Justina Pelletier

[Sho Nuff 719]

at drobs and Google.

 

I still wonder why some people come back post after post after post after getting their asses kicked all day long.

Penstraw was just dropping reigning blows of knowledge on them all day.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Why are you insistent that this child should not receive care based on the original diagnosis?

Because the diagnosis was never made definitively. Indeed, the most common diagnostic test (muscle biopsy) has not even been performed. As a result of this assumed diagnosis based on common, but vague symptoms, her parents have doctor shopped and exposed their child to procedures that are rarely indicated (cecostomy). These behaviors are some of the red flags for medical child abuse, and it appears the presumed diagnosis of a mitochondrial disorder is one other abusers have feigned to exploit the medical system.

 

I know physicians are extremely reluctant to call protective services. I have treated patients with documented mitochondrial disease (MELAS) and Munchausen's by proxy (a closely related diagnosis to medical child abuse). Based on the details we have and my clinical experience, I'm betting the parents' pathology showed through loud and clear to promote the BU neurologist to suspect the latter diagnosis, rather than a sinister plot by the hospital and state to remove a helpless child from benevolent parents.

[penultimatestraw 473]

The parents are crazy, they should be evaluated by a nutritionist asap.

Yeah, a vegetarian diet would've prevented all of this.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Another innerweb misdiagnosis.

 

Dang. I figured cholesterol diagnosis over the web would be easy since you were able to diagnose her sister with a few pretty serious afflictions simply because her first hand account of the living conditions in the house she grew up in differs from your assumptions about those conditions from thousands of miles away.

Based on what you've revealed on the board, the only diagnosis I can make with any certainty is Koro. Hope there are doctors in Tyler who can help you.

[Googballz 39]

Based on what you've revealed on the board, the only diagnosis I can make with any certainty is Koro. Hope there are doctors in Tyler who can help you.

Cool.

 

Once again you expose your medical expertise as one worthy of being on Dr. Phil, or a late night infomercial pushing boner pills.

 

Any other innerweb diagnosis you want to take a stab at.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Cool.

 

Once again you expose your medical expertise as one worthy of being on Dr. Phil, or a late night infomercial pushing boner pills.

 

Any other innerweb diagnosis you want to take a stab at.

Missed abortion?

[Googballz 39]

Missed abortion?

We won't hold that against your mom.

[Googballz 39]

 

I still wonder why some people come back post after post after post after getting their asses kicked all day long.

 

This thought should have come to you 31,718 times to date.

[drobeski 3,061]

This thought should have come to you 31,718 times to date.

snuff isnt too bright

[Sho Nuff 719]

snuff isnt too bright

 

Sure I am...you two bozos got beat down badly today...and one of you still keeps going back to Pen for more.

He has destroyed every argument made against him and the only think GP can do is try to claim some internet misdiagnosis angle where Pen has been focking with him.

Its pathetic...but damn funny to watch.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Because the diagnosis was never made definitively. Indeed, the most common diagnostic test (muscle biopsy) has not even been performed. As a result of this assumed diagnosis based on common, but vague symptoms, her parents have doctor shopped and exposed their child to procedures that are rarely indicated (cecostomy). These behaviors are some of the red flags for medical child abuse, and it appears the presumed diagnosis of a mitochondrial disorder is one other abusers have feigned to exploit the medical system.

 

I know physicians are extremely reluctant to call protective services. I have treated patients with documented mitochondrial disease (MELAS) and Munchausen's by proxy (a closely related diagnosis to medical child abuse). Based on the details we have and my clinical experience, I'm betting the parents' pathology showed through loud and clear to promote the BU neurologist to suspect the latter diagnosis, rather than a sinister plot by the hospital and state to remove a helpless child from benevolent parents.

It seems to me that you base your assessment on your own "blind faith" in Boston Children's Hospital doctors as if they were gods that could do no wrong. You don't need to invent a "sinister plot" to explain this outrageous case. Plain old "self interest" will do.

 

More importantly, a lot of what you say is invalidated by two points,

 

1- Boston Children's has a pattern of classifying tough medical cases as "medical child abuse" http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

 

"These cases are rare, but not as rare as one might think. In just the last 18 months, Childrens which given its reputation attracts many of the toughest cases from across the Northeast has been involved in at least five cases where a disputed medical diagnosis led to parents either losing custody or being threatened with that extreme measure. Similar custody fights have occurred on occasion at other pediatric hospitals around the country.

