pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Parents arrested for trying to transfer daughter
#1
http://www.phillyburbs.com/ap/state/pa/p...9d922.html

This is scary to me. Look how powerful the authorities can be!

In a nutshell....the mom was having a down's syndrome baby and meant to have it at CHOP. However she was visiting family in Lehigh Valley and ended up going into labor, and had it at that hospital. They begged for a transfer to CHOP because the little baby girl needed work on her heart and the Lehigh hospital did not have the proper specialists. Lehigh declined to transfer the baby because they said Medicaid would not cover it. After weeks of begging them to transfer to CHOP, the parents got fed up and took the baby themselves and tried to drive her to CHOP themselves. The hospital called the cops on them and they were pulled over before they even got out of the city.

Ironically, the baby did get transferred to CHOP, and imagine this, having heart surgery next week.

Now....if Medicaid was truly the problem, and this family didn't have money for a procedure, shouldn't they have been allowed to take the baby home? What right does a hospital have to FORCE a person to leave a baby there? Did this hospital just want all that Medicaid money for themselves at the risk of the baby's health?

This is just WRONG! If I want my baby at a different hospital, darn it, I should be allowed to do so! Medicaid is accepted at CHOP so there should have been no reason to refuse the transfer.

Its so scary that parents are no longer allowed to be parents.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#2
RugerGirl;51190 Wrote:http://www.phillyburbs.com/ap/state/pa/p...9d922.html

This is scary to me. Look how powerful the authorities can be!

In a nutshell....the mom was having a down's syndrome baby and meant to have it at CHOP. However she was visiting family in Lehigh Valley and ended up going into labor, and had it at that hospital. They begged for a transfer to CHOP because the little baby girl needed work on her heart and the Lehigh hospital did not have the proper specialists. Lehigh declined to transfer the baby because they said Medicaid would not cover it. After weeks of begging them to transfer to CHOP, the parents got fed up and took the baby themselves and tried to drive her to CHOP themselves. The hospital called the cops on them and they were pulled over before they even got out of the city.

Ironically, the baby did get transferred to CHOP, and imagine this, having heart surgery next week.

Now....if Medicaid was truly the problem, and this family didn't have money for a procedure, shouldn't they have been allowed to take the baby home? What right does a hospital have to FORCE a person to leave a baby there? Did this hospital just want all that Medicaid money for themselves at the risk of the baby's health?

This is just WRONG! If I want my baby at a different hospital, darn it, I should be allowed to do so! Medicaid is accepted at CHOP so there should have been no reason to refuse the transfer.

Its so scary that parents are no longer allowed to be parents.

Hospitals generally don't want medicaid patients. Medicaid is brutal when it comes to negotiating the price of services or drugs and it's putting hospitals out of business with the hordes of illegals and abusers draining the system. Northeastern Hospital in Philly recently went belly up as a direct result of it's majority medicaid clientele and couldn't meet its operating costs. As to the heart of your statement, I agree and disagree at the same time. I agree that parents should be able to do what they need to do in the best MEDICAL interests of the child. On the other hand I also don't agree with the parents who let their children die slow and horrific deaths, because the parents believe in the power of prayer over the scalpel in trained hands and radiation therapy.
The forum poster formerly known as Emoticon...
Reply
#3
Emoticon;51226 Wrote:Hospitals generally don't want medicaid patients. Medicaid is brutal when it comes to negotiating the price of services or drugs and it's putting hospitals out of business with the hordes of illegals and abusers draining the system. Northeastern Hospital in Philly recently went belly up as a direct result of it's majority medicaid clientele and couldn't meet its operating costs. As to the heart of your statement, I agree and disagree at the same time. I agree that parents should be able to do what they need to do in the best MEDICAL interests of the child. On the other hand I also don't agree with the parents who let their children die slow and horrific deaths, because the parents believe in the power of prayer over the scalpel in trained hands and radiation therapy.

I agree with you but this article makes it plain that the parents wanted their baby transferred to CHOP (which was supposed to be the original hospital, anyway), not that they wanted to take the baby home.

My point was if money was the problem, then they should have just allowed them to take the baby home. Theoretically speaking.... you know? Which, they wouldn't have taken the baby home....but I'm just saying that the hospital is complaining that Medicaid wouldn't cover something, but yet, they'll keep the baby for weeks and months when obviously the Medicaid isn't enough?

(BTW I am not excited about Medicaid, so my point wasn't the Medicaid so much as it was how unreasonable and unfair the hospital was being, and how awful it was that it ended in the arrest of the parents. And in hindsight obviously the baby needed immediate heart care that it was NOT receiving at the Lehigh hospital.)
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#4
RugerGirl;51233 Wrote:
Emoticon;51226 Wrote:Hospitals generally don't want medicaid patients. Medicaid is brutal when it comes to negotiating the price of services or drugs and it's putting hospitals out of business with the hordes of illegals and abusers draining the system. Northeastern Hospital in Philly recently went belly up as a direct result of it's majority medicaid clientele and couldn't meet its operating costs. As to the heart of your statement, I agree and disagree at the same time. I agree that parents should be able to do what they need to do in the best MEDICAL interests of the child. On the other hand I also don't agree with the parents who let their children die slow and horrific deaths, because the parents believe in the power of prayer over the scalpel in trained hands and radiation therapy.

