Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ind. Couple Who Rejected Child's Medical Care Faces $172,000 Bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 08:54 PM
Original message
Ind. Couple Who Rejected Child's Medical Care Faces $172,000 Bill
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBAADRYDCE.html

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - A couple convicted of reckless homicide in their newborn daughter's death must pay the hospital bill for another daughter who was kept in intensive care for 75 days despite their religious objections, an appeals court ruled.

Dewayne and Maleta Schmidt now face a nearly $172,000 medical bill for 5-year-old Makalynn, along with a work-release sentence following their convictions in the 2003 death of their other daughter, Rhianna. snip

A three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled last week that the Schmidts' religious objections to medical treatment did not negate their parental duty to pay for their child's health care.

"Parents, while free to make martyrs of themselves, are not free under identical circumstances to make martyrs of their children," Judge Margret G. Robb wrote. snip

The deputies called for an ambulance for Maleta Schmidt, who was then seven months pregnant, even though her husband refused consent and told them he had no health insurance and would not pay for any medical services. Hospital doctors ordered an emergency Caesarean section despite the couple's objections.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good for the Judge. These assholes have the opportunity
to practice birth control if they don't want to incur the costs of childbirth.

Their newborn died of an infection that could have been easily treated. I can't imagine the suffering of that poor baby.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. The far right zealouts feel empowered by Bush
If you don't wish to be responsible for a child, planned parenthood provides free birth control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pop goes the weasel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. this is not black and white
Jeesh, the hospital performed a c-section on her at 7 months pregnant without consent. Probably, had the woman lived through the distress, the pregnancy would have resulted in a stillbirth (also known as an abortion). Instead, she was forced to give birth and is now being forced to pay for the medical costs of a child she apparently did not want. Don't get me wrong--I think this couple is nuttier than a pecan orchard. Still, I don't think pregnancy over-rides a woman's authority over her own body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melnjones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. very good points...
Thanks for sharing them. What a scary precedent that could set!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-14-05 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Good call.
I don't like the sound of this at all. Yes, these people are not in good shape mentally, but this sounds abusive on the part of the state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Ignorance has its PRICE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. But the judiciary should not be making the problem worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Yep. I am amazed that they let this couple to keep their other
kids, considering one child died because of them. Now apparently their other child would have died too, if it was up to the couple who didn't want to treat the child.
Why exactly are they allowed to raise the other two?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. From the article, it's unclear whether the woman's life was in
danger. Since she was in distress, it's very possible the Drs. were trying to save her life. Also, if she didn't want the children, as you claim, WTF did she get pregnant, and numerous times at that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Many meth addicts
get pregnant time after time. They are too out of it to take birth control. It has zero to do with them wanting kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
11. While the couple seems crazy as hell, in no other country than
BushAmerica would parents be left in debt for the medical treatment of a child -- or an adult, for that matter.

How many people out -- even those insured -- have hesistated getting care at an emergency room over a weekend for an illness, knowing they will have to pay an extra $500 or so for "emergency" care above what would be owed for a visit to a doctor's office during the week?

The couple is crazy; but so are the citizens of BushAmerica for allowing such a corrupt situation in their health "care" system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-15-05 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yep - I agree with you completely
Especially since they were forced to accept the medical care.

I am in NO WAY defending these parents, but to require them to pay medical bills for a procedure they didn't want will set a TERRIBLE precedent.

And if this country were as civilized as we like to think, we would have universal health coverage and the payment wouldn't be a legal battle - the issue of neglect would be.

:(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC