and it's made everything that much worse for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #364)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:18 PM

368. Either the video is an accurate depiciton of reality or it is not.

If you assert it is not accurate then you should provide evidence other than the ad hominem OMFGWTFRWNJZ! There is nothing questionable about the Pellitiers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #368)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:26 PM

373. My assertion isn't that it's not accurate. My assertion is the source is questionable.

Is it your assertion that all video always accurately depicts things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #373)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:40 PM

376. Nothing makes it questionable except your bias.

Your bias is predicated, not on any evidence, but merely a political dislike. If anyone is making the case that politics pollutes the proper role of the exercise of state authority it is you. You are the epitome of the RWers complaints about the politicizing of power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #376)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:43 PM

378. My bias against RW sources? Guilty as charged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #378)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:09 PM

383. The RW didn't create the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #383)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:13 PM

384. So if a UFO conspiracy site doesn't actually make the video they post as evidence

that means it must be real? I guess it's just unheard of for RWers to distort and misrepresent the truth. I never thought I'd have to defend being suspicious of RW sources on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #384)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:05 PM

392. What you're being required to defend is your unsupported, evidence-free allegations.

"RWers to distort and misrepresent the truth," is not a reason to keep children away from their parents. In a free society the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed before a person can be deprived of their rights. So far your every defense is to give the benefit of the doubt to the state while reflexively accusing the family of lying without any evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #392)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:10 PM

394. It's unsupported that RW sources can't be trusted?

And there we are, the agenda. Children have rights of their own separate from their parents and aren't outweigh by the rights of the parents. It isn't to punish parents, it's to protect the rights of children themselves. They aren't possessions. If there is significant evidence of harm, abuse, or neglect, intervention is warranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #394)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:35 PM

403. That's not what I said and you know it.

You have to have evidence the video is false. You have to have evidence the doctors at BC were justified in removing Justina from her parents.

Children have rights of their own separate from their parents and aren't outweigh by the rights of the parents. It isn't to punish parents, it's to protect the rights of children themselves. They aren't possessions. If there is significant evidence of harm, abuse, or neglect, intervention is warranted.

All well and good but thus far the case for removing Justina from her family has no evidence to support such an action. And when the venue that does adjudicate such issues -- the courts -- returns Justina to her family you still persist in your mindlessness. There was no evidence to warrant intervention in the first place.

At present your only argument has been "Because -- RWers!" That's not evidence to support taking children away from their families (though I'm starting to suspect RW politics is reason, in your mind, for the forfeiture of parental rights).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #403)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:39 PM

406. It seems that's what you're saying to me.

You surely aren't saying that right wing sources are absolutely trustworthy? Your claim that evidence has to be taken at face value from a disreputable source is laughable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #394)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 07:55 AM

438. There was NO significant evidence of harm, abuse, or neglect. None. Zero. Zilch.

And she only deteriorated in the 16 months away from her parents.

So the judge ordered her back with her parents and her original doctors. BC failed her.

You're absolutely right that children aren't possessions of their parents. And they aren't possessions of the state, and they aren't the possessions of the doctors who want to turn them into human subjects so they can test theories on them and publish papers on their cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #384)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 07:52 AM

437. Justina isn't a UFO. She's a real human being, who people like you

have been treating grossly unfairly, without regard to her individual needs.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #60)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 02:28 PM

284. What frightens me the most about it is

this was nothing more than a medical dispute between medical experts that one side of "experts" turned into a criminalization of the parents in order, I suspect, to solidify and justify their shaky position, and for their own self-aggrandizing professional reasons. This is beginning to happen more and more and it's truly frightening. Blue states are not at all immune, far from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:29 PM

2. good for McDermott

right wing, left wing - this was a travesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:36 PM

3. We don't know the whole story and I'm skeptical this is the whole truth. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:43 PM

6. The fact is that the state finally returned her to the care of her Tufts doctors,

and she was returned to the care of her parents, without conditions. And the Tufts doctor has publicly expressed support for the parents.

And two Democratic Representatives, one of whom is among the most progressive in Congress, and a doctor himself, are supporting her parents.

Of course you're skeptical. The media has largely failed to do its job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:58 AM

276. Appreciate McDermott, the OP and analysis more than you'll ever know. You have my heartfelt thanks.

Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #276)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:33 PM

277. Thank you, freshwest! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:07 PM

14. Same here

 

Need more info..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #14)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:18 PM

17. I'm sure there will be more once the parents file suit.

But it is fact that the behavioral modification failed to help her walk. That the judge finally, after over a year, removed her from the care of the Harvard psychiatrists and sent her back to the Tufts mitochondrial specialists. And that full custody was returned to her parents without any conditions.

Did you read the Boston Globe two-part investigation? And their follow up reports? If you need more info, that's a good place to start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:38 PM

235. It stinks to high heaven that right wing sites are the only place for "news" on this.

Not credible at all. Nor do I trust the parents here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #235)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 05:58 AM

267. The Boston Globe is a liberal paper, and the Hartford Courant is, too.

The Boston Globe in particular gave this very thorough coverage.

What stinks to high heaven is that the rest of the MSM dropped the ball, letting outlets like Fox news take the story and run with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:38 PM

4. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:45 PM

7. Other than the "parent-ectomy", what was the experimental treatment?

If you recall I'm one of the ones who defended the family, but I am curious here.

Yes, I think a law needs to be passed prohibiting experimentation on wards of the state. But if they're just saying that the misdiagnosis and treatment designed to help someone with the psychological problem they thought she had was experimentation, in my opinion that's not the same as experimenting on wards of the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:49 PM

9. A combination of withdrawing her medications -- which is a treatment in itself --

and a program of "behavioral modification."

The psychologist who originally tagged her with the diagnosis is heavily involved in research on somatic disorder, and has written papers claiming that half of children with undiagnosed physical conditions actually have somatic disorder. I haven't read the details of what she was doing with Justina -- just that she was involved.

There is no standard treatment for somatic disorder. Her behavioral modification program was experimental.

http://www.wfsb.com/story/25435681/plan-is-offered-to-solve-medical-custody-dispute

"She does not belong in a behavioral modification program at all," added Linda Pelletier, Justina's mother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #9)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:05 PM

13. If the misdiagnosis was not done intentionally, treating for a misdiagnosed condition is not....

... experimenting on wards of the state.

While what happened was atrocious, this doctor isn't Mengele.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:12 PM

15. It is experimenting if she was enrolled as a subject in a research study

on behavioral modification to treat somatic disorder.

And since there is no standard behavioral modification treatment for somatic disorder, and since her Harvard doctors were actively involved in this research, and since Rep. McDermott (a physician himself) says we need to change the law so that no other Justina Pelletiers can be experimented on like this, I think she was experimented on.

I don't think the misdiagnosis was done intentionally. I've clarified that in the OP. But I think the vision of the psychiatrists and psychologists was clouded by their research interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:20 PM

18. "Experimental treatment" vs "experimenting on kids"....

... the two have extremely different connotations.

Experimental treatment includes things like using CBD for seizure control in kids -- and I'd love to see the kids in Colorado who are the guinea pigs for this treatment actually enrolled in real research studies so the efficacy could be determined. Denying wards of the state access to potential new treatments for real diseases, especially if there are no good currently approved treatments or if all options have already been tried, is not something I want to see happen as a result of such a bill.

"Experimenting on kids" makes us think of sewing twins together and other horrific things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #18)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:36 PM

21. Psychological experiments might not sound as gruesome but they're still experiments.

And I can hardly believe -- but it's true -- that Boston Children's ethics policies allowed wards of the state to be used as subjects in research studies that carried significant risks, even if there was no expected direct benefit to the child.

"Potential new treatments" don't always work. Sometimes they fail miserably. If a child is dying and there is no other treatment, then maybe an exception to consent laws should be made. Otherwise, studies should NEVER involve anyone without consent -- parental consent, in the case of children.

