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.
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.