 

It happens often enough that the pediatrician who until recently ran the child protection teams at both Childrens and Massachusetts General Hospital said she and others in her field have a name for this aggressive legal-medical maneuver. They call it a parent-ectomy. "

 

When such a pattern emerges you should begin to question BCH's actions and the motives of those addicted to parent-ectomies.

 

2- More importantly, per numerous news reports, Justina was seen last week, after 14 months, by Mark Korson, the Tufts mitochondrial disease expert, which makes this whole dispute moot.

 

Having been educated at an Ivy League school and working everyday with highly educated and smart people I can say without a doubt that said people (highly smart/educated) are no more or less ethical than the average guy. In a medical dispute, intellectual conflict of interests should be carefully scrutinized. Now, since it turns out that Massachusetts DCF uses Boston Children's Hospital doctors as their medical advisers when issues like these happen, the conflict of interest (and the incestuous relationship) could not be more clear.

 

In the United States, unlike what happens in countries like Cuba or China, people are assumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The benefit of the doubt belongs with the accused, not the accuser. Under our system of laws, having a top expert in mitochondrial disorders from Tufts testify under oath, as Dr Korson did for Justina, that a child's problems can be explained by a mito diagnosis, is enough to keep that doubt with the parents. Yet, in corrupt Massachusetts, DCF would insist that BCH doctors opinions are more valid than those of said expert and a corrupt judge would agree.

 

For anybody who thinks that highly smart/educated people are more ethical than the little guy, I ask them two consider two points,

 

1- So called "white collar crime" is perpetrated exclusively by highly educated and smart people. Moreover, as the Bernie Madoff scandal shows, these people can be in violation of the law for several years and nobody at the regulatory agencies does anything out of fear of them. Even worse, these people can bring the world financial system to the brink of collapse with very little consequences.

 

2- I would ask you to enroll at some academic program at Harvard to understand that while there are many qualified and decent people over there, Harvard has also its share of crooks like http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/07/harvard_scientists_disciplined.html

[wiffleball 4,642]

Jesus, fockin drobs can turn anything into a "political issue." Obsess much?

no , right?

[penultimatestraw 473]

It seems to me that you base your assessment on your own "blind faith" in Boston Children's Hospital doctors as if they were gods that could do no wrong. You don't need to invent a "sinister plot" to explain this outrageous case. Plain old "self interest" will do.

 

More importantly, a lot of what you say is invalidated by two points,

 

1- Boston Children's has a pattern of classifying tough medical cases as "medical child abuse" http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

 

"These cases are rare, but not as rare as one might think. In just the last 18 months, Childrens which given its reputation attracts many of the toughest cases from across the Northeast has been involved in at least five cases where a disputed medical diagnosis led to parents either losing custody or being threatened with that extreme measure. Similar custody fights have occurred on occasion at other pediatric hospitals around the country.

 

It happens often enough that the pediatrician who until recently ran the child protection teams at both Childrens and Massachusetts General Hospital said she and others in her field have a name for this aggressive legal-medical maneuver. They call it a parent-ectomy. "

 

When such a pattern emerges you should begin to question BCH's actions and the motives of those addicted to parent-ectomies.

 

2- More importantly, per numerous news reports, Justina was seen last week, after 14 months, by Mark Korson, the Tufts mitochondrial disease expert, which makes this whole dispute moot.

 

Having been educated at an Ivy League school and working everyday with highly educated and smart people I can say without a doubt that said people (highly smart/educated) are no more or less ethical than the average guy. In a medical dispute, intellectual conflict of interests should be carefully scrutinized. Now, since it turns out that Massachusetts DCF uses Boston Children's Hospital doctors as their medical advisers when issues like these happen, the conflict of interest (and the incestuous relationship) could not be more clear.

 

In the United States, unlike what happens in countries like Cuba or China, people are assumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The benefit of the doubt belongs with the accused, not the accuser. Under our system of laws, having a top expert in mitochondrial disorders from Tufts testify under oath, as Dr Korson did for Justina, that a child's problems can be explained by a mito diagnosis, is enough to keep that doubt with the parents. Yet, in corrupt Massachusetts, DCF would insist that BCH doctors opinions are more valid than those of said expert and a corrupt judge would agree.

