This is what you get for questioning the "authority" and for having the audacity to have your own voice in medical decisions for your children: a social worker takes custody of an hours old newborn, while still in the hospital, and prevents her mother from seeing her other than to nurse her every 3 hours. All because she asked too many questions.
Yeah. It happened. At Hershey Medical Center in Pennsylvania. Jodi Ferris had planned a homebirth, but when things progressed too quickly for even the midwife to arrive, her husband called an ambulance, and their daughter was born on the way to the hospital.
Story link.
When they arrived at the hospital, there was a lot of activity. Jodi asked a lot of questions about the care and condition of her daughter. Part of that was because she received conflicting answers. And then?
Angela Lopez-Heagy arrived. The government social worker. She announced that she was there to conduct an investigation, the allegations of which she refused to divulge.
Jodi told the social worker that she wasn't comfortable answering questions unless she knew what the allegations were. (Go girl.) Jodi's husband was with their other children back at home, arranging care for them so he could join her at the hospital.
The social worker threatened Jodi that if she didn't answer the questions, she would call the police and take custody of the newborn, Annie. And then she grilled Jodi about why she didn't consent to the Hepatitis B vaccination for Annie. This is about a vaccination consent?!! There were other questions, too... They were more generalized.
Periodically, the social worker left the room during this interrogation. And when she did? A hospital staff member blocked the door to prevent Jodi from leaving her room. She was, for all purposes, held prisoner in her hospital room.
And then? The social worker came back with a "safety plan." Jodi asked to see it. It wasn't written on paper yet. It was a carte blanche verbal consent to "whatever the hospital wants." And if she didn't? Angela Lopez-Heagy would take custody of Annie.
Jodi asked to wait for her husband. The social worker said no. A police officer instructed Jodi to hand Annie to a nurse. Jodi begged the social worker to allow her to sign the "safety plan." She would do whatever it took to keep custody. But the social worker said, "That window has closed." They took the baby. And the officer escorted Jodi out of the hospital. And off the hospital's property.
WHAT THE HELL?!!!
Jodi spent the night in the parking lot across the street, with her husband, in their car. They were allowed, every 3 hours, to return in order to breastfeed Annie (but they weren't allowed to linger).
The next morning, a judge returned custody to Jodi and her husband. And two weeks later, he dismissed the case against them that the social worker had filed.
Now? The Ferris' are suing the social worker and the medical staff who seized Annie. They filed in March. In July, the defendants motioned to have the suit dismissed. Last week, the judge denied the motion, and the suit will proceed. Good luck to them. As far as I'm concerned, they're fighting for my rights, too.
True
Comments (58)
As far as the case is concerned, I think that the gov't worker had reason to be worried, but she handled it very poorly and, in my opinion, overreacted. However, I'm somewhat hesitant to commit to that position because from the way the original article is written, some of the events are a bit too vague. I'd like to have seen more details with regards to the questioning and some of the other parts that supposedly led the worker to conclude the baby needed to be taken away.
As for the broader issues of parental rights, the child's rights and medical care, I would imagine that the problem boils down to whether or not the medical provider feels that he/she would be committing a breach of ethics by withholding treatment, even if it's at the parents' request. Here is a rather interesting article that wrestles with this issue (it deals more specifically with cancer, but it makes points that could be applied elsewhere): LINK
Folks working for the "government" love to overreact. Happens at my work all the time (not this extreme of situation). They take something small and blow it up all out of porportion. What question about vaccinations must be answered within the first hours after birth? None that I'm aware of... although my last child was born 21 years ago. Things could have changed... alot... since then.
The Hepatitis B vaccination, at least as far as I've read, is only needed at the time of birth if the mother has Hepatitis B herself. If not, there is no reason the vaccination couldn't be delayed or administered when the child is sexually mature.
I cannot believe this. This is outrageous. I am so angry at how controlling and manipulative our government can be.
Home births ftw?
I wonder how much they are suing for. It would be difficult to put a price on the innumerable health and emotional benefits mothers and babies receive via skin-to-skin bonding immediately after birth. Angela Lopez-Heagy sounds like an awful person.