We used to carry out research on children in orphanages and on prisoners, without anyone's consent. This was wrong then and it's wrong now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 04:25 AM

260. "Behavior modification" sounds pretty gruesome to me -

it used to be applied to drive out teh gay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #260)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 05:59 AM

268. It is. Imagine that you are very sick, painfully sick, with intense abdominal pain,

headaches and weakness.

And you are being rewarded for suppressing your symptoms and punished for having them.

And they did this to her for more than a year.

http://www.diagnosticrights.org/the-coalitions-letter-on-behalf-of-justina-pelletier/

10. Bader 5’s approach of aggressive behavior modification therapy for children with somatoform diagnosis is an atrocity, and it is one the Court has sufficient evidence to recognize.

No somatoform diagnosis can be decisively confirmed because there simply is no science to support a direct correlation between the absence of medical explanations for symptoms and the presence of mental health disorders. As a result, somatoform diagnosis is notoriously inaccurate, and dangerously so.

It is unconscionable for those who treat somatoform disorder not to take stock of the great potential for diagnostic error in their field. If aggressive behavioral modification techniques are employed, severe emotional harm will certainly result for those diagnosed in error – that is, for those whose genuine physical suffering and disabilities are repeatedly met with punishment designed to encourage impossible control. Aggressive behavior modification therapy for the physical symptoms of children who are actually medically ill is heinous. Because error in somatoform diagnosis can never be ruled out, it cannot be ethical for those techniques to be employed in the treatment of somatoform disorder in children.

The Court is aware that Bader 5 does routinely employ aggressive behavior modification techniques for children with somatoform disorder. Because the Court cannot be certain whether Justina Pelletier does or does not have somatoform disorder, or which of her symptoms are medical and which are somatoform, it is unconscionable to allow further treatment by BCH or any other facility where these techniques will be employed.

I acknowledge that the case of Justina Pelletier brings to the Court a range of considerations about which there has been little specific discussion in the medical field or in the field of bioethics, but nevertheless insist that this in no way relieves the Court of its obligation to overtly discern and respect standard patients’ rights.

I respectfully request a systematic review of the Court’s decisions based on concern to acknowledge and respect these ten fundamental confusions about the rights of Justina Pelletier and her parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier.



Sincerely,

Diane O’Leary, PhD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #268)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 07:12 AM

273. Which raises the question, just what the hell is "behavior modification"?

It can lean toward rewards for good behavior, or punishment for bad behavior. It may be an euphemism, just as "enhanced interrogation" is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #273)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:45 PM

279. I bet we never find out. I bet that the hospital and insurance company lawyers

are putting together a settlement offer right now, that will contain a confidentiality clause.

So we never find out more about what happened to Justina.

But we'll see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #260)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 01:44 PM

278. And it's used to treat ADHD, conduct disorder, etc, too.

All real diseases, when a kid actually has them. No, it's not *fun*. But it's a legitimate treatment for some actual psychological conditions. Given the family has been criticized for alleged hyperbole before, putting the specter of "child experimentation" out there -- when the only thing they did was to give her that institution's usual treatment for the disease they reasonably believed she had -- is going to make them seem like they continuously make bigger deals out of things than is required. Plays well with the Tea Party crowd and Freepers, not so well otherwise. So far I don't believe they've even presented evidence that she has been enrolled in any research studies at all, so this is mostly old news.

I've always defended the family. Naturally they are upset at the way their daughter has been treated. And while I question the reasonableness of believing she had Somatic Symptom Disorder in the first place, given that another team of doctors diagnosed her with a disease that explained all of her symptoms, if they honestly believed it was psychological then psychological interventions would be the appropriate standard of care.

And I do stand by my statement that I do not want to see wards of the state denied access to lifesaving treatments because of their experimental status. Research is not all bad. What about when the case comes up where the bio family and the State are both in agreement that the possible risk is massively outweighed by the potential benefits, but a stupid law is prohibiting their kid from getting to participate in the study?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #278)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 02:53 PM

288. Behavioral modification shouldn't be a legitimate treatment for somatic disorder.

Here's why.

The diagnosis of somatic disorder is made when doctors can't find an underlying cause to the symptoms: but there is always the very real possibility that there is a REAL physical cause and the doctors just haven't found it. (Or, in Justina's case, that Tufts doctors diagnosed it and BC doctors rejected the diagnosis.)

When I was growing up they thought asthma was psychosomatic. Then they found out it was caused by inflammation in the lungs. Other people have been misdiagnosed with a somatic disorder when they actually had multiple sclerosis, or other diseases. "Somatic disorder" is just a catch-all diagnosis that some psychiatrists will use when other doctors don't understand what is causing physical symptoms.

Now, suppose you are a person with very painful physical symptoms, like Justina had. You're having bouts of nausea and vomiting, or severe intestinal cramping and pain, or migraines. Just some of the symptoms that people with mitochondrial disease can have. You never know when the bout is going to start or how many days it will last.

Now imagine they've just told you that you're not physically sick. That you can control these symptoms with your mind. And they lock you up in a psychiatric ward. And now you're being rewarded when you feel well -- and ignored or "negatively" reinforced when you have symptoms. Think about it. When you're writhing in pain, they negatively reinforce your ("attention-seeking" behavior because they think that will help you feel better.

Can you understand why her parents referred to this as torture?

http://www.diagnosticrights.org/the-coalitions-letter-on-behalf-of-justina-pelletier/

10. Bader 5’s approach of aggressive behavior modification therapy for children with somatoform diagnosis is an atrocity, and it is one the Court has sufficient evidence to recognize.

No somatoform diagnosis can be decisively confirmed because there simply is no science to support a direct correlation between the absence of medical explanations for symptoms and the presence of mental health disorders. As a result, somatoform diagnosis is notoriously inaccurate, and dangerously so.

It is unconscionable for those who treat somatoform disorder not to take stock of the great potential for diagnostic error in their field. If aggressive behavioral modification techniques are employed, severe emotional harm will certainly result for those diagnosed in error – that is, for those whose genuine physical suffering and disabilities are repeatedly met with punishment designed to encourage impossible control. Aggressive behavior modification therapy for the physical symptoms of children who are actually medically ill is heinous. Because error in somatoform diagnosis can never be ruled out, it cannot be ethical for those techniques to be employed in the treatment of somatoform disorder in children.

The Court is aware that Bader 5 does routinely employ aggressive behavior modification techniques for children with somatoform disorder. Because the Court cannot be certain whether Justina Pelletier does or does not have somatoform disorder, or which of her symptoms are medical and which are somatoform, it is unconscionable to allow further treatment by BCH or any other facility where these techniques will be employed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #278)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 05:48 PM

289. Shades of gray here

The family's exaggerations notwithstanding, there was definite smoke to the fire here. One of the team leaders and early diagnosticians, Simona Bujoreanu, has co-written journal articles on somatoform disorder and was on at least one study team.
http://www.psychosomaticsjournal.com/article/S0033-3182%2814%2900080-2/abstract
She appears an eager beaver publicist for the disorder, suspecting it behind all that difficult-to-diagnose shrubbery.

Another BCH team member, Alice Newton, is also a prolific journal contributor on the subject of child abuse:
http://connects.catalyst.harvard.edu/profiles/display/person/9499

According to the Boston Globe the utterly flippant term for separating a child from a parent -- parent-ectomy-- is part of the BCH pediatric team's vocabulary.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

I don't know how anyone could justify locking a kid in a ward a year and a half, depriving her of school, church, friends and family contact, while doctors squabbled about a diagnosis. Apparently psych providers don't realize they're implementing paralogical science to begin with.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to disequilibrium1 (Reply #289)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:52 AM

434. Thank you for all the links, disequilibrium1,

and welcome to DU!

