I just threw up in my mouth a little - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

I just threw up in my mouth a little

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: I just threw up in my mouth a little

Postby Madison » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:16 pm

knapplc wrote:You've never heard of a trachea tube, commonly referred to as a trach? :-?


Nope, hadn't heard that one before. Down here if someone's got a tube down their throat, that's what we say. :-D

knapplc wrote:Nope, same scenario. The boy in this article - who is fine, by the way, let's not forget that - had a known medical issue which we call "a bruise" but which they called a hematoma. Same diff. My friends' little boy was a cancer kid, and he was full of tubes and wires (otherwise known as a real medical issue).


It's not the "same diff". I agree it was most likely nothing more than a bruise, but when the paramedics felt the kid needed to be checked out by a doctor, the father should have allowed that.

As to your friend, I am curious that if he was full of tubes and wires, why wasn't the child in the hospital, or at the very least have a round the clock nursing staff at the home?

Madison wrote:Reasonable care? For what? The paramedics themselves had already checked the kid out and "found no significant impairment." We're not talking about a life-threatening situation here, we're talking about a bump on the head.

Don't be fooled by groovy words like "huge hematoma." A few years ago a friend and his four-year-old daughter came over, and she wiped out on my driveway on her bike. She got a nice goose egg bruise on her forehead, which is "huge hematoma." Not only did he not take her to the doctor, he didn't so much as give her an ice pack. He carried her home and put her to bed. She was absolutely fine, and continues to be fine. According to the government in this case (and apparently you, from what I'm gathering from what you're saying), I now have two friends who should lose their children.


Yeah, that's exactly how it went. The paramedics found no reason whatsoever to have that kid checked out. That's why it escalated like it did to the police, and then finally a judge. The paramedics must have been bored or something...

And yes, I apologize for the sarcasm on that part but come on, if that's really how it went, this situation never would have happened. The articles are full of holes, and that's one of them.

As to your friend, not even an ice pack is pretty pathetic. And allowing the child to go to sleep is stupid (depending on the time frame we're talking about). And yes, in that one I could certainly see the state making a case against him for taking a monster gamble (the sleep part - and again, depends on timeframe between the bump and sleep - something I don't have the information on, so I could be wrong). As to your other friends, I didn't say a word about them, so quit putting words in my mouth. If me expecting parents to provide reasonable care and do their jobs as parents is a problem for you, then so be it.

In the case of this thread, I've said it's hard to know for sure as the stories don't match up, but I'm not going to fault the government for getting involved when we don't know what happened (unlike tons of people in this thread who are happy to bash the government for zero cause or reason and with information that doesn't make sense - hey Rugby, what was that about "let them scream"? See? Went from paramedics, to police, to a judge. Right up the chain of command, just like it's supposed to, and the government was looking out for the welfare of a kid, yet here we are with people bashing the government over it, all because the father was too worried about a possible bill from the doctor. Gee, go figure. No win for the government. Act and they are wrong, don't act and they are wrong. Gotta love it.). In the case of your friend's daughter that banged her head Knapp, depends on the timeframe we're talking about. I haven't said anyone should lose their kids. Not enough reliable information is out there for that.

knapplc wrote:Disagree. This is a story because the Paramedics, the magistrate and the SWAT team took it upon themselves to take away this father's right to care for his own child. This is a situation where the government has decided that a parent is giving improper medical care for a child who has a boo-boo. Surely you're not advocating that the next time my daughter has a scrape, a bruise, a bump or a bash, that I clear whatever treatment method I feel is best with my local government?


No, not at all. Do as you see fit. However, if paramedics want your child checked out by a doctor, would you refuse due to a possible medical bill? I wouldn't expect you to, I think you care enough to allow a doctor to check her out. This guy refused due to a possible bill. And he's been defended for it. Wow. :-b
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: I just threw up in my mouth a little

Postby Madison » Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:48 pm

Actually, I got to chuckling about this whole thing, so how about this....

Same exact reason the guy refused to have his daughter checked out - money

Rather than spend money on good food, like grilling steak, chicken, pork chops, cooking vegetables, making salads, buying milk, etc., due to the money, I think I'll stick my kid on a bread and tapwater diet. I'm well within my parental rights to put him on a "diet" of my choosing, yes? The government would have zero reason to interfere, because I call it a "diet" (just like this guy called refusal of medical care "his own treatment"), correct?

