Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch
Thanks for pointing that out. You are right and I misread your tone. I also very much appreciate the sharing of the legal stuff. I tried to find it myself, but all I could find were blog entries talking about the case.
I do support our legal system and if the people in charge felt that they were protecting a child, I guess that is where we are at in today medical and legal climate.
It still sends shivers down my spine.
Jenny
|
I think that is understandable.
I also thank you for your honest response.
I think that we all want a government and legal system that protects us with out interferring where we feel they should not.
Each of us has our own line that we feel the government and legal system should not cross.
This, I think is probably what all the arguments here may be about.
We each may (and likely) imagine that line in a different place.
In addition to where we feel the line is, the government and legal system (including law and order sides) draw a line and determine where and where not to intervene.
The line they draw moves
- It moves with cases like these that set or change precedent
- It moves with the election of new judges
- It moves with the appointment of new judges
- It moves with the election of new goverments (local, state, and federal)
When I looked up Pemberton I found it hard to find the case, so once I did I though it would be important to post it here.
I posted the opening.
I posted the full background section so that people can decide for themselves based on all the details.
Then I posted a section that highlighted the point I was trying to make about the risk of one vs. the other.
It is up to us to make our own decision about risk when it comes to ourselves and our children.
However, what the judge in this case tries to point out is that decisions about risk to others including our children are not solely our own.
At some point (wherever the line is currently drawn) the government or legal system steps in to ensure that the individual it feels is being put at risk by another is kept as safe as possible.
The hospital had system in place in order to ensure that in cases like this (and many other cases involving people other than mothers and unborn babies) decision making is not done arbitrarily but that specific procedures are followed to ensure that those who need to be protected or removed from risk are.
Without such procedures, the border line cases that trigger them will be decided by the single doctor, resident, intern, or nurse on at the moment.
I find that this part of the case and teh situation makes me much more comfortable and gives me more faith in the system.
If a borderline case presents itself I now have a little more confidence that at least it will be handled properly. I may not get the result that I want or feel I need but path to get to those results is much more fair then a one person spur of the moment decision.
- It was recognized by the staf that this was a borderline situation that must be handled by more than one doctor.
- Procedures said to get other opinions
- depending on the other opinions take action
- In this case the hospital legal staff was notified who was in touch with the state legal authorities
- unfortunately Pemberton left and was persued
- A hearing was convened with a judge where the pembertons (after being brought back to the hospital) were able to express their opinions
- the judge made a decision
One may not be happy with the results but at the fact that there is a process is what is of note.