I agree that the use of the term "parent-ectomy" is flippant and unfeeling -- and says a great deal about their attitude toward children and their families.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 04:23 AM

259. Is "somatic disorder" a real disease? I had the impression that the Harvard doctors came up

with this disease and are attempting to prove it exists. There are any number of diseases that were considered to be "all in the patient's head" until someone developed a test which offered physical proof that, yes indeed, something is wrong here. Even when someone has an autoimmune illness, she (and it's typically a she) may be sent to a psychiatrist before she sees a rheumatalogist. (autoimmune diseases often present with a cluster of seemingly unrelated symptoms).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hedgehog (Reply #259)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:13 AM

269. They used to think asthma was psychosomatic, until they figured out it wasn't.

When I was a kid I didn't bother telling my parents about my breathing problems at night because I was well read enough to know it was all in my head.



There is a controversy in the field about the disorder. The latest version of the psychiatric manual greatly expanded the number of patients who could end up with the disorder, and the editor of the previous manual has spoken up strongly against the new diagnosis, saying that it could sweep up many people with common diseases like cancer and diabetes. (You can be diagnosed with a somatic disorder if you appear to be overly concerned with your symptoms, in the opinion of a doctor.)

One of the Boston Globe articles from a few months ago quoted a doctor at BC who said they no longer were finding the term somatic disorder to be useful -- they preferred the term somatic symptoms, which could apply in connection with other diseases. So the doctors at BC eventually began to reject the general diagnosis, even as they kept the label on Justina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to moriah (Reply #280)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:55 AM

435. Yes, and it's very controversial. The editor of the DSM-IV

took a public stand against the new definition, saying that the definition was far too broad and that it would sweep in many people who had serious physical illnesses, like cancer and diabetes.

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1580

By Dr. Francis Allen, editor of DSM-IV

SNIP

The overinclusiveness of this diagnosis is suggested by the results of the DSM-5 field trial study reported by the somatic symptom disorder work group at the 2012 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. Somatic symptom disorder captured 15% of patients with cancer or heart disease and 26% with irritable bowel syndrome or fibromyalgia, and it had a high false positive rate of 7% among healthy people in the general population.1 The rate of psychiatric disorder among medically ill patients is unknown, but these rates seem high, and the burden of proof before introducing any new diagnosis is that it has a favourable risk to benefit ratio. Yet the proposed diagnosis is unsupported by any substantial evidence on its likely validity and safety and was strongly opposed by patients, families, caregivers, and advocacy organizations.2

The DSM-5 definition of somatic symptom disorder is loose. It requires only one bodily symptom that is distressing or disruptive to daily life, which lasts at least six months. It also requires one of the following psychological or behavioral responses: disproportionate thoughts about the seriousness of symptom(s); persistently high level of anxiety about symptom(s); or excessive time and energy spent on health concerns.3 This is far looser than the (rarely used) definition of somatization disorder in DSM-IV. This required a history of many medically unexplained symptoms before the age of 30 years that occurred over several years and which resulted in treatment being sought or psychosocial impairment. A total of eight or more medically unexplained symptoms were needed from four specified symptom groups, with at least four pain and two gastrointestinal symptoms.4

Previous DSM criteria have always included reminders to clinicians to rule out other explanations before concluding that any mental disorder is present. I suggested to the working group that similar reminders should be included this time and that before somatic symptom disorder is diagnosed clinicians should consider whether the health concerns are completely unrealistic or whether an underlying medical disorder might account for them. I also suggested that clinicians should consider whether symptoms might be caused by one of several mental disorders that often present with physical problems (such as depression, generalized anxiety, or panic disorder). The DSM-5 working group reviewed these suggestions and rejected them.

Misapplication of these catch-all criteria, especially in harried primary care practice, may result in inappropriate diagnoses of mental disorder and inappropriate medical decision making.5 Millions of people could be mislabeled, with the burden falling disproportionately on women, because they are more likely to be casually dismissed as “catastrophizers” when presenting with physical symptoms.

SNIP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #435)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 01:48 AM

442. You aren't telling me things I don't know, I promise you.

I have fibromyalgia, along with bipolar disorder. I know very well what it's like to be told your problems are all in your head, and with bipolar depression there's no doubt that yes, I hurt worse when I'm depressed. The mind does have affect over the body, even when there is something genuinely medically wrong.

What bothers me about the way they tried to treat Justina was that they disregarded a competent doctor's diagnosis which they claimed to be made overbroadly, but the diagnosis they have is already determined to be overbroad. However, there are teenagers and adults with the actual psychological disorder. Also, it can be helpful to have counseling even when you are dealing primarily with physical affects from a disorder -- medical illness can be the cause of another valid psychological condition, called Adjustment Disorder (when life sucks and you're having a harder time dealing with it than you should, to the point it's causing you problems -- as a teenager dealing with my drug-addicted father who was dying of HIV and taking it badly, I had that diagnosis). Of course, that's talk therapy, not strapping someone with a GI appliance to a toilet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #442)

Thu Jul 10, 2014, 02:56 AM

443. Absolutely. A person can have both physical and mental or emotional conditions

at the same time. And Justina already had a therapist in CT, who testified on her and her parents' behalf in one of the MA hearings.

The problem with the Harvard psychiatrists' "treatment" is that they decided that her physical illness would go away if they treated her somatic disorder. That would be like withdrawing cancer treatments and telling a patient she should be able to control the disease with her mind -- instead of continuing with the cancer treatment and giving a patient an antidepressant or counseling to deal with the related depression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:47 PM

8. I know this family

Have known them for years - mostly Jessica and Lou - I'd only met Justina a couple of times before all this happened. I know them casually from dog shows. What happened to this family is a tragedy - I wish there was some way to get those 18 months back, but there really isn't.

They are a nice, normal family of working class background who, because they have no power or voice, were steamrolled by the state of Massachusetts and Harvard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gaspee (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:52 PM

10. Thank you for speaking up. To me, their "rude" reaction to the social workers

seemed perfectly normal, under the circumstances. It was scary watching all that happen to them. I still can't believe it went on for 16 months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 01:53 PM

11. Justina is now also paralyzed from the waist down.

 

She had no such problem before and in face was figure skating just before she was seized.



Everyone involved in doing this should face a hefty lawsuit and lose their license

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:01 PM

12. When she got the flu -- the cause of her going to the ER -- she was severely weakened

and entered the ER in a wheelchair.

But yes, she was figure skating just a few weeks earlier, and her condition only deteriorated once Boston Children's psychiatrists got hold of her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #12)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:13 PM

16. She now has no feeling below the waist according to the family

 

I'm guessing this development is what sparked the abrupt transition home.

Impossible to " fake "paralyzed. The somatoform disorder diagnosis disproved in the most awful way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #11)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:28 PM

80. Please tell me this is a temporary condition. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #80)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:43 PM

100. Well the Boston Children's docs, judge and MA DCF better hope so.

 

If her Tufts doctors can't restore her nerve damage and get her out of that wheelchair, I presume there's going to be a hefty financial pain to pay... to say nothing of Justina's suffering.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #80)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 02:03 PM

282. With mitochondrial disease, no one can know.

But the parents are determined to get her physical therapy that they think will help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:25 PM

19. Wow! The Blaze thinks liberals are to blame. You've convinced me!

Not.

Ridiculous. Fuck Glen Beck and all the idiot libertarians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #19)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:42 PM

23. I think many progressives who should have cared about this

were blinded by the fact that the Glen Becks got to the story first.

But they were right. The M.D.eities at Boston Childrens stole 16 months out of a teenager's life and may have permanently damaged her health. But we thought the parents were "rude" to the social workers and we hated the people who were supporting them, so we did our best to ignore the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:49 PM

28. "We"? In stories were it is difficult (to impossible) to tell who is right,

why wouldn't you side with independent hospitals and social workers? At any rate, being on Glen Beck's side is most likely an error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #28)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:59 PM

30. I read enough in the Boston Globe's investigative reporting

to think it was highly likely that the parents were right and the hospital was wrong.

And the bottom line for me was that in a case where two groups of highly respected doctors have different ideas about treatment, a parent, not the state, should be able to decide.

These are facts, according to the Boston Globe -- not a conservative rag.

The dispute was between Harvard doctors who thought she had a psychiatric illness and Tufts doctors who thought she had mitochondrial disease. The Harvard doctors won. Boston Children's employed the Harvard docs who put her in the locked ward.

