Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by leela, Dec 2, 2013.
That's great news! If Dershowitz takes in the case, I'm confident a that they will win.
It looks like there'll be more of this going on in future. Just seen this on RT news:
'For the first time in history, the UK is planning to introduce the so-called Cinderella law, which will jail parents failing to show love to children for up to 10 years in prison, putting it alongside physical or sexual abuse, local media reported.
The UK government is planning to introduce changes to child neglect laws, which will make emotional cruelty a crime for the first time, according to Daily Telegraph report. The law will protect childrens emotional, social and behavioral well-being.'
Hope the 'saved children' won't be snatched by shrinks for 'treatment' during the parent's 10 year jail sentence (or enough time to institutionalise the child) I see more medical kidnapping afoot in future. Or maybe i'm just cynical these days
A nurse involved in Justina's case has filed a complaint, calling the state's actions abuse:
Also, head of DCF resigns, and supporters call for interim chief to release Justina:
It just kills me that all this legal fuffery prolongs and prolongs Justina's suffering, loneliness, and fear.
An HHS officer has at least recommended she be returned to Connecticut:
Yay! Anonymous is on the case!
It's good to see signs of progress. Though the political context which some people are putting it into is pretty nuts, and might be part of the reason it hasn't gotten wider attention. Emphasizing the religious and evil-government aspects undermines credibility and is probably scaring off a lot of media.
I agree, @Valentijn, and think it's a shame the other news outlets have not been staying on the human and civil rights abuses that are exemplified in this case. There have been articles in Slate and the Boston Globe, but the Fox/Blaze have been the only ones to hammer on it continuously--that's what they do over there, hammer on stuff. I appreciate that *someone* is staying with it, but it is a shame that it's a media bloc that has a reputation for being skewed and myopically anti-govmint.
If I were the parents, though, I'd be taking whatever help I could get to get the word out. There's no way to go this one alone.
Yeah, definitely. I wish they'd stop with the religious freedom angle though. Every article and pretty much every interview with the parents mentions Justina not being able to go to church. While church is probably important to the family, it's likely an extremely minor concern in the context of their child being kidnapped.
But the parents use it as pretty much the only tool they have left, even though it's utterly doomed to failure. One problem is that the focus on church is making them look similar to religious kooks who deny medical care for their children. This is obviously not the case, but people who don't read the articles closely (most people) will see the religious stuff, the disagreement with doctors about medical care, and jump to a certain conclusion.
The other problem with using the religious aspect is that it's obviously BS to a certain extent. Yes, church is important to them, but they're making a big fuss over a relatively minor issue. Hence it's a somewhat insincere argument for them to make, and the more rational types will pick up on that and it costs them credibility.
The parents are probably living in a rather conservative and religious community, and are accustomed to certain arguments being persuasive in that community. But they need to face the reality of those arguments being dismissed by government agencies and the rest of the country. Hence the family really needs to stay focused on the legal, scientific, and rational aspects, with limited and reasonable emotional appeals as a driving force behind those aspects.
The nurse and lawyers are doing an excellent job of that, but the parents are undermining it by engaging in a purely emotional context. It's not fair that they should be forced to behave in such a way over such an obvious and outrageous injustice, but that doesn't make it any less necessary.
So right on, @Valentijn . You know, it's funny, I'd actually totally skimmed over the religious aspect because it is of so little relevance to me.
I mean like almost totally blocked it out. It might be actually useful to leave a comment like what you said above on the free justina page; it's so insightful:
"[the family is perhaps] accustomed to certain arguments being persuasive in [their local] community. But they need to face the reality of those arguments being dismissed by government agencies and the rest of the country. Hence the family really needs to stay focused on the legal, scientific, and rational aspects, with limited and reasonable emotional appeals as a driving force behind those aspects."
There is in this situation such a gross violation of civil and human rights which ought to have already been enough to end this a year ago.
I totally agree with you.
But at the same time, I find very very shocking that the girl was not allowed to attend church, or meet a priest (and I am not religious at all!!). What's the rationale for not allowing her to have a religious activity? What is the psychiatric contraindication of that??? For people who believe in God, faith is a strong support, I don't see any reasonable argument that justifies her being preventing from religious help.
While Justine was imprisoned at Boston Children's Hospital, it was a simple consequence of that imprisonment. Letting her go to church would have also allowed the family have less-supervised contact with her. Basically it was fall-out from the kidnapping itself, rather than specific denial of freedom to practice a religion.
I had to go for a pre-op assessment in hospital recently - there was a huge emphasis on having access to a priest or a minister all throughout the process (not that I wanted it) it was something given the same importance as having a translator if English wasn't the patient's first language!
And this isn't a madly religious country.
I heard about Justina on National Public Radio today. It was a short piece but factually correct.
Do churches still offer sanctuary? Maybe the thinking is if she went to church she could escape their clutches by asking for sanctuary and not leave. I don't know what the legal standing of that is anymore. But I'm sure certain churches would still offer it in special circumstances, even if that meant they were in trouble w/ the law.
Justina is being transferred to a facility in her home state:
She might not be well enough to leave the hospital. She's probably on an IV and meds that can't be stopped abruptly as well.
They've well and truly got her in their clutches and I only hope the new facility is a step in the right direction.
@Ema, unfortunately for everyone, she's not in a hospital, she's in a child welfare facility and is being refused medical treatment.
That has been the case even when she was in the hospital, in a locked psych ward.
Really? I figured they had her drugged up on psych meds when she was in the hospital.
Oh yeah, psych meds. I haven't had enough green tea yet today!
Either way, why restrict visitation so drastically from her regular social network--church, friends, family, dog, internet--
it's really a form of torture for anyone, let alone a young teenager. The whole situation is completely out of hand.
I don't care what they believe is wrong "in her head" or "in her family"; the treatment is inhumane no matter what is going on.
These people have all been brutalised, and continue to be so. I hope this truly is a step towards a positive conclusion, because
this family has a lot of healing to do. It's going to take some real strength to feel okay after something like this.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.