@Jenny_Wren@xanga - Home births FTW, for sure.Yikes, another reason why I'd never give birth in a hospital.
I'd be scarred for life if someone took away my baby right after she was born and blocked me from seeing her...that is disgusting. Apparently the reason could not have possibly been a good one considering the child was returned to them the next day.
I'd start effing shooting.
I'd only need one round though.
Ethics, schmethics. This is a vaccination, not a life-threatening potential for parental negligence.
The Dr.'s ethics do not override parental consent.
Although I'm pro-vaccine (for me, the pros far outweigh the cons & severe reactions are rare), this case was poorly handled. As a medical professional, I know if I dont have things expressly written & have due cause to call security or the cops, my ass is on the line/ I can be fired, fined &/or arrested. That social worker bitch should be fired.
the proper thing to do if a parent doesnt want a vaccine is to document it so if God forbid the child gets sick later, the practitioner cant be sued.
@QuantumStorm@xanga - Requiring a vaccination from the visible history to foreseeable future is a major breach of ethics. As of now, it is unforeseeable how and when an exception can be made. Simply following known aversion practices is far more effective than vaccinations. Unless somebody intentionally makes them moot.
Yeaaaaa, when I get pregnant, I'm definitely having a home birth. This disgusts me.. I hope she wins!
Obviously if things went down EXACTLY as the plaintiff is alleging in this suit, then yes. The social worker should be fired and the hospital should get out its checkbook and reimburse this family for various damages and intimidations and etc.
Still, there are two sides to every story. Keep in mind that if Jodi was given full access to her child after displaying several on-the-record character traits that marked her as a possibly unfit caregiver.... and the baby had been neglected or hurt later then the social worker would have been fired for not petitioning the court for custody of the child.
Notice that Jodi had a home birth that went wrong and she was forced to give birth in an ambulance. I am an EMT and I can tell you that while all ambulances are equipped for emergency obstetrics the back of a vehicle is NOT an ideal place to have a child. Still, backing up,...Did Jodi have a history of ignoring medical advice even after her life or her child's life were in danger? Did she have a complicated pregnancy whose seriousness she ignored? Did her OB beg her to have the birth at a hospital? Did Jodi have priors of endangering children or herself in the name of the "natural" experience? (no doctors, no vaccines, no pasteurized milk, etc.) If so, then the social worker's anxiety and need to protect the baby can be understandable.
Keep in mind that social workers have a hard job. They need to protect children in abusive families where weak-willed mothers often refuse to leave their abusive husbands/boyfriends. If a twelve-year-old girl is beaten by her father because she refuses to marry a man of her father's choosing then a social worker must intervene even if the girl's legal guardians object. If a five-year-old boy is underweight and malnourished then a social worker must intervene even if the boy's parents insist that he is healthy. Social workers are used to working against parents' wishes in order to protect children.... and when the parents retell the story the social workers, of course, end up looking like monsters.
Still, in this story the judge appears to believe that an abuse did possibly occur. I would be interested in hearing how this lawsuit is settled. Jodi may well be in the right here.
@phoebester@xanga - Before I respond to it erroneously, what did you mean by, "Still, in this story the judge appears to believe that an abuse did possibly occur."? That the judge believes an abuse of power occurred or abuse of the child?
@phoebester@xanga -
I both agree and disagree with your comment (not that it matters too much, but)..
I think you're right that is she's some loon who in the past didn't get her child to a doctor if he broke his leg, or, say, tried to pray the cancer away, then yes, she might deserve this prohibitive sort of surveillance.
However--I don't see how Jodi would be set up to have her child taken away if an OB begged her to have a hospital birth, or even if she did use natural methods of child rearing--those don't amount to child neglect or abuse. And frankly, it isn't anyone's business but the mother's whether or not she wants to have an at-home birth, although I don't think her attitude was overzealous in having one. If anything, she was looking out for her child's safety at all costs even to her own preferences by calling an ambulance when it looked like the midwife wouldn't arrive on time.