Boston Children's Harvard psychiatrists diagnosed her with somatic disorder without talking to her mitochondrial specialist, a top doctor at Tufts Hospital. The B.C. social worker who wrote the report to the judge said she didn't know why the parents were so sure their daughter had mitochondrial disease. This was a lie because the Tufts doctor had personally talked to the social worker and explained Justina's diagnosis. This mitochondrial specialist has publicly taken the side of the parents and testified in court about his diagnosis of Justina.

After more than a year, the judge took her case away from the psychiatrists at Harvard and handed her back to the mitochondrial doctors at Tufts. A few months later, he returned her custody to her parents, in full, without any supervision by either Massachusetts or Connecticut.

It is blatantly obvious that Boston Children's made a huge mistake, and all the signs were there in the Boston Globe investigation last fall. It should never have gone on this long. Thank goodness the father finally decided to ignore the gag order and go public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #30)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:02 PM

32. "These are facts, according to the Boston Globe -- not a conservative rag." Great, then why bring

Glen Beck and the f'ing Blaze in here with a bunch of nonsense bashing liberals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #32)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:07 PM

34. Because Justina's video only got published by the Blaze.

Anyone who wants to listen to Justina -- the actual human being -- has to watch her on places like Fox and the Blaze, because the rest of the media isn't bothering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FSogol (Reply #32)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:08 PM

63. Because they're the ones reporting the cray cray that some feel back their position

Lots of cherry picking going on with the cites from Boston Globe. I formed my opinion in part from info reported by the Globe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:04 PM

174. Some progressives are just statists

I think you are a true progressive/liberal for posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #174)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:06 PM

176. Thanks, Puzzledtraveller.

That is a true compliment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #176)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:11 PM

181. Do you agree with the statement that liberals are statists?

Yes, how horrible, supporting removal of children from abuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #181)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:12 PM

184. Not liberals in general, no.

But you might qualify, based on many of your statements in response to the OP.

The only people who abused Justina were the people who put her in a locked ward and withheld her medical treatment for more than a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #184)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:15 PM

186. Wait, I thought they used experimental treatments?

Now they withheld treatment? It's hard to keep up.

Your definition of statist is telling. Sorry, but I don't believe in parents owning their children like property and doing with them whatever they want. Thinking that is statist is right wing whacko.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #186)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:17 PM

188. They did both. They withheld her medications

and put her through a research study involving behavioral modification.

I don't believe in a state owning children like property and doing with them whatever they want. Silly me.

Luckily, Rep. McDermott doesn't either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #188)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 06:21 PM

193. Withholding the treatments they thought were harming her is logical

They weren't knowingly withholding medical treatment they knew she needed. Of course the parents and those supporting them will claim they were necessary. They may not have been. Experimental doesn't mean bad. All treatments were in the experimental phase at some point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #193)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 07:29 PM

201. No, it isn't.

Not unless they included the doctor who prescribed them in the discussions about her care.

Instead, they were deliberately closing themselves off from any doctor who might disagree with them.

Concerning experimental procedures, no they're not all bad. But we have had laws developed since the 1960's protecting human subjects from experimentation without consent. I am shocked that there was such a large loophole for children who were wards of the state, and I'm glad this will be corrected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #201)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:31 PM

207. Again. Not including that one doctor isn't evidence they didn't consult anyone else about her care.

And isn't evidence they closed themselves off from any other doctors. You're jumping to the conclusion that not one but three entities all acted with deliberate malice, based on claims the parents have made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #207)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:59 PM

215. Doesn't matter. He was the SINGLE most important doctor to consult

since he was the one who made the diagnosis they were disputing, and who had been caring for her and her sister for years.

I specifically said in the OP that I didn't think they acted out of deliberate malice.
I think they acted based on over-sized egos. They thought they knew more than the doctors who had been caring for her for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #215)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:06 PM

219. Yes, it does.

They didn't wish to consult with that doctor. It wasn't the only doctor the parents have ever consulted. In fact, one dropped them for non-compliance. Children's isn't the only healthcare provider who's had problems with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #219)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:12 PM

222. Yes, the Harvard M.D.eities "didn't wish to consult with that doctor." That says it all. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #222)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:14 PM

224. Says what?

They may not have needed to. If the only contact with any healthcare they'd received was through that doctor, maybe you'd have a point. But it wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #224)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:16 PM

227. Of course they needed to. Obtaining her medical history would have been

a vital part of making a diagnosis, and they made no effort to get it from the person who knew most about her treatment in the previous two years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #227)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:20 PM

229. Now the claim is they didn't obtain her medical history?

How do you know they didn't? You don't have to consult every single doctor to get that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #229)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:34 PM

232. They absolutely didn't do that before making their decision -- which was done within 12 hours

of her stay.

And even afterwards, they refused to work with the one doctor who knew the most about her medical history.

You are wrong. You DO have to consult every single doctor involved in day to day care to get a real medical history. You can't leave out the two specialists who had the most to do with her care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #232)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:37 PM

233. How long does it take to obtain medical records?

Particularly from one hospital to another because of transfer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #233)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:40 PM

236. The doctor needed to SPEAK to them and he was prevented from doing so.

Not everything they needed to know was in the written record. In any case, they didn't obtain it before they took custody.

He said they took custody based on their hunch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #236)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:15 PM

252. It's your contention he needed to speak to them.

I don't know that's the case. A doctor commenting on the case in one article said the sheer number of procedures and what they are were alarming. If there was suspicious behavior by the parents as reported by the staff, the record of her procedures and mito doctors saying she didn't actually have it, I can see that being reason enough to report a suspicion. The hospital doesn't make the decision on whether the parents lose custody, which is why the tinfoily accusation of them being in cahoots comes into play. They couldn't have seen anything reasonable for suspicion because DCF is in their pocket. It couldn't possibly be because there was actually enough evidence to warrant reporting them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #252)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:19 PM

255. It is HIS contention he needed to speak to them. And he knew Justina,

unlike your "doctor commenting on the case."

The hospital DID make the decision because they are the "decider" for DCF. When the agency needs a decision on a medical issue, they go to BC. So BC knew that when BC made the recommendation, DCF would comply -- as it did.

By the time this was all blowing up in their faces, DCF and BC were both pointing fingers at each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #255)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 10:21 PM

256. Are you talking about her doctor from Tufts again?

I haven't seen one report of a BC doctor who wanted to consult and wasn't allowed. And anything based on the contention they reported just because they're an arm of DCF isn't going to sway me, because, tinfoil. ETA neither will the "Harvard elite" garbage. For one thing, that really smacks of a particular mentality that would explain the leap into conclusions. For another, just because a hospital has an affiliation doesn't mean all the doctors and professionals were educated there. Cahoots with DCF, charges that all these professionals were just elites with no regard for a child's welfare, we're talking crinkly metallic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #256)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:29 PM

257. BC is a consultant for DCF on medical issues. This is a fact, not tinfoil.

And it was Dr. Flores, the GI doc who moved from Tufts to B.C., who wasn't allowed to consult.

From the Boston Globe report:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/16/month-medical-ordeal-conclusion-still-uncertain/Y7qvYTGsq8QklkxUZvuUgP/story.html

Instead, the agency regularly turns to doctors in the medical mecca of Boston for free consults. Its deputy commissioner acknowledges that, given Children’s standing as one of the world’s top pediatric hospitals, the state often looks there first for assistance — which can create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest when the agency is weighing abuse allegations brought by the hospital.

“The medical capacity of DCF is nil,” said Dr. Stephen Boos, the medical director for the team that handles child protection cases at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #257)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:45 AM

306. What's tinfoil is suggesting that the hospital being "consultants" is evidence of collusion.

I'm not understanding why medical staff are supposed to stay out of these matters and never report suspected abuse, and DCF is supposed to just figure it out on their own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #306)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 04:15 AM

313. It is evidence of conflict of interest. They weren't in the position to give a neutral opinion.

I'm not saying that the DCF is "supposed to just figure it out on their own."

