Madison wrote: knapplc wrote:
OK, let me put it to you this way. I have some friends at church whose little boy died last week because he pulled his trach out of his throat in the middle of the night. All kinds of arguments could be made, like they should have had a monitor on the baby, they should have had in-home nursing care, they should have checked on him every so often, they should have done some
Are you saying the state should come in and take away their daughter now?
Because remember, we're not talking about parents refusing to provide medical care
in this situation. We're talking about parents choosing to treat their child in a manner they think is best
. There's a huge difference.
My friends felt their baby was doing very well, and they for sure needed the sleep. It was a horrible, unfortunate, terrible accident that his trach popped out, but it's not criminal and because this accident happened the state in NO WAY should remove their daughter from them.
Sorry to hear about your friends' child.
Sounds like a painful passing. He just reached down his throat and pulled out his trachea? Can't say I've ever heard of that one before, but doesn't sound quiet and peaceful at all. Really sorry to hear it.
You've never heard of a trachea tube, commonly referred to as a trach?
Madison wrote:Totally different scenario from what we're talking about though. Unless the kid had known health issues that your friends ignored, but I'm sure that's not the case.
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
You realize you're making an argument that "prayer" instead of medicine is acceptable and the state should butt out, because some feel that prayer is a treatment? States intervene all the time on that, and even file charges against the parents and take away any other kids they may have. This is no different. The father wanted to "treat"
the child himself simply because he did not want the medical bill. That is a refusal to provide reasonable care to a child, and very easily constitutes neglect if the medical staff that did see the child felt it needed to be done (granted, depends on what the exact injuries were and the articles are unclear on that matter).
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.
The only reason this is a story is because the father refused in such a way that it took SWAT to get this kid examined by a doctor. I find the whole thing a bit silly at this point. Let the docs examine the kid for crying out loud. It's his kid, I'd think he'd care more about the kid than the money... enough to swallow the bill and make sure his kid is deemed ok by a doctor. Ah well.
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?