Think that would fly?




Note - This is only a bit of sarcasm because I find the whole situation of defending this guy funny. :-b I'd never do what I said above, it was only said to show the absurdity of the situation, just on an extreme scale since both boil down to the same thing - money.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: I just threw up in my mouth a little

Postby Madison » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:01 pm

Ok, serious question this time....

Why is it when a family turns down medical treatment due to religious beliefs, or they treat things with "prayer" that they are labeled idiots and people expect the government to look out for these children (and rightly so in my opinion) who have dumb parents, yet money is an acceptable reason to refuse treatment and people will back that, support it, and defend it?

What makes the two things so different? :-?
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: I just threw up in my mouth a little

Postby knapplc » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:22 pm

Madison wrote: As to your friend, not even an ice pack is pretty pathetic. And allowing the child to go to sleep is stupid (depending on the time frame we're talking about). And yes, in that one I could certainly see the state making a case against him for taking a monster gamble (the sleep part - and again, depends on timeframe between the bump and sleep - something I don't have the information on, so I could be wrong). As to your other friends, I didn't say a word about them, so quit putting words in my mouth. If me expecting parents to provide reasonable care and do their jobs as parents is a problem for you, then so be it.
I could have sworn that was you who wrote:
Madison wrote:However, parents refusing to provide medical care to their children lose their children all the time. Kid dies from the flu and never saw a doctor, you betcha those parents would be brought up on charges and any other kids they have would be turned over to the state.
To me this sounds like you're in agreement with parents losing their kids over a death. My friends lost their son, so the math on that was pretty simple. If that's not what you meant, my apologies. I'm just trying to interpret what you're saying. I'm sorry you're getting all riled up. :-b

Madison wrote:No, not at all. Do as you see fit. However, if paramedics want your child checked out by a doctor, would you refuse due to a possible medical bill? I wouldn't expect you to, I think you care enough to allow a doctor to check her out. This guy refused due to a possible bill. And he's been defended for it. Wow. :-b
What you're saying is that the government should have the ultimate say in how I care for my child, and I'm just never going to agree with that. There are people out there whose lack of care qualifies as abuse and that's where the government steps in, but there's nothing in this story about this guy that tells us that this kid was abused. Further, you and I both know that people in government overstep their bounds all the time, so leaving things up to the government is simply not the best solution in all cases.

As for the dad refusing because of a medical bill, note that this is not a quote from the father. Without that statement being quoted or attributed to anyone, we don't know who said it or how accurate it is. This could have been something the dad said, something the paramedics said the dad said, or an assumption stated to the journalist by any number of people.

Like you're saying, this is another in a series of "not enough info" stories that we're talking about. We know the kid got hurt, was looked at by paramedics who recommended further evaluation even though they didn't feel he was in any imminent danger, the dad refused, the situation was reported to authorities, a SWAT team was called in to take the child for evaluation, the kids was evaluated and deemed OK, and ultimately he was returned to his family. The rest we have to infer, as to the motives of the family, the paramedics and authorities.

What we do know is that a parent has a fundamental right to the care of our child. This isn't just something I believe, it's in the Constitution (4th & 14th amendments) and has been reaffirmed by Doe vs. Heck and Hurlman vs. Rice. That's where the authorities in this situation are going to get in hot water - there was no imminent danger to this kid, thus they've overstepped their authority, egregiously so.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Re: I just threw up in my mouth a little

Postby knapplc » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:24 pm

Who said the dad refused because of the medical bill, Madison? If that's all you're basing your stance on, that's pretty shaky ground.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Re: I just threw up in my mouth a little

Postby Madison » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:40 pm

knapplc wrote:
Madison wrote: As to your friend, not even an ice pack is pretty pathetic. And allowing the child to go to sleep is stupid (depending on the time frame we're talking about). And yes, in that one I could certainly see the state making a case against him for taking a monster gamble (the sleep part - and again, depends on timeframe between the bump and sleep - something I don't have the information on, so I could be wrong). As to your other friends, I didn't say a word about them, so quit putting words in my mouth. If me expecting parents to provide reasonable care and do their jobs as parents is a problem for you, then so be it.
I could have sworn that was you who wrote:
Madison wrote:However, parents refusing to provide medical care to their children lose their children all the time. Kid dies from the flu and never saw a doctor, you betcha those parents would be brought up on charges and any other kids they have would be turned over to the state.
To me this sounds like you're in agreement with parents losing their kids over a death. My friends lost their son, so the math on that was pretty simple. If that's not what you meant, my apologies. I'm just trying to interpret what you're saying. I'm sorry you're getting all riled up. :-b


Not riled up at all. :-D Just find the whole thing a bit funny.