But when the care of the psychiatrists at BC is in question, the appropriate thing would be not to ask them to evaluate themselves -- but to bring in outside doctors from other hospitals to look into the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #313)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 04:22 AM

315. It seems to me that's what you're advocating

Do you get upset at every decision DCF makes? Do they need a neutral third party when evaluating other forms of abuse? Or is it just because it's medical professionals who are reporting? For your position to make sense we have to assume that the hospital is working with an agenda to remove the child. Do teachers have this same agenda when reporting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #315)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 04:45 AM

316. Did you read any of my previous posts?

I just told you that DCF doesn't have any medical expertise of their own, so they have to go to consultants. Boston Children's is their usual consultant. But in this case, because of the conflict of interest, they should have gone to another hospital to get an outside opinion.

Haven't you ever heard of getting a second opinion? That's exactly what should have happened - instead of the psychiatrists at BC evaluating themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #316)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 02:08 PM

322. Yes. I don't see the conspiracy you do.

Sorry. I'm not seeing why DCF should be ignoring the opinions of doctors because of some imagined conflict of interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #322)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 02:57 PM

325. They didn't have an imagined conflict of interest. They had a genuine conflict of interest.

Read the definition again.

No one can objectively evaluate their own work. They needed an objective opinion, so they should have gone to a neutral party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #325)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:13 PM

328. Explain the conflict of interest

I know what conflict of interest means. What interests are you suggesting that conflict? Are you suggesting an ulterior motive in removing children from the care of their parents? If so, what is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #328)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 04:20 PM

339. The same person performing a work

can't objectively evaluate his own work.

This is why good doctors often recommend getting a second opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #339)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 06:11 PM

344. That's not the same thing as recognizing abuse.

Medical professionals shouldn't be trusted to spot and recognize abuse? I disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #344)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 06:14 PM

346. The ONLY allegation of abuse was "overmedicalizing."

And the only reason they thought her care was "overmedicalized" was because they thought she had somatic disorder instead of a physical illness.

These psychiatrists weren't able to view her case objectively. As Dr. Mark Korson, the metabolic specialist said, they were out to prove a psychiatric diagnosis. And they failed miserably. Her physical health only deteriorated during their care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #346)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 06:18 PM

347. Guess what? That's a form of abuse.

Or they thought she suffered from somatic disorder because of the overmedicalizing. Your attempts to downplay how serious that is is telling.

Dr Korson is entitled to his opinion. He could be just as easily wrong as the Super Awful Elite Cabal of Child Kidnapping Doctors and Their DCF Cronies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #347)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 06:46 PM

354. Guess what? It's not overmedicalizing when it's treatment for a REAL condition

which they finally decided she DID have, which is why they sent her back to Dr. Korson, for treatment of a metabolic disease at Tufts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #354)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 06:52 PM

357. What does the fact that it's a REAL condition have to do with anything?

I don't recall the source, I believe it was the Boston Globe, definitely one of the not RW kook sites, cited a doctor who said the list of treatments that girl had endured was way more than someone suffering from mito should ever have endured. If that's the case, intervention was warranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #357)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:02 PM

361. Sorry, but a source that you don't recall is worthless. I'm very familiar with the Globe

articles, so you didn't read that there.

Every case of mitochondrial disease is different. So any doctor saying that CLEARLY wasn't a metabolic specialist.

She had a stroke at age 7, for which she needed to be treated, but she's had only two surgeries in her life. One was to remove a 20 inch band of cartilage that was wrapped around her intestines. That isn't a standard feature of mito -- just something that had happened to her.

The other surgery was for installing a cap allowing her intestines to be flushed out. Dysfunctional intestines are common with the disorder, though that procedure was a newer treatment for the problem. The GI doctor recommended it after thorough testing and observation determined that her bowel wasn't evacuating. Ironically, that same "extreme" procedure (extreme in the view of the psychiatrists) is performed by other doctors at B.C. And no one at BC is criticizing BC doctors for installing caps.

Her medical treatment at Tufts was clearly warranted. Her kidnapping by B.C. was not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #361)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:11 PM

363. You got me, I'm totally making it up! Meanwhile, someone who sources the Daily Fail

and The Blaze has a lot of nerve to throw shade about worthless sources. Meanwhile if I find the source I'll gladly post it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #363)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:16 PM

366. At least I was open about those sources. Not telling you to trust my memory.

Unlike you, I have read widely about the case, with the Boston Globe, the Hartford Courant, and ABC news providing most of the information.

But when a source like the Daily Mail provides an actual document no one else is showing, yes, I'll link to that, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #366)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:19 PM

370. I'm not stopping you from forming your own opinions.

You think I'm untrustworthy? Fine. Coming from someone who thinks The Blaze is a valid source, I'm not all that hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #370)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:25 PM

372. The Blaze was a valid source of Justina's videotaped interview.

If a progressive site put up a videotaped interview, I'd have preferred that. But there wasn't one out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #372)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:27 PM

374. Uh huh. Sure they are.

It should tell you something that sources like The Blaze are the only ones out there. That's actually a big red flag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #374)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:43 PM

379. The only red flag is waving at the MSM's negligence in covering the story fully.

She and her parents should have been interviewed everywhere.

And it wasn't for the parents' lack of trying that they weren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #379)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 07:46 PM

380. I don't think MSM needs to jump on every cause the RWers think is just.

Not everything is worthy of national coverage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #380)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:05 PM

381. This story was. Progressives value fairness and justice -- and children --

more than the right wing.

It's pathetic that most of those supporting her were from the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #381)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:14 PM

385. That could be the explanation

or it could be there's a real reason right wingers were drawn to the cause. Which is more likely? Hmmm. Progressives being horrible? Or right wingers being horrible? Huh, so hard to decide....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #385)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 08:32 PM

386. Whatever drew the right to her cause, no one should be subjected

to what Justina and her family went through, without any sort of due process or concern for her rights -- and with a gag order to prevent them from speaking out.

Good for the father for finally gathering the courage to ignore the gag order and fight for his daughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #386)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:01 PM

389. No one should be subjected to it? I disagree. Children would die if DCF were dismantled.

I don't doubt it's an awful thing for parents to go through, but children have rights of their own. This is why progressives haven't jumped on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #389)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:12 PM

395. She had the right not to be ripped from her family and locked in a psychiatric ward

for a year without due process. And that would include having an objective third party, unassociated with Boston Children's, giving an opinion on her complicated medical issues. WHICH DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Progressives didn't jump on this because the media failed to do its job. There wasn't a single article in the MSM until Fox and Boston Globe put out stories, 9 months after she was taken from her parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #395)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:16 PM

398. A judge ruled in a court of law. How much more due process do you want?

Or are you saying that children must be left in the care of their parents through the whole process? Children have their own rights as individuals, including the right to be protected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #398)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:23 PM

400. A judge rubber-stamped the DCF recommendation, which was written without

any consultation with outside doctors and on the basis of no reliable evidence of parental misconduct that would justify such a loss of custody. And he issued an unconstitutional gag order, according to the ACLU, Dershowitz, and others.

Children ALSO have the right to be protected from unnecessary imprisonment by the state, which is exactly what happened to her. Without consulting anyone but themselves, they locked her in a psychiatric ward for more than a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #400)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:27 PM

401. A judge rubber stamped the DCF rubber stamping of the hospital kidnapping.

They're all in on it!

Imagine all the evil, heartless people who have to be involved in such a thing. Sounds like the ingredients of an anti-government wacko conspiracy. Backed up by ant-government kooks. What a coincidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #401)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:31 PM

402. The judge and the hospital had a longstanding, working relationship that led the judge

not to ask the questions that he should have asked.

He put too much trust in the Harvard psychiatrists. I'd say his problem was more gullibility and an inability to think for himself; and the Harvard docs problem was ego.