I agree with you but this article makes it plain that the parents wanted their baby transferred to CHOP (which was supposed to be the original hospital, anyway), not that they wanted to take the baby home.

My point was if money was the problem, then they should have just allowed them to take the baby home. Theoretically speaking.... you know? Which, they wouldn't have taken the baby home....but I'm just saying that the hospital is complaining that Medicaid wouldn't cover something, but yet, they'll keep the baby for weeks and months when obviously the Medicaid isn't enough?

(BTW I am not excited about Medicaid, so my point wasn't the Medicaid so much as it was how unreasonable and unfair the hospital was being, and how awful it was that it ended in the arrest of the parents. And in hindsight obviously the baby needed immediate heart care that it was NOT receiving at the Lehigh hospital.)


I agree, my point was just that in cases like this it becomes very difficult to draw a line in the sand to say this is ok and that is not. While the parents may have thought it was in the child's best interest to send the child to CHOP the doctor obviously thought otherwise. What were his motivations who knows, but how do you know when it's ok from an outsider's point of view for the parents to overrule the doctor and when it's not, and beyond that when is it ok for the doctor to overrule the parents in the interests of the child's well-being from his or her point of view?
The forum poster formerly known as Emoticon...
Reply
#5
Emoticon;51263 Wrote:I agree, my point was just that in cases like this it becomes very difficult to draw a line in the sand to say this is ok and that is not. While the parents may have thought it was in the child's best interest to send the child to CHOP the doctor obviously thought otherwise. What were his motivations who knows, but how do you know when it's ok from an outsider's point of view for the parents to overrule the doctor and when it's not, and beyond that when is it ok for the doctor to overrule the parents in the interests of the child's well-being from his or her point of view?

Well...I think our philosophy in the "gun world" would also apply here. Just because some people misuse guns doesn't mean freedom should be stripped from all gun owners.

In the same way, just because a few parents will harm their kids doesn't mean hospitals should treat every parent who takes their child from the hospital like a criminal. Who owns the child, anyway? The state? The hospital? Who gave the hospital the sole right to make decisions for a child? Its very dangerous ground.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#6
Bureaucracy is a 4 letter word.
Reply
#7
RugerGirl;51266 Wrote:
Emoticon;51263 Wrote:I agree, my point was just that in cases like this it becomes very difficult to draw a line in the sand to say this is ok and that is not. While the parents may have thought it was in the child's best interest to send the child to CHOP the doctor obviously thought otherwise. What were his motivations who knows, but how do you know when it's ok from an outsider's point of view for the parents to overrule the doctor and when it's not, and beyond that when is it ok for the doctor to overrule the parents in the interests of the child's well-being from his or her point of view?

Well...I think our philosophy in the "gun world" would also apply here. Just because some people misuse guns doesn't mean freedom should be stripped from all gun owners.

In the same way, just because a few parents will harm their kids doesn't mean hospitals should treat every parent who takes their child from the hospital like a criminal. Who owns the child, anyway? The state? The hospital? Who gave the hospital the sole right to make decisions for a child? Its very dangerous ground.


Sure it is dangerous ground, but the difference between the gun world and this case is that the child has no say in what happens what-so-ever. With the religious nut jobs as an example even if the kid had a say it would be the product of brainwashing. Generally, I am fanatical about protecting other people's rights even when I disagree with them, but sometimes for the sake of the child I think the state does have a place to make a call in rare instances. I don't think the case you linked that state had much of a right to step in, but in some cases the do because some people are too irresponsible to be allowed to have kids. The state may not always be the right call though, but I can see why they do need to make a call regardless sometimes. I don't believe a parent has the right to allow their child to be overtaken with cancer when the kid has no say in the matter beyond trying to survive and its the the point of being aware of itself.
The forum poster formerly known as Emoticon...
Reply
#8
RugerGirl;51190 Wrote:http://www.phillyburbs.com/ap/state/pa/p...9d922.html

This is scary to me. Look how powerful the authorities can be!

In a nutshell....the mom was having a down's syndrome baby and meant to have it at CHOP. However she was visiting family in Lehigh Valley and ended up going into labor, and had it at that hospital. They begged for a transfer to CHOP because the little baby girl needed work on her heart and the Lehigh hospital did not have the proper specialists
. Lehigh declined to transfer the baby because they said Medicaid would not cover it. After weeks of begging them to transfer to CHOP, the parents got fed up and took the baby themselves and tried to drive her to CHOP themselves. The hospital called the cops on them and they were pulled over before they even got out of the city.

