Home › Archives › Justina Pelletier, Victim Of A Boston Children’s “Parent-Ectomy?” Justina Pelletier, Victim Of A Boston Children’s “Parent-Ectomy?” Posted on 03/30/2014 justina and girls “It happens often enough that the pediatrician who until recently ran the child protection teams at both Children’s 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.’” That’s from the two-part series the Boston Globe-Democrat ran in December–months after they first interviewed the Pelletiers for a series on reports of ongoing abuse of the child custody system in Massachusetts by Boston Children’s Hospital. Within 18 months, BCH was involved with at least five different cases the Globe could find where a disagreement over a medical diagnosis resulted in parents losing custody of their sick children. How interesting, Lou Pelletier notes, fact that the Globe-Democrat sat on this story until FoxCT in Connecticut broke it, then rushed out this piece. Why sit on such a powerful story for so long? There’s a conflict at the heart of the Pelletier story that the mainstream media, particularly in Massachusetts, have no interest in discussing. But it’s so ethically troubling that even at pro-government, “squishy on parental rights” Slate, they seem aghast: When parents disagree with doctors, a hospital such as Children’s has a huge advantage. Because the state’s Department of Children and Families lacks medical expertise, Swidey and Wen point out, it often turns to Children’s for assistance. So when Children’s files a medical abuse claim against parents, DCF turns to … Children’s? This isn’t a rare or theoretical conflict of interest. Children’s has had five similar custody cases in the past two years. Critics call it a parent-ectomy.[emphasis added] Does “parent-ectomy” sound too provocative? Well, remember how Boston Children’s started this fight. The Pelletiers showed up to see a doctor from Tufts, but BCH intervened. Then, after announcing a controversial diagnosis for which there is no test (somatoform): When Justina’s parents objected, they were met with a letter demanding acceptance of the new diagnosis and treatment. The letter also forbid the parents any outside consultation, transfer to a different hospital or even a second opinion. NO second opinion? Why not let the Tuft’s doctors who showed up at BCH see her? Why won’t DCF take her to Tuft’s for treatment now–treatment the judge ordered weeks ago? Why? Because BCH doesn’t have to. They’ve got the money, they’ve got the federal grants to hand out, they’ve got the jobs to give away, they’ve got powerful donors and friends and–as the official medical “police” for DCF–they control the state child custody system. In a real state–one with a functioning, two-party democracy– the legislature would haul DCF and BCH officials into an investigative hearing and demand some checks and balances be put in place. Politicians running for governor and legislature would make this–the latest example of DCF corruption and incompetence–a campaign issue. Political conflict would breed political pressure which would breed action and reform. Ah, but I’m in Massachusetts…
Posted on: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 15:50:04 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015