I guess what I mean is--many learned people have different opinions over the best medicine for their child. Unless they are absolutely refusing to save their lives or otherwise failing to meet their immediate medical needs (broken bone, dangerously high fever, etc.), I don't see how that could ever amount to child abuse. Just as refusing a Hepatitis B vaccination wasn't child abuse, which is why the child was returned to her.
I'm not saying I'm in the "no-doctors-no-vaccines-ever" crowd, but I do know some people like that, and I know they are balanced enough to know when their child needs something they can't give them.
@Under_the_Ghillie@xanga - @jasonwl@xanga - That would depend on the nature of the treatment. In this particular case, as I pointed out already, it was probably a matter of overreaction on the part of the government worker. But I'd have liked more detail on the situations regarding the questioning for example.
@phoebester@xanga - You've hit on many of the concerns I have with this case. I feel like I'm missing a fair amount of info here.
@Under_the_Ghillie@xanga - "The Dr.'s ethics do not override parental consent."
If I were a physician and if the child's parents were acting in a manner that was jeopardizing the health of the child, I would consider myself ethically and professionally bound to do what I can to preserve the child's health even if that means overriding the parent's wishes.
Now there are cases, usually for refusal of treatment in non-life-threatening situations, where parents generally have more latitude and can refuse treatment for their child (it requires what they consider "informed" refusal). But in most cases, the parents do not have the right to withhold medical treatment for their child based on their personal beliefs.
State v. Perricone made this point quite succinctly when it said, "The right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty to expose... a child... to ill health or death. Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free ... to make martyrs of their children..." (LINK)
funny. just today i asked my daughter's pediatrician if the polio vaccination was necessary. i've asked plenty of questions such as those. instead of being concerned he was just honest with me and let me make the decision on whether or not i wanted to proceed with it.
this...this is absurd. unless the mother was abusing the newborn or unless the newborn was born with drugs in his/her system (and i'm sure there are other cases)....leave them be. the mom was doing no damage. is this the world we live in? where we risk losing our kids for asking curious questions? smh.
@QuantumStorm@xanga - To begin with, allow me to point out that I said "the" doctor's, not "a" doctor's, so while your response refers to the topic as a generalization, I was referring to a very specific instance. Do you mind if, for now, we manage to stay on point?
Namely, that of this parent's having their child taken from them because she refused to allow a vaccination... a vaccination, mind you, because her questions weren't being answered to her satisfaction. To quote the article: "...it appeared that the medical staff had had enough of Jodi questioning what they
were doing."
To quote you: "(it requires what they consider "informed" refusal). "
Informed refusal implies the opposite, informed consent. If she refused to allow this vaccine (and again, I say vaccine, not life-saving treatment under any circumstance, it's preventative {and some would argue reliably that it's unnecessary} medicine, at best) because she wasn't satisfied with the answers to her questions, then it can be logically stipulated that she hadn't yet had the opportunity to give informed consent.
Informed consent is still part of the patient's bill of rights. We have the right to choose which medical cares we will receive based on an informed position of the risks and rewards of that treatment or procedure, and as parents we still have that authority over our children.
Now, you've cited case law, but let's keep in mind that case law is merely case law. A court deciding, in one case, that this should be that, bar none, is not tantamount to actual law. You have heard of the appeal process, right? That's specifically what appeals are for.
But on to your broader spectrum analysis...
You say "If I were a physician and if the child's parents were acting in a manner that was jeopardizing the health of the child, I would consider myself ethically and professionally bound to do what I can to preserve the child's health even if that means overriding the parent's wishes."
Interesting. I'm glad you would feel that way. It shows that you care about the child. One small problem, you're not the child's parents, and your having a medical degree simply does not overrule their authority, or grant you authority to act on your own ethics. It doesn't even allow you to act on your own morals. Let's do some reductio ad absurdem, shall we?
"If I were a teacher, and if the child's parents were acting in a manner that was jeopardizing the worldview of the child, I would consider myself ethically and professionally bound to do what I can to indoctrinate the child with my particular wordview, even if that means overriding the parent's wishes."
In this country, we have what's known as the rule of law. The rule of law is the standard by which things are, and are not allowed. You, as a doctor, are morally and ethically bound to the Hypocratic Oath. That oath, however, does not grant you free reign to do as you wish based on your own ethics and morals. If you assert that your ethics are the basis on which you decide whether or not you would administer this vaccine, irrespective of the parent's wishes (and again, let's remember that the questions the custodial parent had were not answered to her satisfaction, so the "ethics" of informed consent had not been met) then you've taken the position that the Dr's ethics alone are the standard by which a decision is made. So I ask you, what happens when a patient WANTS a treatment for their terminally ill child, but the attending physician's ethics tell him that it's a waste of resources? Should the Dr refuse to treat the child?
Ethics are not written in stone. They are, at best, subjective. Which is why they're not sufficient for being the stand-alone deciding factor in these situations.
@Under_the_Ghillie@xanga - I've already addressed the specific case and my thoughts on the behavior of the gov't worker; to me, I'd be more concerned with the worker's rationale for taking the child away, and I'd like to see more info regarding that.
I don't disagree with the point you make on informed consent when it comes to our own health. However, things get dicier when it comes to pediatrics, because the parents are acting as legal guardians for a patient that is deemed unable to personally give informed consent.
"Now, you've cited case law, but let's keep in mind that case law is merely case law. A court deciding, in one case, that this should be that, bar none, is not tantamount to actual law. You have heard of the appeal process, right? That's specifically what appeals are for."
The fact that case law can be appealed is not a sufficient reason to dismiss its validity or relevance. Court decisions often draw upon legal precedents to support their decisions.
"Interesting. I'm glad you would feel that way. It shows that you care about the child. One small problem, you're not the child's parents, and your having a medical degree simply does not overrule their authority, or grant you authority to act on your own ethics. It doesn't even allow you to act on your own morals. Let's do some reductio ad absurdem, shall we?
"If I were a teacher, and if the child's parents were acting in a manner that was jeopardizing the worldview of the child, I would consider myself ethically and professionally bound to do what I can to indoctrinate the child with my particular wordview, even if that means overriding the parent's wishes.""
The analogy is somewhat flawed here because it assumes that "worldview indoctrination," whatever that means, is a necessary function of the teacher or something that falls within the teacher's code of ethics. It also assumes that worldview indoctrination operates the same way as medical treatment.
In the case of a physician, if the physician feels a breach of ethics will occur upon refusal of treatment, and if he/she is legally challenged, then he/she would have to demonstrate that point in a court of law. And That was where I was going with this, if that makes sense.
"You, as a doctor, are morally and ethically bound to the Hypocratic Oath. That oath, however, does not grant you free reign to do as you wish based on your own ethics and morals."
I think there may be a misunderstanding here, and I think I'm at fault, so let me point out what I'm trying to say; basically I'm in agreement with your position on the Hippocratic Oath. My argument was referring to a situation where the physician feels that refusing treatment violates that Oath (or other professional codes of ethics), not so much acting as he/she feels like irrespective of the Oath or other considerations. I think when I said "ethically and professionally" it gave the impression that I thought the physician should act based on personal ethics, and that wasn't my intent, sorry. I hope that clears it up a bit more. (And I sorta realized my booboo as I was thinking about the last part of your comment)
@QuantumStorm@xanga - Aw hell no. The Xangisposal just ate my reply.
I'll try this one more time.
"I've already addressed the specific case and my thoughts on the behavior of the gov't worker; to me, I'd be more concerned with the worker's rationale for taking the child away, and I'd like to see more info regarding that."
To be honest, this is the portion of the issue that has me so up in arms. I'd like to see more info as well, but since we don't have that we've got to work with what is presented. In light of that, I have to say that the social worker acted outside the scope of her authority, and to be honest I don't think she should have even been summoned to begin with. Her reaction of taking the child from the parents is, in my opinion (and again, based on the information provided) absolutely criminal behavior. I'd make the charge kidnapping, but that's me...the Libertarian I'm slowly becoming.
"I don't disagree with the point you make on informed consent when it comes to our own health. However, things get dicier when it comes to pediatrics, because the parents are acting as legal guardians for a patient that is deemed unable to personally give informed consent."
Yes, they are acting as guardians... and we need to be cognizant of (and respect) the fact that that's THEIR authority. There's a reason they are the ones who have that legal authority. It's presumed that the parents are the ones who will absolutely act in the best interests of that child. Granted, I'm not blind, I see that this is diminishing as a reasonable presumption, given the decay of parental responsibility these days, but in the absence of clear-cut, inarguable neglect on the parts of the parents, their decision must be binding, and respected, bar none. It is my opinion that, based on the information provided in this article and the cited source, that standard for intervention was not met.
"The fact that case law can be appealed is not a sufficient reason to dismiss its validity or relevance. Court decisions often draw upon legal precedents to support their decisions."
I'm not making the case that case law should be dismissed. I'm simply making a case for not going to the opposing extreme either, namely that of giving the same weight to case law as actual law. It needs to be taken in context, and it seemed that your citing that case was with the intent of saying that the matter was settled. It isn't. It's only case law.
"The analogy is somewhat flawed here because it assumes that "worldview indoctrination," whatever that means, is a necessary function of the teacher or something that falls within the teacher's code of ethics. It also assumes that worldview indoctrination operates the same way as medical treatment."
I grant you that my analogy is flawed. However, that is the bane of an analogy's existence: they are all, by default, flawed to some extent. My purpose here is not to equate the severity of the roles between a teacher and a Doctor, but rather to illustrate, with an intentional amount of absurdity (ad absurdem) that the position of authority is not the sole deciding factor in what action should or should not be taken. The rule of law still rules the day, as it were. But, this is all null and void now as you've clarified where I was indeed mistaken on your overall point...
" I think when I said "ethically and professionally" it gave the impression that I thought the physician should act based on personal ethics, and that wasn't my intent, sorry. "
Guilty as charged, I misunderstood your intent. I took you to be saying that, as the doctor, you would have administered the vaccine based on your person ethical decision. I would tentatively support a Doctor notifying social services of his concern (in cases far more life-threatening than this one, since social services seems to have a history of becoming jaded in their work, and then overreacting to all their cases as a result) but that's where the Doctor's personal ethics end, in my opinion. Actually acting in his capacity as a physician, outside the informed consent of the parents, would be criminal as well in my opinion, in anything other than an immediately life-threatening situation. This doesn't qualify.
(ignore all the damn commas, and run-on sentences. It's freaking midnight, what the hell do you want from me?! :p)
There's something not being said here. Yes, just the fact that a social worker was called tells me something else is weird. Because that's not the norm, and the social worker knows that's not the norm. If this were absolutely 100% about a healthy baby being born in an ambulance, the hospital would have fired the social worker.
@QuantumStorm@xanga - It's often overlooked that there is enough corruption in regulation of everything regulated that it is not realized that the "ethics" of any professional involved are profit and control oriented and have nothing to do with overall health of the people. It is also true of all commercial media. They seem unwilling to tell such a story without spinning to make the conscientious objectors look like fools or criminals themselves.
No matter what the whole of the media, or any part or whole of any leaning thereof, says about a matter, it cannot be taken as absolute and not be fooled most of the time.
@sarahsmurfette@xanga - The fact that the judge is allowing the case to go forward means that he or she believes that the hospital did possibly abuse its power over the patient.
Of course everybody is innocent until proven guilty, but the fact that the judge is not dismissing this lawsuit means that there is cause to believe that Jodi has a case here.
@jasonwl@xanga - "It is also true of all commercial media. They seem unwilling to tell such a story without spinning to make the conscientious objectors look like fools or criminals themselves.
No matter what the whole of the media, or any part or whole of any leaning thereof, says about a matter, it cannot be taken as absolute and not be fooled most of the time."
Which is why I am more interested in hearing more details about this case than is presented in this article.
@Under_the_Ghillie@xanga - Absolutely. Fuck that shit.