Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My thoughts exactly. Until I see or hear it from the MSM I will not believe a word of it.
The local TV station is not MSM? Having said that I find it appalling you would only accept coverage from sources who main interest is to generate revenue.
Brief summary: Baby is coming premature, midwife tells mom she should go to the hospital. Baby is born in the ambulance enroute. In the hospital room, they won't give her her baby until she consents to a Vitamin K and Hep B vaccine. Mom is hesitant. They keep the baby, while escorting her off the premises! She is told that she can come back to nurse the baby, every 3 hours.
News stories are like statistics, it's usually the data NOT included that tells the real story.
Good point indeed.
Typical scenarios for confiscating a newborn involve parental drug abuse, especially when drugs are found in umbilical cord blood or first stool (meconium).
But that isn't something that gets people riled up as much as the OP's tale.
I agree that it is common and is getting more common by the day for parents to refuse vaccinations so that in and of itself would be no reason for a child to be "confiscated" from its parents. And I honestly do not believe their version of what happened, especially in regards to the other article that was posted that focused entirely on their situation (and didn't blur together another incident with another family in Arizona and blame everything on "Obamacare" which was ridiculous to me).
But from what I gathered from both accounts is that this baby was premature. Pre-mature babies can have a plethora of issues, even those who are seemingly healthy at birth (meaning they may have had a good APGAR but may go downhill as time goes on). IMO it is probably standard medical care to give premature babies vitamin K and the hep B shot because the babies may need blood transfusions or other interventions and hep b is a blood borne illness. I know many people who have had preemies and this is standard in their care.
Also, I don't see how jaundice is any cause for a lawsuit. Honestly it looks like to me that the couple is trying to get a pay day out of this. Both my kids had jaundice, it is very common like a PP mentioned. It is not evident at birth as it develops over time, usually not until the child is 2-3 days old. My daughter did not develop it until her 4th day. It is not a difficult condition to treat. If the mother was breastfeeding and it was a moderate case, then the baby wouldn't even need any sort of other interventions, she could just feed the baby every 2 hours for a week or so (which most breastfeeding moms have to do anyway with a newborn) and it will slowly go away. She will have to have billirubin levels checked but that is not a big issue.
Also in regards to the other story about the boy with cancer in MI. I have read about that one before and even though he was "cancer free" it was due to those hated treatments many of you are describing and it is also common practice to do more than one round of chemo to ensure that the cancer does not return.
I have a little cousin who developed cancer as a toddler only last year and had to have a brain tumor removed and receive chemo and other meds. He is still under a doctor's care and is doing well. His parents did everything that was recommended and he is now fully cancer free. I'm sure the doctors spelled out the course of treatment for that child in MI as well. I understand it if the family didn't want to put their child through the treatment because there are harsh side effects, but honestly I think it is within the limits of the state/local government to protect the interest of the child's health. If statistics prove that a specific course of intervention has a high success rate, then that should be the medical course.
A lot of parents are nuts. Many want to "pray away" cancer or diabetes or other horrible illness that NEED medical intervention. I would rather those children get the treatment they need than to give in to some nuts version of medicine.
I agree that it is common and is getting more common by the day for parents to refuse vaccinations so that in and of itself would be no reason for a child to be "confiscated" from its parents. And I honestly do not believe their version of what happened, especially in regards to the other article that was posted that focused entirely on their situation (and didn't blur together another incident with another family in Arizona and blame everything on "Obamacare" which was ridiculous to me).
But from what I gathered from both accounts is that this baby was premature. Pre-mature babies can have a plethora of issues, even those who are seemingly healthy at birth (meaning they may have had a good APGAR but may go downhill as time goes on). IMO it is probably standard medical care to give premature babies vitamin K and the hep B shot because the babies may need blood transfusions or other interventions and hep b is a blood borne illness. I know many people who have had preemies and this is standard in their care.
Also, I don't see how jaundice is any cause for a lawsuit. Honestly it looks like to me that the couple is trying to get a pay day out of this. Both my kids had jaundice, it is very common like a PP mentioned. It is not evident at birth as it develops over time, usually not until the child is 2-3 days old. My daughter did not develop it until her 4th day. It is not a difficult condition to treat. If the mother was breastfeeding and it was a moderate case, then the baby wouldn't even need any sort of other interventions, she could just feed the baby every 2 hours for a week or so (which most breastfeeding moms have to do anyway with a newborn) and it will slowly go away. She will have to have billirubin levels checked but that is not a big issue.
Also in regards to the other story about the boy with cancer in MI. I have read about that one before and even though he was "cancer free" it was due to those hated treatments many of you are describing and it is also common practice to do more than one round of chemo to ensure that the cancer does not return.
I have a little cousin who developed cancer as a toddler only last year and had to have a brain tumor removed and receive chemo and other meds. He is still under a doctor's care and is doing well. His parents did everything that was recommended and he is now fully cancer free. I'm sure the doctors spelled out the course of treatment for that child in MI as well. I understand it if the family didn't want to put their child through the treatment because there are harsh side effects, but honestly I think it is within the limits of the state/local government to protect the interest of the child's health. If statistics prove that a specific course of intervention has a high success rate, then that should be the medical course.
A lot of parents are nuts. Many want to "pray away" cancer or diabetes or other horrible illness that NEED medical intervention. I would rather those children get the treatment they need than to give in to some nuts version of medicine.
Great post.
Vitamin K injections are mandatory in only certain states, as is applying erythromycin ointment to a newborn's eyes. As far as Hep B vaccinations being mandatory anywhere, I'm not so sure.
Best advice for any prospective parent is to know your state's laws and if any exceptions can be made.
In some cases, parents simply postpone the newborn vaccinations for a few weeks.
I do not believe that Hep B is mandatory at all in any state, but it is recommended for preemies due to the possibility of them needing other medical interventions.
I did postpone my son's Hep B shot. He got it at 2 months just because I hate needles myself and didn't want to think about him getting injected. They had no problem with me refusing the shot, but I'm sure they would have tried to convince me had he been born premature.
I have a nephew that survived his Burkitts Lymphoma that he was diagnosed with when he was eight years old. He went through the standard fare of much chemo, and his kidneys shut down at one point and he spent a week? well a good amount of time in an Intensive Care Unit.
He is now 23yrs. old but his life has been hell. He has even questioned why he lived. He developed habitual, Grand Mal Seizures after entering remission from his Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and became known as the "vomit kid" in school.
After years of trying to control those seizures he had part of his brain removed. It was supposed to preven these horrible seizures that he had had a lot of, but what it did is helped the meds prevent them. The surgeon told my sis that they had to remove even more of his brain than they had thought necessary. She asked and was told it was better that she not know.
This nephew is on permanent disability, apparently and is a young man that still can't have a drivers license. No wonder he questions why God let him live.
Each family should have the right to choose what type of treatment their children receive and to what extent that treatment is administered.
I am very thankful that I was never put in any type of situation where I saw something forced on our daughters that my heart, gut and mind were against.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