 

For anybody who thinks that highly smart/educated people are more ethical than the little guy, I ask them two consider two points,

 

1- So called "white collar crime" is perpetrated exclusively by highly educated and smart people. Moreover, as the Bernie Madoff scandal shows, these people can be in violation of the law for several years and nobody at the regulatory agencies does anything out of fear of them. Even worse, these people can bring the world financial system to the brink of collapse with very little consequences.

 

2- I would ask you to enroll at some academic program at Harvard to understand that while there are many qualified and decent people over there, Harvard has also its share of crooks like http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/07/harvard_scientists_disciplined.html

If you're done tooting your Ivy League horn, consider the following:

 

1. The BU docs had to have a high index of suspicion to start the whole process of taking custody from the parents. What would motivate such an action? Do you think the Mass DCF has a quota for taking custody of children from otherwise normal parents?

 

2. As a major referral center for the "toughest" pediatric cases, wouldn't you expect BU to be involved with more cases of medical child abuse? Have any of the cases where custody was taken from parents been overturned by the courts? Is it one or multiple doctors making the call to remove children from their parents' custody?

 

3. Do you think Dr. Korson of Tufts has secondary gain in remaining true to his original diagnosis (like maintaining his own credibility rather than actions tantamount to malpractice if wrong)? Why do you think he omitted the most common diagnostic procedure for mitochondrial disease in Justina's case?

 

And why is your screen name psychsurvivor? Any chance you have a bias against mental health professionals?

 

ETA: I see one case where the state did not substantiate BU's claims, but does that invalidate the concerns of the BU physician(s) in this case?

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Sure I am...you two bozos got beat down badly today...and one of you still keeps going back to Pen for more.

He has destroyed every argument made against him and the only think GP can do is try to claim some internet misdiagnosis angle where Pen has been focking with him.

Its pathetic...but damn funny to watch.

no youre an idiot

Hth

[drobeski 3,061]

no ######, right?

[wiffleball 4,642]

the recliner pilot school pf posting right there

[Googballz 39]

New guy giving the Innerweb Diagnosis King a midnight thrashing.

 

[NewbieJr 540]

New guy giving the Innerweb Diagnosis King a midnight thrashing.

 

Yeah, he's new. :lol:

[drobeski 3,061]

the recliner pilot school pf posting right there

the down syndrome with a hint of gay disorder posting style right there.

[MDC 5,892]

As a registered Republican I am going to assume the state assumed custody of this kid for no reason whatsoever because liberalism.

[psychsurvivor 2]

1. The BU docs had to have a high index of suspicion to start the whole process of taking custody from the parents. What would motivate such an action? Do you think the Mass DCF has a quota for taking custody of children from otherwise normal parents?

 

First correction, the doctors are not from Boston University (BU) but from Boston Children's Hospital (BCH), which is a teaching hospital affiliated with Harvard University (the same that has demonstrably corrupt psychiatrists in its ranks).

 

Second, what the Boston Globe and other reports show is precisely that BCH tends to perform parent-ectomies all to easily (so the notion that BCH is careful before doing things like this is rubbish). Google the case of Elizabeth Wray and others.

 

2. As a major referral center for the "toughest" pediatric cases, wouldn't you expect BU to be involved with more cases of medical child abuse? Have any of the cases where custody was taken from parents been overturned by the courts? Is it one or multiple doctors making the call to remove children from their parents' custody?

 

Again, you insist on giving Harvard affiliated psychiatrists and psychiatry in general a benefit of the doubt that they don't deserve. Not only psychiatry in general is plagued with conflict of interests (for another case, watch

) but there is something intrinsic about psychiatry that doesn't exist in other areas of medicine http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

 

"While DSM has been described as a Bible for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been reliability each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure."

 

Psychiatric diagnosis is based ONLY on opinion. When a psych is convinced that you are crazy, there is no way to disprove it, unless what happens with say HIV for which you can just take an HIV test after the window period of the last risky exposure to prove that you don't have HIV.

 

 

3. Do you think Dr. Korson of Tufts has secondary gain in remaining true to his original diagnosis (like maintaining his own credibility rather than actions tantamount to malpractice if wrong)? Why do you think he omitted the most common diagnostic procedure for mitochondrial disease in Justina's case?

