Mother loses child custody over refusal to give proper medical treatment

[Jorghnassen]

Article in French here (http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/Quebec/2008/03/12/003-mere_jus_herbe_garde_n.shtml). More background here. (http://www.radio-canada.ca/regions/Quebec/2008/03/05/003-chul_traitement_ado_n.shtml) Sorry, I couldn't find English links.

Long story short, divorced mother has 13 year old daughter with a rare serum albumin deficiency. She refuses to have her treated with regular medicine and wants to get a wheatgrass juice treatment at the Hippocrates Health Institute (http://www.hippocratesinst.org/) in Florida. I can't find much the earlier details, but on January 23, the teenager receives emergency treatment in a proper hospital (against the wishes of the mother) and is hospitalized for an extended period (during which she gets better...). The doctors (and I'm guessing the father, who will have sole custody for the next 6 months) had to get Child Protection serives and the Court involved to get permission to continue the treatment and to insure that the teenager would get conventional care and medication once she left the hospital.

I saw the mother on the news last night. She was not surprised by the decision, as "doctors have a big influence" to freely translate her comments. There was much disdain in her voice. It's one thing to believe that alternative medicine works and to buy, say, homeopathic medicine to treat a cold. It's not too surprising to see some people seek alternative treatments when their conditions reaches the point that it can't be cured by scientific medicine. But to think that conventional medicine doesn't work, and to refuse treatment for your child for something perfectly treatable, that just takes the woo mentality to a whole other level.

[Architect]

It happens occassionaly in the UK. The courts take a very dim view of parents such as this and will always intervene to support the child's best medical interests.

[Architect]

Duplicate post.

[rwguinn]

It happens occassionaly in the UK. The courts take a very dim view of parents such as this and will always intervene to support the child's best medical interests.
Happens in the US too--for religous and/or other stupid reasons (http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_2.html)

[LashL]

Happens in the US too--for religous and/or other stupid reasons (http://www.masskids.org/dbre/dbre_2.html)

It happens in Canada, too. Most typically, it occurs when fervent Jehovah's Witness parents refuse to provide consent to medically necessary, life-saving treatment for a child who may require a blood transfusion in the course of said life-saving treatment.

The courts will intervene to ensure that a child who is too young to make informed decisions about his or her own medical treatment obtains the medically necessary treatment to save his or her life, rather than let the child die as a result of his/her parents' religious beliefs.

JWs used to come knocking on my door fairly regularly. Initially, I would just politely tell them that I wasn't interested. But then they started sending children to the door while the adults stood back on the municipal sidewalk. When they did that, I decided to call upon the adults to come to the door to engage them in discussion.

The discussion was about whether the adults were willing to let their children die an unnecessary and wholly preventable death in service of their religion. Not surprisingly, the discussions were usually fairly short, because they would tap dance all around the issue and I would say something to the effect of, "Look, it's simple. I want to know if you, personally, would allow your own child to die from an easily treated, non-fatal, medical condition rather than allow your child's life to be saved by a simple blood transfusion."

When they continued to obfuscate (as they invariably did) and when they continued to try to avoid the straightforward question, I would say something to the effect of, "Have you told your son that if it comes to a choice between saving his life and maintaining your religious beliefs that you would choose to let him die?"

Then I'd ask for the parents' names and addresses.

They always beat a hasty retreat then. None have shown up at my door for years now.

[Travis]

It happens in Canada, too. Most typically, it occurs when fervent Jehovah's Witness parents refuse to provide consent to medically necessary, life-saving treatment for a child who may require a blood transfusion in the course of said life-saving treatment.

The courts will intervene to ensure that a child who is too young to make informed decisions about his or her own medical treatment obtains the medically necessary treatment to save his or her life, rather than let the child die as a result of his/her parents' religious beliefs.

JWs used to come knocking on my door fairly regularly. Initially, I would just politely tell them that I wasn't interested. But then they started sending children to the door while the adults stood back on the municipal sidewalk. When they did that, I decided to call upon the adults to come to the door to engage them in discussion.

The discussion was about whether the adults were willing to let their children die an unnecessary and wholly preventable death in service of their religion. Not surprisingly, the discussions were usually fairly short, because they would tap dance all around the issue and I would say something to the effect of, "Look, it's simple. I want to know if you, personally, would allow your own child to die from an easily treated, non-fatal, medical condition rather than allow your child's life to be saved by a simple blood transfusion."

When they continued to obfuscate (as they invariably did) and when they continued to try to avoid the straightforward question, I would say something to the effect of, "Have you told your son that if it comes to a choice between saving his life and maintaining your religious beliefs that you would choose to let him die?"

Then I'd ask for the parents' names and addresses.

They always beat a hasty retreat then. None have shown up at my door for years now.

I am so going to steal that technique. It's so much better than my old bit of coming to the door rather exasperated and excusing my tardiness in answering the door because I was too caught up in the latest article in Stormfront.:D

[rwguinn]

I am so going to steal that technique. It's so much better than my old bit of coming to the door rather exasperated and excusing my tardiness in answering the door because I was too caught up in the latest article in Stormfront.:D

LashL has some great ideas--for a
(dare I say it)


lawyer (Quickly donning asbestos suit (lawyers HATE asbestos!))

[KingMerv00]

(lawyers HATE asbestos!))

Since when? Asbestos makes lawyers rich.

[Travis]

Since when? Asbestos makes lawyers rich.

Yes but in court they act like they hate it.

[LashL]

I am so going to steal that technique.


By all means, please feel free to utilize it at will. :D


It's so much better than my old bit of coming to the door rather exasperated and excusing my tardiness in answering the door because I was too caught up in the latest article in Stormfront.:D

:dl:

[LashL]

LashL has some great ideas--for a
(dare I say it)


lawyer (Quickly donning asbestos suit (lawyers HATE asbestos!))


Is there a smiting smiley around here? Hmm, apparently not, but consider yourself appropriately smote anyway. :D

[KingMerv00]

Yes but in court they act like they hate it.

Hate it all the way to the bank.

*High five*