They weren't evil or heartless; just stubborn and overly confident in their own views.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #402)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:36 PM

404. Does the working relationship involve cackling with glee from their elite ivory tower

while they plot the kidnappings and count on a judge to automatically go along with it? How could those with such evil in their hearts resist, because it's the perfect set up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #404)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:09 PM

414. I don't have the kind of vivid imagination you obviously do, so the answer is no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #414)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:11 PM

415. I'm usually accused of the opposite when I don't believe conspiracy theories. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #415)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:17 PM

420. You're the only one here alleging imaginary conspiracy theories.

Over and over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #420)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:21 PM

422. If it walks like a conspiracy theory, etc

Maybe. It's probably the fact I'm the only one bored enough to bother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #401)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:40 PM

407. The judge returned Justina to continue to be "overmedicalized" by Tufts and her parents

 

without supervision. Clearly there's no more issues with her care or her parents' adherence to medical supervision since she's now back on that regimen and home with her family.

I can't for the life of me figure out why you are persisting ignoring these basic facts.



Your bizarre and willful dismissal of the ultimate result in this case is truly weird. You can speculate about all the rest til the cows come home. The bottom line is that she's returned.

She's been returned home to be cared for by the same "team" of doctors and parents as before. With no conditions. Or supervision. Even CT DCFS has declined to get involved recognizing Justina is receiving proper care. If that's not a stunning refutation of the BC docs and DCFS then I don't know what is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #407)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:45 PM

409. Oh, so he didn't rubber stamp it then. Or did he rubber stamp it, then un-rubber stamp it?

It could be confusing to keep up.

No ,he didn't simply reverse course and return her without supervision. I know the impression by some is that she was just allowed to languish in a psych ward to enact an evil conspiracy to experiment on her, but there have been multiple rulings by the judge with the eventual goal to reunite her, which is pretty typical. Not the actions of a judge who merely rubber stamps evil plots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #409)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:55 PM

412. I damn well hope the judge did that. As conditions changed.

 

If there wasn't timely, regular supervision with flexibility to change course as Justina's condition changed, then there's even more reason to go ballistic. That a judge would/could be careless about an initial DCFS case doesn't surprise me in the least. The system is fraught with emotion and until the judge had adequate time and resources to understand the problem, I'm presuming they relied on their usual team of experts to guide them. In this case, they were wrong.

As it is, there's going to be hell to pay since she's now been returned to Tufts and her parents, without supervision OR qualifications. To be "overmedicalized" forever. Clearly with the judge and MA DCFS, and CT DCFS blessings....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #412)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:04 PM

413. It seems to me a rubber stamping careless judge wouldn't take the time to be flexible.

That really doesn't fit with the evil plot. She'd still be locked up in that psych ward getting experimented on if such allegations were true. But the judge followed a typical pattern of re-uniting a child with the parents.

I'm fine with children being returned to their parents once they're deemed fit and any problems resolved. I'm not evil and it's likely none of those involved in the story are, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #413)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:15 PM

418. That better not be a typical pattern -- more than a year on a locked psychiatric ward

for a girl with a physical disease who had been doing very well in her school and family life till she had a bad bout with the flu.

And that unconstitutional gag order on the parents better not be typical either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #418)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:18 PM

421. Why shouldnl't it be? The judgment to return children should be rushed?

I think it likely would have taken less time had the parents not run to kooks with questionable motives to "help" them. They did little to help those parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #421)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:42 PM

423. When there's no immediate risk of serious harm, which there wasn't, any judgment

to take a child away from her family should be made only with careful, deliberate consideration. If they were so concerned about the child's welfare, they could simply have reported their concerns to DCF, which would have been free to investigate the report even if the parents had moved Justina to Tufts.

The State of MA could have and should have taken the time to fully consult with her doctors at Tufts before snatching custody away from her parents. Instead, the social worker falsely said in her report to the judge -- which the judge relied on in making his decision -- that she had no idea where the parents got the diagnosis of mitochondrial disorder. (Even though Dr. Korson had telephoned her to explain the diagnosis and she had spoken with him.)

Then, with the doctors at Tufts and at Boston Children's at a stand-off, the Judge should have at least gotten expert opinions from other institutions. And he did not.

If he, DCF, and BC had take the proper, fully-considered action in the first place, they wouldn't have been left trying to figure out how to unwind their mistakes at the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #409)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:12 PM

416. That's exactly what he did. At the end, he finally un-rubber stamped it.

But he dressed up his ruling in fake "conditions" requiring the parents to care for her with the doctors at Tufts, as they had wanted to all along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #416)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:14 PM

417. Very complicated rubber stamping n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #417)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 11:16 PM

419. That's why they pay him the big bucks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:25 PM

20. I thought there were some strange things about this case

Somatoform disorder isn't supposed to be diagnosed with a quick one-time visit, it's similar to hypochondria, you have to have some previous experience with it or have the doctor thinking you have it for 6 months to a year. Why they instantly jumped to it is a mystery and someone needs to provide an answer to it.

Justina was being seen by Dr. Mark Korson for her mitochondrial disease, and from what I see, it seems like the people in Massachusetts made no effort to even contact Korson for his perspective or her medical history.

Was there a purpose to her separation from her life, and her family and friends before this? Who actually thought such a severe disuption to her life would have a beneficial effect? And take the efforts to get her out removed, what would have happened? Would they have kept her indefinitely? And what were they doing? Things like CBT and exposure therapy have as much effectiveness as medication in things like this, if they really thought she was just psychologically unwell then did they not try it instead of just keeping her in there and telling she's not sick?

So according to them and their logic, she's got somatoform disorder, her parents are medically abusive, and Dr. Korson is either ignorant or an accomplice to their abuse; so why did the professionals there make no attempt to get Justina's other sisters the help they must have needed, have the parents prosecuted, or Korson investigated for his medical malpractice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ck4829 (Reply #20)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:46 PM

25. You're asking a lot of good questions.

Her older sister with the disease is an adult, so she fortunately escaped the tentacles of Boston Children's. But they have a history of responding this way to other families with mitochondrial disease. Apparently the psychiatrists think it's a fake disease, and they're determined to prove it. Justina wasn't the first case and she won't be the last, unless someone does something to rein in the committee at B.C. that set this all in motion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:45 PM

24. Sorry, don't trust The Blaze to report this story without extreme bias...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #24)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:48 PM

26. Really. Anti-government whackos claim she was experimented on.

Not surprising, and I'm not buying it. Fringe tinfoil nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:55 PM

52. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, believes she was experimented on.

Her psychiatrists, who were involved in research on somatic disorders, withdrew her prescribed medications and put her through a program of "behavioral modification" instead.

That is why Rep. Jim McDermott, one of the most liberal members of the House and a psychiatrist himself, is proposing his bill not to allow children who are wards of the state to be included in experimental research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #52)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:03 PM

57. I don't think wards of the state should be expiremented on either

I just don't buy the claim it happened. Jim McDermott is free to have his own opinions, of course. Reps are human, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #57)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:09 PM

64. It is a fact that it is legal in the state of Massachusetts to enroll wards of the state

in experimental research projects.

And it is a fact that the written policy of Boston Children's allows it.

And it is a fact that their researchers engage in research on somatic disorders among children.

You just don't buy the claim that they enrolled Justina in any of their studies.

You are apparently very trusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #64)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:12 PM

67. So, if there's a cancer drug that hasn't been approved yet

and a child who would otherwise die for sure could possibly be helped by it, they'd be SOL because they're a ward of the state? I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #67)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:21 PM

72. I would support an exception in that kind of situation.

But not in situations like Justina's.

And right now, the law in Massachusetts allows experimental research to be conducted on wards of the state even when there is significant risk and no prospect of direct benefit to the child.