 

Even if that were the case, the parents have the ultimate power to decide this type of controversies even under Massachusetts' own law according to Alan Dershowitz : http://therightscoop.com/alan-dershowitz-offers-to-help-freejustina-says-law-is-clear-and-on-the-side-of-the-parents/ . If Mark Korson is a cheater of the kind you imply here, he should have lost his medical license for having testified under oath what he did. That didn't happen. In fact, as I said, now DCF took Justina back to Mark Korson. When the court is faced with two diagnoses by two competing medical teams, it has no business deciding which course of treatment is appropriate. Perhaps the Ivy League worshipers thinks certain doctors should be above the law but as I said, I encourage anybody who thinks like that to spend a couple of years among Ivy Leaguers to realize that these people are no better or worse than the average guy and they do not deserve preferential consideration.

 

 

And why is your screen name psychsurvivor? Any chance you have a bias against mental health professionals?

ETA: I see one case where the state did not substantiate BU's claims, but does that invalidate the concerns of the BU physician(s) in this case?

 

I am a survivor of psychiatric abuse who got to learn about this case after reading this article http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/12/justina-pelletier-case-shows-public-psychiatric-power-control/

 

Those of us who are survivors understood what was going on since we learned about it. You combine the non scientific nature of psychiatric diagnoses, the fact that psychiatrists are morally corrupt power hungry creatures that will do anything that the law allows them to abuse innocent victims and this case (and the others at BCH) make perfect sense.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Yeah this "psychsurvivor" fellow definitely doesn't have an agenda

[psychsurvivor 2]

Yeah this "psychsurvivor" fellow definitely doesn't have an agenda

We are all biased in some way or another. Giving BCH the benefit of the doubt (even though it is illegal under Massachusetts own law) is an agenda onto itself: having blind faith in BCH, perhaps because they are affiliated with Harvard.

 

The perversion of the agenda of those who want to give BCH the benefit of the doubt could not be more appalling. In order to uphold their blind allegiance to "experts" they are willing to invert our constitutional rights, but giving the benefit of the doubt to the accusers, not the accused. As I said, China or Cuba are probably better suited for people who think long these lines than the United States.

[NewbieJr 540]

Yeah this "psychsurvivor" fellow definitely doesn't have an agenda

LOL. 2 posts here EVER.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

We are all biased in some way or another. Giving BCH the benefit of the doubt (even though it is illegal under Massachusetts own law) is an agenda onto itself: having blind faith in BCH, perhaps because they are affiliated with Harvard.

 

The perversion of the agenda of those who want to give BCH the benefit of the doubt could not be more appalling. In order to uphold their blind allegiance to "experts" they are willing to invert our constitutional rights, but giving the benefit of the doubt to the accusers, not the accused. As I said, China or Cuba are probably better suited for people who think long these lines than the United States.

I don't think anyone has "blind faith" in the doctors or the medical entities involved. There's simply a recognition that they are professionals with vastly greater knowledge and experience in the field than your typical person, and that we haven't heard their side of the story because they are obliged to protect the privacy of the child and family (which is something the family itself should be more concerned about if you ask me).

 

It's possible they are in the wrong here. Doctors name errors, have egos, act in their own self-interest, etc. On that score you are right. But I'm not just going to take the family's word as gospel when we are only getting a one-sided and likely extremely slanted view of the story.

[penultimatestraw 473]

First correction, the doctors are not from Boston University (BU) but from Boston Children's Hospital (BCH), which is a teaching hospital affiliated with Harvard University (the same that has demonstrably corrupt psychiatrists in its ranks).

 

Second, what the Boston Globe and other reports show is precisely that BCH tends to perform parent-ectomies all to easily (so the notion that BCH is careful before doing things like this is rubbish). Google the case of Elizabeth Wray and others.

 

Again, you insist on giving Harvard affiliated psychiatrists and psychiatry in general a benefit of the doubt that they don't deserve. Not only psychiatry in general is plagued with conflict of interests (for another case, watch

) but there is something intrinsic about psychiatry that doesn't exist in other areas of medicine http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-diagnosis.shtml

 

"While DSM has been described as a Bible for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been reliability each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure."

 

Psychiatric diagnosis is based ONLY on opinion. When a psych is convinced that you are crazy, there is no way to disprove it, unless what happens with say HIV for which you can just take an HIV test after the window period of the last risky exposure to prove that you don't have HIV.