Note in what you quoted that I said if a kid died from the flu and never saw a doctor. We all know things happen. Kids have accidents, no matter what we do to try to protect them. Cuts, bumps, scrapes, etc. I'm not trying to be unreasonable or anything, even though it seems people are trying to paint me that way. In this case it was really simple, a medical professional thought a doctor needed to check out this kid, while the father didn't want to possibly have to pay a bill and refused to do what he should have done because of it. That's a whole lot different than just a cut or scrape or something. The simple fact the paramedics went to the police about it tells you how strongly they felt that child needed to see a doctor. I don't think it's unreasonable, weird, or anything that I think he should listen to those professionals and do as they want for the welfare of his child.

Madison wrote:No, not at all. Do as you see fit. However, if paramedics want your child checked out by a doctor, would you refuse due to a possible medical bill? I wouldn't expect you to, I think you care enough to allow a doctor to check her out. This guy refused due to a possible bill. And he's been defended for it. Wow. :-b
What you're saying is that the government should have the ultimate say in how I care for my child, and I'm just never going to agree with that. There are people out there whose lack of care qualifies as abuse and that's where the government steps in, but there's nothing in this story about this guy that tells us that this kid was abused. Further, you and I both know that people in government overstep their bounds all the time, so leaving things up to the government is simply not the best solution in all cases.

As for the dad refusing because of a medical bill, note that this is not a quote from the father. Without that statement being quoted or attributed to anyone, we don't know who said it or how accurate it is. This could have been something the dad said, something the paramedics said the dad said, or an assumption stated to the journalist by any number of people.

Like you're saying, this is another in a series of "not enough info" stories that we're talking about. We know the kid got hurt, was looked at by paramedics who recommended further evaluation even though they didn't feel he was in any imminent danger, the dad refused, the situation was reported to authorities, a SWAT team was called in to take the child for evaluation, the kids was evaluated and deemed OK, and ultimately he was returned to his family. The rest we have to infer, as to the motives of the family, the paramedics and authorities.

What we do know is that a parent has a fundamental right to the care of our child. This isn't just something I believe, it's in the Constitution (4th & 14th amendments) and has been reaffirmed by Doe vs. Heck and Hurlman vs. Rice. That's where the authorities in this situation are going to get in hot water - there was no imminent danger to this kid, thus they've overstepped their authority, egregiously so.


Well everyone insists that it was "known" that the kid was ok, so I can insist that the father refused due to money, right? Either we're all wrong, or none of us is wrong. Take your pick. Personally I think there's not enough info for either side, but as long as people are going to argue it was "known" that the kid wasn't hurt, I'll argue reasonable care was turned down by the father because he didn't want a possible medical bill. And the medical bill part actually has some backing (might be really weak, but still stronger than backing the father). Obviously the paramedics didn't think this kid was ok or else they wouldn't have bothered going to the police about it.

Sure, I fully agree the father has the fundamental right to care for his child. Should he refuse due to money, stupidity, or any other thing, the government can and will step in. In this case, it was the money, so the government stepped in.

knapplc wrote:Who said the dad refused because of the medical bill, Madison? If that's all you're basing your stance on, that's pretty shaky ground.


From one of the articles on page one:

The paramedics were allowed to see the boy, and found no significant impairment, but wanted to take him to the hospital for an evaluation anyway. Fearing the hospital's bills, the family refused to allow that.


Just because the kid didn't have half his brain hanging out of his head, or blood coming out of his eyes, that doesn't mean the kid was "ok". Yet the father refused to allow a doctor to see his son, and over money. Ick. :-o
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: I just threw up in my mouth a little

Postby knapplc » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:53 pm

The strongest argument here is based on the Constitution, which supports the father, not the authorities. The authorities only have the right to abbrogate the father's right to decide in situations where there is an imminent threat to the child's safety. Clearly there was not, since the child was sent home with an ice pack and Tylenol.