Think about that. In 2014. Isn't that shocking to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #72)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:24 PM

74. If there is a problem with unnecessary treatments involving wards of state

then something needs to be done about it. I'm not basing that determination based on the word of parents who are particularly biased and rushed to RW sources for support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #74)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:27 PM

77. Then take the word of Rep. Jim McDermott, Democrat and one of the most liberal

members of the House -- who is a psychiatrist and has investigated the case himself. He didn't enter this situation lightly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #77)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:30 PM

82. Liberal doesn't mean immune to being hoodwinked.

I'm sure if his opinion is based on valid evidence that will all come out. So far it hasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #82)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:40 PM

93. That's absolutely true.

And many progressives were hoodwinked by the Harvard psychiatrists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #93)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:42 PM

97. How is that possible? The Harvard psychiatrists aren't the ones running and squawking to the media.

How would progressive have been hoodwinked by them, exactly?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #97)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:43 PM

101. They believed the Harvard psychiatrists' diagnosis that she had a somatic disorder.

They were hoodwinked by the "experts."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #101)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:47 PM

103. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me that's not true

I have no way of knowing if their diagnosis was correct. But I'm certainly not going to jump to the conclusion that they were wrong, either. This is no different than any other alleged child abuse case that makes the news. I don't jump to the conclusion that it's an injustice because government bad! And the parents agree that it's bad so that's more proof!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #103)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:53 PM

107. You have no way of knowing. Correct. So don't you think that when there's a reasonable doubt,

and a dispute between two sets of doctors, the parents should be able to decide? But the reason they lost custody is because B.C. insisted that they were right -- while refusing to talk to the mitochondrial specialists at Tufts.

Why should the Harvard psychiatrists get to wrest control of this case away from the parents and the girl's highly respected specialist at Tufts University?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #107)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:56 PM

110. If that were indeed the case, then yes.

But I find it hard to believe that it was merely disagreement that drove this. In fact, one article I read stated that there was more to it and it was based on the parent's behavior. I wasn't there, I didn't witness what happened, but I'm not an expert anyway. The point is we're getting one side of the story. The parents. I'm not going to immediately assume this was a governmental kidnapping based on their say so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #110)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:03 PM

117. Yes -- the parents were rude to the social workers. And so the social workers, apparently,

got even.

But what parents wouldn't have gotten outraged in this situation? After a 25 minute interview, some psychologist decides she has somatic disorder, and the next thing they know, they've lost custody of their sick child -- and she's put in a locked ward and deprived of her necessary physical treatment.

Can't a frantic parent be excused for some loudness and some rudeness in that situation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #117)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:05 PM

120. No, this wasn't rudeness to the social workers I'm talking about.

This was when she was first admitted. Behavior by the parents around Justina, and Justina's behavior and symptoms changing based on whether the parents were in the room.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #120)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:22 PM

132. As reported by the social workers who felt insulted.

And by the psychologist whose theory is that half of the children with undiagnosed symptoms actually have somatic disorder. And the psychiatrists at B.C. don't "believe in" mitochondrial disease, so her reports had an confirmatory bias toward somatic disorder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #132)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:26 PM

138. It wasn't social workers who reported this

I'm sure social workers are insulted all the time. It can't be easy removing children from custody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #24)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:48 PM

27. Then don't read that. Watch the interview with Justina herself.

And read the Boston Globe reports.

I'd love to be able to link to sources other than the Blaze, but most of the media has been ignoring the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 02:54 PM

29. Publish or perish affects health professionals, too. So yeah, I can believe Boston Childrens

might have seen a chance to get a publication out of this girl and they hijacked her care for a year to try out an experimental treatment.

BTW, the clock does not run out on her ability to sue until two years after she turns 18. I hope the folks at Boston Children's are well insured. And they better pray that her regular doctor gets her back to baseline with her "overmedication" treatment, because if she is still in a wheelchair, the jury is going to make Boston Children's pay through the nose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #29)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:31 PM

38. Unfortunately,

 

it will be the INSURERS who pay, and not the individual docs and administrators themselves who perpetrated this atrocity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #38)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:50 PM

106. Not crying any tears for the insurance companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #29)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:28 PM

141. I suspect their lawyers and insurance companies are already urging a quick settlement. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:00 PM

31. DUers got outraged about this more than once while she was being held.

 

So I'm not sure what "liberals" this author is talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #31)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:05 PM

33. Some did -- but all you have to do is read this thread to find some who still

think the state was right.

And the liberal media is still mostly leaving it up to Fox news to report the case. How many people actually read The Boston Globe? Why wasn't MSNBC on the ball?

And why isn't the media -- other than the right-wing media -- reporting more about the fact that we have been allowing research on wards of the state, even when it poses significant risk and carries no prospect of benefit to the subject?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #31)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:14 PM

205. THAT part of the story is where I utterly disagree with the OP

 

Those damned liberals hurt that our child, you see ...

Heck, I'm liberal ... so I hurt that child too?

I applaud the OP for raising these important questions, but carrying water for Glenn Beck is hardly endearing ... no matter what the cause ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #205)

Thu Jul 3, 2014, 06:17 AM

270. I'm not accusing liberals of hurting her. I'm asking why the MSM and the "liberal media"

ignored the case and left it to the Glenn Becks to champion Justina's cause.

We care just as much about children and children's health as they do. Don't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:16 PM

35. I wish we could champion the cause of every child who isn't getting proper care...

but there are just too many of them. We have so many battles to fight, we're overloaded. Sorry you can't see that, pnwmom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesertDiamond (Reply #35)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:31 PM

39. This wasn't just a case of improper care. This was a case of the state vs. the parents.

Don't you think that if you ever have a seriously ill child, you should be able to choose the doctors that provide her care -- without fear of the state coming in, taking custody away, and putting her in a locked psychiatric ward for a somatic disorder?

This girl was falsely diagnosed of having a somatic disorder within 12 hours of her admission to the ER. When her parents objected and tried to bring her back to her regular doctor at Tufts, they were escorted out of the hospital and lost custody for 16 months.

The reason Rep. Jim McDermott is proposing "Justina's law" is because what happened to her could happen to other children. And has. Anyone with a child should be concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:25 PM

36. The Blaze?

 

What's the matter, Infowars link didn't work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #36)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:33 PM

40. If you can find another link to a video interview with Justina,

I'd be happy to substitute that link.

But I think it is important to listen to the actual human being people have been talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:42 PM

48. You do? I've heard plenty of interviews that were manipulative and selective.

 

You have to understand, I don't believe a word out of the religious right or Beck or any of the folks who so casually malign LGBT people, they lie, they make shit up, they have no ethics whatsoever. Listening to them is meritless, for they lack voracity.
They cry hate too often, like the boy who cried wolf. If she suffered, Beck can buy her a lawyer. He's rich like Francis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #48)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:43 PM

49. So there isn't one. Just as I thought. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:29 PM

37. When this case has come up for discussion before

 

on DU, there were a lot of people who thought it was outrageous. I think the article's author is using a very broad brush to state that progressives were "snowed."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #37)


Response to Post removed (Reply #41)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:38 PM

46. Post a link proving that or admit that you're lying. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #37)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:34 PM

43. Just check on google news and you will see

how little coverage there is by progressive or even mainline publications.

But where were the progressives in the protests? Why did we leave it all to the right-wingers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #43)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:42 PM

47. I see what you mean.

 

When progressives became aware of the situation they thought it was outrageous, but it was mostly ignored by all but the Fox News/Beckerhead media. Did the family ever try to get the attention of the MSM, before it became a RW cause celebre?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #47)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:50 PM

50. Yes, exactly. The Boston Globe got the ball rolling, but most of the media quickly

lost interest in the case.

I don't know if the parents tried to get the attention of the MSM first, but they were obviously cooperative in the Boston Globe reporting and that of the Hartford Courant.

Among the first people they contacted for help was their parish priest, and that led them to most of their right wing supporters. I'd say "unfortunately" but those supporters really helped to keep Justina's predicament in the news . . . even if mostly in the right wing news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #50)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:55 PM

53. I thought it was the Globe

 

that had the despicable columnist, Howie Carr, but I see that it's the Herald instead.

Regardless, I'm glad for all of them that the truth came out. And hopefully this has opened the eyes of a few people and brought attention to mitochondrial disease.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #53)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:59 PM

56. Right. The Herald is the right wing paper, the Globe's on the left.

I have a young relative who has a disorder often associated with mitochondrial disease, so I've had to learn more about this than I ever wanted to. I feel so sorry for families caught up in these situations. There have been several similar cases at B.C. in the last few years because the psychiatrists there apparently don't believe there is such a thing as mitochondrial disease -- and are out to prove it.