 

Even if that were the case, the parents have the ultimate power to decide this type of controversies even under Massachusetts' own law according to Alan Dershowitz : http://therightscoop.com/alan-dershowitz-offers-to-help-freejustina-says-law-is-clear-and-on-the-side-of-the-parents/ . If Mark Korson is a cheater of the kind you imply here, he should have lost his medical license for having testified under oath what he did. That didn't happen. In fact, as I said, now DCF took Justina back to Mark Korson. When the court is faced with two diagnoses by two competing medical teams, it has no business deciding which course of treatment is appropriate. Perhaps the Ivy League worshipers thinks certain doctors should be above the law but as I said, I encourage anybody who thinks like that to spend a couple of years among Ivy Leaguers to realize that these people are no better or worse than the average guy and they do not deserve preferential consideration.

 

I am a survivor of psychiatric abuse who got to learn about this case after reading this article http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/12/justina-pelletier-case-shows-public-psychiatric-power-control/

 

Those of us who are survivors understood what was going on since we learned about it. You combine the non scientific nature of psychiatric diagnoses, the fact that psychiatrists are morally corrupt power hungry creatures that will do anything that the law allows them to abuse innocent victims and this case (and the others at BCH) make perfect sense.

You realize the doctor who recognized the red flag(s) which lead to custody being taken from Justina's parents was a neurologist? And I don't care if these doctors were Ivy League or not, I can assure you no doctor is going to take a child from their parents without a damn good reason(s). Why do you think the neurologist made this decision????

 

And I'm not saying Korson is a "cheater", just he has motivation above and beyond helping Justina to support his own diagnosis. Hell, he may genuinely believe the diagnosis, but I still have a hard time accepting his exclusion of one of the basic diagnostic tests for mitochondrial disease.

 

I give you credit for acknowledging your ax to grind with the psych establishment, but the specialty's impreciseness in no way set the stage for the initial decision for Justina to be evaluated for medical child abuse.

[penultimatestraw 473]

We are all biased in some way or another. Giving BCH the benefit of the doubt (even though it is illegal under Massachusetts own law) is an agenda onto itself: having blind faith in BCH, perhaps because they are affiliated with Harvard.

 

The perversion of the agenda of those who want to give BCH the benefit of the doubt could not be more appalling. In order to uphold their blind allegiance to "experts" they are willing to invert our constitutional rights, but giving the benefit of the doubt to the accusers, not the accused. As I said, China or Cuba are probably better suited for people who think long these lines than the United States.

I don't have blind faith in any institution. He!!, you corrected my mistake of identifying the Children's Hospital with Boston University, not Harvard.

 

I just believe no physician would take the idea of removing parental custody lightly. Why is this so hard to understand?

[penultimatestraw 473]

I don't think anyone has "blind faith" in the doctors or the medical entities involved. There's simply a recognition that they are professionals with vastly greater knowledge and experience in the field than your typical person, and that we haven't heard their side of the story because they are obliged to protect the privacy of the child and family (which is something the family itself should be more concerned about if you ask me).

 

It's possible they are in the wrong here. Doctors name errors, have egos, act in their own self-interest, etc. On that score you are right. But I'm not just going to take the family's word as gospel when we are only getting a one-sided and likely extremely slanted view of the story.

Exactly. I feel like I'm at a tinfoil convention discussing this case with some posters.

[Sho Nuff 719]

no youre an idiot

Hth

 

Coming from you...that makes me feel great. I know Im doing something correct when a fool like you thinks this.

Thanks.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Yeah, he's new. :lol:

 

Yeah...the new alias claiming to be ivy league educated read some things, created a new name, and decided to throw some punches because ol GP was getting his ass handed to him by pen again.

[psychsurvivor 2]

You realize the doctor who recognized the red flag(s) which lead to custody being taken from Justina's parents was a neurologist? And I don't care if these doctors were Ivy League or not, I can assure you no doctor is going to take a child from their parents without a damn good reason(s). Why do you think the neurologist made this decision????

 

And I'm not saying Korson is a "cheater", just he has motivation above and beyond helping Justina to support his own diagnosis. Hell, he may genuinely believe the diagnosis, but I still have a hard time accepting his exclusion of one of the basic diagnostic tests for mitochondrial disease.

 

I give you credit for acknowledging your ax to grind with the psych establishment, but the specialty's impreciseness in no way set the stage for the initial decision for Justina to be evaluated for medical child abuse.

 

And you realize that in the ruling the judge stated (I am not making this up),

 

"At trial there was extensive psychiatric and medical testimony. Voluminous psychiatric and medical records were entered in evidence. Based on credible psychiatric and medical evidence this court has found that Justina suffers from a persistent and severe Somatic Symptom Disorder".