I think most of us can agree that there are situations where the authorities need to step in when a child is in danger. Where we're apparently disagreeing is whether or not there was a sufficient level of danger in this situation to warrant sending a SWAT team to the kid's house. I'm going to have to hear a LOT more about this story to get me to believe that was warranted. Even if they decided this kid was in some kind of medical danger, I think we can probably agree that this level of force was unnecessary. Entering this child's home with weapons drawn, presumably with fingers on the trigger (otherwise, why send SWAT?) is just maniacal. What if one of the kids makes a sudden move? BANG! Dead. Because one child bumped his head. That's too much to risk.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Re: I just threw up in my mouth a little

Postby Madison » Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:17 pm

knapplc wrote:The strongest argument here is based on the Constitution, which supports the father, not the authorities. The authorities only have the right to abbrogate the father's right to decide in situations where there is an imminent threat to the child's safety. Clearly there was not, since the child was sent home with an ice pack and Tylenol.

I think most of us can agree that there are situations where the authorities need to step in when a child is in danger. Where we're apparently disagreeing is whether or not there was a sufficient level of danger in this situation to warrant sending a SWAT team to the kid's house. I'm going to have to hear a LOT more about this story to get me to believe that was warranted. Even if they decided this kid was in some kind of medical danger, I think we can probably agree that this level of force was unnecessary. Entering this child's home with weapons drawn, presumably with fingers on the trigger (otherwise, why send SWAT?) is just maniacal. What if one of the kids makes a sudden move? BANG! Dead. Because one child bumped his head. That's too much to risk.


Yup, agreed that the level of force used sounds extreme. I don't get that either. I'd have thought regular police with a court order would certainly have been enough.

And I agree, the big disagreement here is just how serious was the injury. The stories are unclear. One sounds like no big deal, the other sounds more serious. Which one is true? The simple fact that the paramedics went to the police sure makes it sound like it was serious. Paramedics have better things to do and usually don't have time to waste, so I seriously doubt they went to the police over nothing. Plus whatever they told the police must have been pretty convincing because the police went to the judge and even the judge was convinced enough to draw up a court order. That's the part that makes me believe the father should have had his boy checked out by a doctor. Couple on the money factor, and it's easy to argue that side. As a father of a boy, it's easy to argue that he's a boy so he's going to get a bruise here or there, and that a bruise is just a bruise, but paramedics don't go to all that trouble when they are not seriously concerned, which is why I have argued the government's side in this.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: I just threw up in my mouth a little

Postby knapplc » Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:21 pm

I've known too many paramedics, and investigated too many paramedics, sheriffs, and other "authorities," to just take their word for it, though.

Yeah, I may be cynical, but far too often I see abuses of power from these minor magistrates that just make me shake my head over and over. I take a disporportionately large number of charges against sheriffs and sheriff's offices in this state, that much I can tell you.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Re: I just threw up in my mouth a little

Postby Madison » Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:38 pm

knapplc wrote:I've known too many paramedics, and investigated too many paramedics, sheriffs, and other "authorities," to just take their word for it, though.

Yeah, I may be cynical, but far too often I see abuses of power from these minor magistrates that just make me shake my head over and over. I take a disporportionately large number of charges against sheriffs and sheriff's offices in this state, that much I can tell you.


You've definitely got more experience dealing with those people than I do. ;-D My dealings with paramedics and judges have been rare, but all fine and above board as far as I could tell. I've dealt with a rude officer or two, but I've always chalked that up to them having a bad day (they don't have the easiest of jobs) and everything's always shaken out just fine - and I should note that those particular officers were rare exceptions, practically all officers I've ever had to deal with seemed like good people.

So I guess it's easy for me to trust them and their judgement. Where as for you, with your experiences, it's not so easy. All cool though. :-)
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Sunday, Sep. 21
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Toronto at NY Yankees
(1:05 pm)
Washington at Miami
(1:10 pm)
indoors
NY Mets at Atlanta
(1:35 pm)
Boston at Baltimore
(1:35 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(1:35 pm)
Chi White Sox at Tampa Bay
(1:40 pm)
indoors
Cleveland at Minnesota
(2:10 pm)
Detroit at Kansas City
(2:10 pm)
Seattle at Houston
(2:10 pm)
LA Dodgers at Chi Cubs
(2:20 pm)
Texas at LA Angels
(3:35 pm)
Philadelphia at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Arizona at Colorado
(4:10 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(4:10 pm)
Cincinnati at St. Louis
(8:05 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact