• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yes, that sounds like something the NICU would lie about. “We didn’t like them, so we didn’t get their legal consent.”

    • Xaphanos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I read this as that they gave written, legal NON-consent, then verbally backtracked. The hospital had paperwork one way and none the other. Of course they followed the paperwork.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Presumably something about the Hospital having a fringe on the flag in the lobby had something to do with it.

  • garbagebagel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    Can someone help with my reading comprehension here? The person had a letter to deny healthcare for the children but said yes to healthcare for themselves?

    At first I read it as the person gave them the letter saying no re healthcare for children, but when asked verbally said yes for the same.

    • braxy29@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      it looks like this person wanted to be consulted before any care/treatment was provided to their children. when asked, they agreed to suggested care.

      it looks like there is an error in their post. i do not read their statement to mean they accepted care for their own self and not for their children.

        • braxy29@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          the letter doesn’t say, and the reporter may or may not have had good reason. we don’t know based on the information provided.

          the fact that a report was made does not inherently mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone reported concern. the fact that the report is being investigated does not mean that abuse or neglect was taking place, only that someone with CPS agreed to open a case based on what they were told.

          i could call CPS and say that you are abusing a child or other vulnerable person, provide enough information about you and a plausible concern (in theory at least, whether it’s based in fact or not), and CPS could choose to follow up on that report. i can make this report and they can investigate regardless of whether there is any actual evidence of abuse or neglect.

          • Etterra@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s entirely possible that the one who reported her “misunderstood” (aka lied). However if she didn’t sign anything granting permission then it wouldn’t be a lie.

            Alternatively they may have a policy where antivaxers with other children are automatically red flagged.

  • MehBlah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    One consistent thing about sovcit garbage is their ability to leave out relevant things when talking about how much a victim they are. I’m sure there is more to their actions than what is described that lead the hospital staff to alert CPS.

    Edit: My personal experience with a NICU makes this response no surprise at all. My son was premature and while we were there the father of a teenage girl who had a baby there came in to the NICU and started getting loud about unplugging the baby. He was quickly escorted out by Hospital security and arrested. They take no chances in that kind of environment.

  • Serinus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    5 months ago

    As annoying as sovcits are, we can’t conflate them with people just asserting their rights.

    It’s reasonable to require consent before performing tests/procedures on your children. (Though I, personally, would trust the nursing staff and doctors more than this.)

    The behavior here is a hint of terrible sovcit / antivax shit, but it hasn’t crossed the line yet, and shouldn’t (alone) require CPS yet.

      • braxy29@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        i wouldn’t assume the best of CPS. in my work, i see many families who are dealing with CPS, and it is often an unjust shitshow for families.

        the notion that an agency should exist to protect the interests of vulnerable people is obviously a good one. in practice, many workers are undereducated, overworked, often lacking professionalism, and empowered by the state to enact bias against families and family members who may also be vulnerable.

        cps, unfortunately, should be viewed in context of our country’s history of criminalizing and victimizing minorities (people of color, people experiencing poverty, women and sexual minorities). they do some good work. they also hurt a lot of people they should not, including children.

      • braxy29@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        i don’t think the parent denied testing. when asked, they consented.

        edit “when they asked me, i gave them permission.”

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        So you are saying hospitals should be able to do what ever they want without consent?

        Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

        It is reasonable to have to get consent before running tests or injecting something.

        Side note I do believe if people want to go to public school they should have to get vaccinated, unless a doctor can reasonably state in a particular case it would be a bad idea for one particular person (health reasons).

        I think sovcit idiots need their heads checked.

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It should be 100% illegal to deny children basic healthcare like vaccines without medical necessity. I can’t believe I have to type that out, but here we are, I guess.

          • andrewta@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            And you are missing what I was trying to say. The point of the person you were initially responding to and my point is the consent part. Should people be given the vaccines of course. Should people have the blood test of course. But there’s still something called consent.

            Let me give an example of what I’m talking about of how doctors and the medical community have gone off the rails. There is a lady I know of. She said yes she wants her kid to be vaccinated, but she wanted to spread out the vaccines not over years that would be ridiculous. But maybe have the first one done on the current visit or the current visit. And then maybe the next one or two on the next visit. Or possibly in every other visit but she would still get them but just go at a slower pace. The doctors blatantly accused her of being Anti-vaccine where in that statement is she anti-vaccine? Why did she want to spread out over a slightly longer period of time I’m not talking years just a slightly longer period of time? I don’t know, but you know what I guess. It’s not really relevant. the kid would still get them. it just might take a few more months or something to get them. Is that really that big of a deal? Yet the doctors blatantly called her anti-VAX.

            People should always have the right to have a say in their medical treatment.

            And that’s the point that person you were responding to and also my point is called consent. For some reason too many people look at doctors and say that well they know everything. They’re the doctors so therefore we should just blindly listen to what they’re saying.

            Again, I’m not anti-VAX I do believe everybody should be vaccinated and I honestly believe that to get into a public school you should be vaccinated., Unless there’s a serious medical reason to not get the vaccine.

            Same way with blood tests, they should be done. But they should be done with consent. We should not live in a society where you have no say whatsoever.

            • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              What you have described is form of anti vax conspiracy. The “vaccine schedule” nonsense is one of the ways they pull people like you into the fold. You are literally demonstrating how this process works and why it is so dangerous.

              I will say it again. Children are not property. Using them as a way to manifest insane medical conspiracies is not a protected right. Every child should be vaccinated.

              • jagungal@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                But since vaccination is considered a medical procedure, you cannot give a vaccine without informed consent. In this case it’s the parent’s consent because the child is incapable of giving informed consent. There is plenty of case law stating that medical practitioners cannot perform medical procedures if the patient has withdrawn consent despite the best of intentions and practices. It’s ultimately not up to the healthcare provider except in very specific cases, and vaccination is not one of those.

      • jagungal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Parental consent is usually used as a substitute where a child is too young to give consent for a procedure. In Australia and the UK once a child is able to understand the procedure and associated risks they are considered “Gillick competent” and their consent outweighs the parent’s, but until then the parent is the one who gives consent on the child’s behalf. Parental consent is also used as a substitute when the child is incapacitated by injury or illness such that they are incapable of giving informed consent. Health practitioners and first aiders can also assume consent in life-threatening situations where the patient is incapable of giving consent (e.g. giving CPR to someone in cardiac arrest).

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      If someone in the maternity ward had come up to me after my daughter was born and asked me if I consented to a blood test, I’d think it was a really weird thing to ask consent for, which is probably why no one asked as far as I remember (maybe it was buried in a bunch of legalese or something). Has a baby ever suffered any sort of grievous harm from a blood test? It’s like asking for consent to wash the kid after it’s born. No one asked us for consent to do that either, which is probably good because neither of us were exactly in the right mind to think about such things what with me seeing something with 50% of my DNA coming out of my wife’s body and her suffering through something with 50% of her DNA coming out of her body.

      • braxy29@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        this parent did not find it weird to be asked, because that’s what they wanted. they requested that staff seek their consent before providing care.