 

So now a "judge" is the "decider in chief" when it comes to competing medical diagnoses. This should scare the hell of everybody who cares about constitutional rights.

 

Somatic Symptom Disorder is a DSM-5 diagnosis with the potential of http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/mislabeling-medical-illne_b_2265198.html

 

"Many readers of my previous blog listing the 10 worst suggestions in DSM 5 were shocked that I failed to mention an 11th dangerous mistake -- that DSM-5 will harm people who are medically ill by mislabeling their medical problems as mental disorder. They are absolutely right. I apologize for my previous failure to attend to this danger and hope it is not now too late to influence the process.

 

Adding to the woes of the medically ill could be one of the biggest problems caused by DSM-5. It will do this in two ways: 1) by encouraging a quick jump to the erroneous conclusion that someone's physical symptoms are 'all in the head'; and 2) by mislabeling as mental disorders what are really just the normal emotional reactions that people understandably have in response to a medical illness."

 

Now, I am not doing the googling for you. Research who is Allen Frances and why his opinion matters. Also note that the Huffington Post article is from 2012. The Justina case seems a textbook prediction of the problems with the way DSM-5 defined "Somatic Symptom Disorder".

 

With respect of being open about my hatred towards psychiatry, you'd be as well if you found yourself in a Justina type of situation, something that is not that unusual http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/yale-university-threatens-suspend-student-skinny-article-1.1748884

[Googballz 39]

My innerweb diagnosis:

 

This Psycho fella is administering a colonoscopy to Penultimate.

[psychsurvivor 2]

I don't think anyone has "blind faith" in the doctors or the medical entities involved. There's simply a recognition that they are professionals with vastly greater knowledge and experience in the field than your typical person, and that we haven't heard their side of the story because they are obliged to protect the privacy of the child and family (which is something the family itself should be more concerned about if you ask me).

It's possible they are in the wrong here. Doctors name errors, have egos, act in their own self-interest, etc. On that score you are right. But I'm not just going to take the family's word as gospel when we are only getting a one-sided and likely extremely slanted view of the story.

Actually you do. Here are the undisputed facts,

 

- BCH doctors (not only the neurologist but others) testified under oath that Justina suffered from a DSM-5 diagnosis "Somatic Symptom Disorder".

 

- Tufts mito expert Mark Korson testified under oath that Justina suffers from mitochondrial disorder. Moreover, last week after 14 months of denials, DCF agreed that Justina be sent back to his care.

 

Under our constitutional guarantees that alone is enough to give the parents the benefit of the doubt, yet you keep insisting, because of your "bind faith in Harvard psychiatrists" that "there must be another side".

 

The mental gymnastics and the distortion of our constitutional rights that people like you need to engage in to justify BCH's behavior is really scary. The constitution be damned, all you care about is what Harvard affiliated doctors say the right course should be.

[NewbieJr 540]

Hmmm, a doctor or a psych ward patient. I'll take the doctor.

[psychsurvivor 2]

Hmmm, a doctor of a psych ward patient. I'll take the doctor.

I'll take you to the psych ward, like what happened to Christina Schumacher,

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrgLV96X8h0

 

Then I'd ask you to reconsider your blind faith in psychiatrists who put people in psych wards :-).

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Hmmm, a doctor of a psych ward patient. I'll take the doctor.

[FeelingMN 273]

A staff member at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, 345 Smith Ave., called 911 at 6:33 p.m. Wednesday and reported that a young mother, identified as Lewis, had suffocated her baby in a hospital room about 5:40 p.m.

 

The baby, identified in the complaint as C.A.W. and born Nov. 18, had been admitted to the hospital Tuesday, after he was monitored and tested at Children's Hospital in Minneapolis for several days.

 

Lewis had reported that the baby would stop breathing, turn blue and then regain consciousness on several occasions.

 

"After extensive monitoring and observation of C.A.W. on May 2, 2012, hospital staff informed Lewis that they could find nothing wrong with him and, thus, C.A.W. would be released from the hospital within a few hours," the complaint said.

 

It was after she was told this that a nurse saw, via a camera screen, that Lewis was pinching the baby's nose closed and the child became unresponsive.

 

"When medical staff rushed into the room, Lewis claimed, 'His heart rate went down and he turned blue,' " the complaint said. Nurses who responded said a monitor showed the baby's heart rate at 78, when an infant's normal heart rate should be 130; his respirations were measured at 52, but a normal infant-respiration rate is 36.