What a nightmare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #56)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:03 PM

58. Hopefully your family members

 

will never get caught up in such a horrible situation. Can't imagine the heartbreak and helplessness that the Peletiers felt during that long ordeal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #58)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:05 PM

62. Thanks.

She's in the position of Justina's older sister -- too old to get caught up in anything like this now. Thank goodness. It's enough just to have to watch her suffer physically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YarnAddict (Reply #53)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 08:39 AM

292. As a Moderator of an 11,000 member group aimed at Freeing Justina

I can assure you we forbid ANY posts with political overtones specifically because we were desperately trying to get the main stream media on board and knew their reluctance was because Conservative media had embraced it. Weekly, large groups of members targeted specific main stream media outlets encouraging them to do the right thing. Also Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren as well as the president were inundated with thousands of polite emails. They refused to help. How sad is it that your political affiliation would make people refuse to read the facts or help a child who's health was clearly failing? Justina's abdomen became burgundy in color, her hair fell out half way back, her legs developed severe edema which was indicative of heart issues present in Mitochondrial disease and she could no longer walk yet BCH dug in their heels to complete their research instead of caring that this child's health was plummeting. What would cause these obvious symptoms other than medical experimentation? This political division and lack of mutual respect hurts us all. We need to view this as Americans who know best what our children need instead of blind faith that if our party says it's so, it must be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fcefxer (Reply #292)

Sat Jul 5, 2014, 09:23 AM

293. It is a shame that

 

Justina was deprived of her family for so long, and that her health was allowed to deteriorate to this level. Hopefully, she will recover from this ordeal, with no longterm physical or psychological effects.

Thank you for supporting her and her parents. I wish I had known, because I have followed this story, and would have liked to be able to do something to help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fcefxer (Reply #292)

Tue Jul 8, 2014, 03:34 AM

305. The liberal media is in on it, too?

I'm sorry, but our media doesn't shy away from the right wing crazies. It's an inconvenient fact that it's right wingers taking up this cause to further an agenda and there's a reason for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #305)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:04 AM

427. No, the problem is that most of the MSM did not "get in on it."

With the Boston Globe and the Hartford Courant being two major exceptions, along with some stories by ABC and CBS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fcefxer (Reply #292)

Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:02 AM

426. Thank you very much for the info, fcefxer.

And thank you for all your hard work on behalf of Justina, her family, and other children who have been affected by Massachusetts's antiquated human subject laws.

I used to sit on an institutional review board, and I thought informed consent had been made mandatory in the 1960's and that experimentation on children was banned unless it was for their benefit. So I was shocked to learn that in MA it was legal to involved children who were wards of the state in research with significant risk that might not even benefit them.

Your organization, Justina's family, and everyone else who was involved deserve our thanks for bringing this to light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:33 PM

42. Something doesn't square about this story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Helen Borg (Reply #42)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:35 PM

44. Typical reaction. Harvard docs could never be wrong,

so "something doesn't square."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Helen Borg (Reply #42)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:37 PM

45. Mass DCF is the most incompent and corrupt governement organization you can imagine

overworked, understaffed and run by political hacks, they do a lot of harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #45)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 03:58 PM

55. Of course it is. That's always the claim, no matter where these stories happen

Government bad!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #55)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:10 PM

65. No - some government agencies bad

especially those in states with traditions of political corruption and patronage. MA is not as bad as RI but they have issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #65)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:15 PM

69. Oh, some agencies. Funny how it's always the ones featured in RW anti-government screeds.

If only one could live in the one state where no one thinks it's corrupt and filled with government overreach. Which state is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #69)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:20 PM

70. More than 95 kids have died since 2001 while in the custody of DCF

Though Governor Deval Patrick last week described Oliver’s disappearance as a unique tragedy in which state officials failed to do their jobs, state records show that children under the watch of the Department of Children and Families actually die with alarming regularity.

Since 2001, more than 95 Massachusetts children whose cases were overseen by state social workers have died directly or indirectly because of abuse or neglect, according to state statistics. The death toll probably is considerably higher because state officials have not revealed how many died from 2011 to 2013.

Some of the deaths make headlines, but many more children die anonymously, half of them before they celebrate their first birthday, according to state reports.

Over all, children who received services from social workers at DCF in 2010 were about six times as likely as the general population of Bay State children to die from maltreatment, according to the state’s own calculations.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/02/02/massachusetts-children-under-state-protection-die-from-abuse-with-alarming-frequency/2TcwcpIbWnrANkKKQs1CVP/story.html

I assume now you are going to tell me that 95 deaths tell you nothing about how competent DCF is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #70)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:28 PM

78. DCF is horribly underfunded

BUt the solution isn't to side with anti-government whackos. That would only make the situation worse. You think they're interested at all in making sure those children are taken care of properly? Don't bet on it. Those children who were removed, most for valid reasons, deserve better. They don't deserve for the issue to be framed by anti-government lunatics who want to destroy the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #78)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:32 PM

84. They are still woefully incompent regardless of the reasons - they are killing kids

when DCF custody increase the danger of a kid dying, what else can one say?

And where did I ever say I wanted to destroy government? I said DCF is incompetent and corrupt. Nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #84)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:36 PM

88. The kids are killed in foster care.

That isn't evidence they shouldn't have been removed from their homes in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #88)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:43 PM

99. They die at a higher rate under DCF care

the point of removing them from their homes is to move them to some place safe. DFC can't handle their basic function. Why are you supporting them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #99)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 04:50 PM

105. More children die under DCF than by the hands of their own parents?

I'm skeptical of that claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #105)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:11 PM

124. Exactly how many kids should die under DCF?

Wow, whatever your agenda in this, it must be very powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #124)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:15 PM

125. None. But claiming DCF kills more needs to be backed up.

My agenda is anti anti-government whackos. They have no interest in children's welfare, only their own agenda to dismantle the government. Do you think that will help abused children? I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #125)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:22 PM

133. This is what the Boston Globe has to say

Over all, children who received services from social workers at DCF in 2010 were about six times as likely as the general population of Bay State children to die from maltreatment, according to the state’s own calculations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #133)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:47 PM

153. That's not the same thing.

Again, not saying that it isn't a horrible problem that doesn't need to be addressed, but that's not the same thing as saying more children die in their hands. In fact, it's good to see the state calculating and presenting the data themselves. That's not the actions of a corrupt entity interested in kidnapping kids for no reason. Far better to fund them adequately than side with anti-goverment types.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #153)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:51 PM

157. Where in fuck do you get this anti- government shit from?

I said the DCF is corrupt and incompent. They are failing in their basic job of keeping kids safe. That is all. Are you saying it is not the case?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #157)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:55 PM

161. Because it's anti-government folks who've taken up their case

and bolstered the media attention to national levels. They're the ones the parents are speaking through. Their agenda is anti-government. A lot of talking points being used in support of them are from those sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #161)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:50 PM

208. So anyone who supports them has to be anti-government?

really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #208)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:53 PM

209. No.

But it happens to be a fact that anti-government RWers have taken up their cause and the family is speaking through them. I'm not sure everyone reading the facts and reacting are aware of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #209)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 08:56 PM

211. So instead of smearing me as RW

why don't you approach the issue in a honest matter and actually address what I said instead of finding a way to label me and then ignore me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #211)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:01 PM

217. Where did I smear you as RW?

I was talking about the group in the media who've glommed on to this case to champion the parents' cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #217)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:04 PM

218. Every time you try to deflect the conversation

by bring up the fact that some anti-government groups also don't like the DCF. It has nothing to do with what I am saying so stop trying to associate me with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #218)

Wed Jul 2, 2014, 09:07 PM

220. I didn't associate you with them.

The anti-government group took up their cause because they don't like DCF. It fits their agenda. You asked me why I brought them up and I explained it to you.