Ironically, the baby did get transferred to CHOP, and imagine this, having heart surgery next week.

Now....if Medicaid was truly the problem, and this family didn't have money for a procedure, shouldn't they have been allowed to take the baby home? What right does a hospital have to FORCE a person to leave a baby there? Did this hospital just want all that Medicaid money for themselves at the risk of the baby's health?

This is just WRONG! If I want my baby at a different hospital, darn it, I should be allowed to do so! Medicaid is accepted at CHOP so there should have been no reason to refuse the transfer.

Its so scary that parents are no longer allowed to be parents.

Emoticon;51263 Wrote:I agree, my point was just that in cases like this it becomes very difficult to draw a line in the sand to say this is ok and that is not. While the parents may have thought it was in the child's best interest to send the child to CHOP the doctor obviously thought otherwise. What were his motivations who knows, but how do you know when it's ok from an outsider's point of view for the parents to overrule the doctor and when it's not, and beyond that when is it ok for the doctor to overrule the parents in the interests of the child's well-being from his or her point of view?

Right or wrong the way this reads to me ... the baby wasn't well enough to travel by car, Medicaid wouldn't cover the ambulance trip to Philly, so they wanted to keep the baby in Lehigh.

I had a problem a few years back. I woke up in severe pain one night. Turns out I had pancreatitis. Initially I went to my local hospital. They admitted me. After a couple days of tests and not finding the cause of my pain they transferred me to a hospital better equipped in the city. The Drs. at the local hospital knew what was going on but the tests just weren't showing it. They had a protocall to follow. They couldn't just transfer me, they had to exhaust their resources first. Once they did ....

Bottom line was they had to follow the procedure laid out by the insurance companies in order to be paid. It sucks, but it is what it is.

I suspect it's what happened in the article. At least from the hospitals standpoint. The hospital had a legal obligation to care for the baby.

I certainly don't agree with the parents being arrested for trying to take care of their baby, but they probably weren't fully aware of what was going on.
Reply
#9
Emoticon, just saying, but nothing in this thread or the article, IMO, merited bringing up "religious nuts". And the handful of "religious nuts" out there that would not allow their children chemotherapy would also not be enough to deny every parent in America their parental rights. The chemotherapy thing is a tough subject in and of itself....many adults decline a second round because of how miserable it is, and the low percentage of survival once your cancer returns.... a couple of the "big news" fights over kid chemo has been over that miserable second round...parents were all for the first round, but kid AND parents didn't want the second round. Unless its a crazy situation, I'm still for parental rights in these situations. Chemo is torture in and of itself, and without a good survival rate, parents should be allowed to make the decisions for themselves....and yes, I am all for medical care, and I'm the first one to drag my kids to the dr if I think something is remotely wrong with them, but I'm also for parental rights, except in extreme situations.

Sober....that could be a very valid point. I still think, however, the hospital SHOULD have gotten that family down to CHOP where they were originally supposed to be. The thing that really sticks me is that CHOP is where "home" was. Shouldn't the "guest" hospital have been trying a bit harder to get this family "home" to CHOP? The woman was scheduled to have her baby there! And I'm sure she told Lehigh that. Lehigh is lucky their "procedure" did not kill this baby or they'd have a huge lawsuit on their hands, instead of having the joy of calling the cops on desperate parents.
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#10
RugerGirl;51398 Wrote:~snip~
Sober....that could be a very valid point. I still think, however, the hospital SHOULD have gotten that family down to CHOP where they were originally supposed to be. The thing that really sticks me is that CHOP is where "home" was. Shouldn't the "guest" hospital have been trying a bit harder to get this family "home" to CHOP? The woman was scheduled to have her baby there! And I'm sure she told Lehigh that. Lehigh is lucky their "procedure" did not kill this baby or they'd have a huge lawsuit on their hands, instead of having the joy of calling the cops on desperate parents.

While I agree with ya, the sad truth is it's probably all about liability as well as getting paid. They may have felt it wasn't safe to move the baby without medical folks in tow, an ambulance, and they weren't going to send an ambulance and crew so far without getting paid.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  PA man arrested in NJ for bullets RugerGirl 4 975 04-08-2016, 07:56 PM
Last Post: Rik Bitter
  Bank robber arrested after posing with wads of cash on Facebook Rosco the Iroc 1 598 10-04-2015, 01:00 PM
Last Post: Rik Bitter
  NJ at it again: Woman arrested at Newark Airport bigdawgbeav 1 641 09-29-2015, 11:05 AM
Last Post: RugerGirl
  PA Woman arrested in NJ for gun RugerGirl 33 5,336 04-03-2015, 09:13 AM
Last Post: ArcticSplash
  Foster parents denied due to LTCF RugerGirl 6 1,066 03-09-2015, 10:00 PM
Last Post: Emoticon



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.