 

St. Paul police were called and took Lewis into custody. Police later timed the duration of the suffocation at 45 seconds.

 

Police interviewed Lewis, who detailed various times, starting in February, when she said her son stopped breathing and turned blue. She said she was the only adult present in the family home and hospital rooms when this happened.

 

"After describing each incident and repeatedly saying how frustrated and stressed she is by having virtually all the child care responsibilities for C.A.W. and her older child, Lewis finally admitted she 'snapped' and did something very wrong," the complaint said. "She said she had lied. She said she wanted C.A.W. to 'do something' so medical staff could 'find something' and 'help' C.A.W. more quickly."

 

She told police she had squeezed the baby's nose closed and held his mouth shut. She said the baby "fought me" by kicking his legs, so she stopped and pushed the button to call the nurse, the complaint said.

 

"Lewis said she has some training in the medical field, including CPR training, and knows infants primarily breathe through their noses," the complaint said. "She also admitted she knows it takes relatively little pressure to stop an infant's breathing."

 

Lewis told police she'd held the baby's nose and mouth closed April 22 at the Minneapolis hospital, but denied doing it the other times that she reported he had stopped breathing.

 

A doctor reported the baby had "substantial bodily harm" as a result of Lewis' actions Wednesday, which constitute third-degree assault, the complaint said.

 

http://www.twincities.com/ci_20549583/mom-tried-suffocate-infant-st-paul-hospital-charges

 

They caught this b!tch on video.....otherwise she'd have never been caught. If someone had the slightest notion that this was occurring they should have stopped it. As it is, some kid suffered substantial bodily harm because his mom is focking wacko.

 

Some parents are beyond bad parents.....they're dangerous. If a professional suspects that a child is in danger it is incumbent upon them to act.

 

As for psychiatry in general.....I think they overmedicate. But that's probably Western Medicine in general. Very hard to treat the mind when there is very little consensus as to what constitutes the mind. Does that mean we don't try? No. As many problems as there are in the field of psychiatry, it is still light years better than how we used to treat the mentally ill.

 

And psychsurvivor, why don't you share your story rather than linking others' stories? That Schumacher clip isn't exactly the nail in psychiatry's coffin. Does she have the right to be pissed? Sure. But she also comes across as more than a little confrontational in the vid, and maybe unstable. She suffered an unimaginable tragedy. How did she deal with that? Were you there with her? Did she maybe give the impression that she was a danger to herself? Is it really beyond the realm of possibility that she might have needed some professional help after what she went through if her behavior at the time warranted it?

 

People shouldn't have blind faith in anything.....just as they shouldn't be hypercritical either. In both cases, they're all too willing to ignore reason altogether.

[Googballz 39]

FeelingMN, what does your story have to do with the subject of this thread?

[FeelingMN 273]

FeelingMN, what does your story have to do with the subject of this thread?

 

Simply to show that parents do horrible things to their kids to get attention from medical professionals.

 

Is it exactly what's going on with Pelletier? No. I don't know what's exactly going on in that situation. But people who think that this is simply corruption on the part of the hospital/state seem to ignore the fact that terrible things do happen. The reason hospitals intervene is because some parents are focking sickos.

 

It's a messed up situation. I feel badly for the girl. But the hospital acted in a way they thought best for the girl. In a perfect world parents should be the only ones to decide the care their kids receive. But in a perfect world parents don't exhibit MBP.

 

Hopefully there's a panel that oversees these types of decisions. If the BC docs are wrong, they should pay the price.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Simply to show that parents do horrible things to their kids to get attention from medical professionals.

 

Is it exactly what's going on with Pelletier? No. I don't know what's exactly going on in that situation. But people who think that this is simply corruption on the part of the hospital/state seem to ignore the fact that terrible things do happen. The reason hospitals intervene is because some parents are focking sickos.

 

It's a messed up situation. I feel badly for the girl. But the hospital acted in a way they thought best for the girl. In a perfect world parents should be the only ones to decide the care their kids receive. But in a perfect world parents don't exhibit MBP.

 

Hopefully there's a panel that oversees these types of decisions. If the BC docs are wrong, they should pay the price.

 

GP only supports stories that would favor his and "psycho's" side of things...when it shoes other things as your video did...he questions what it has to do with the thread.