Very Ill Teen Removed to Foster Care Against Parents' Wishes - Family Deconstruction By Diagnosis

This week, a disturbing story hit the news, as a judge in Massachusetts refused to return an ill teenage girl to her parents, instead ordering her to remain in state custody. The reason for removing the girl from her parents in the first place? The parents challenged a new doctor's conclusion that the illness literally crippling their daughter was a mental rather than physical disorder (another doctor had previously diagnosed a physical ailment).

Parents have a legal right to direct the upbringing of their children, but the state has a duty to intervene to protect children when necessary. These interests often conflict, as they did here, and when each is not appropriately assessed, children suffer.

You can read a news article on the story here, and an insightful perspective from CitizenLink below.

Also, for advice from Focus on the Family on choosing a child's health care provider, see this link.



February 25, 2014 Print from CitizenLink.com

Parental Rights at Stake in Case of Ailing Teen

by Kim Trobee

Justina Pelletier has been at Boston Children’s Hospital for more than a year now.  No, it’s not her illness that is keeping her there.  Justina has been removed from her parent’s custody because doctors say her mother and father are guilty of medical child abuse.
For several years Justina received treatment for mitochondrial disease after Dr. Mark Korson, a specialist at Tufts, diagnosed her illness.  But last February, her condition worsened and she was taken to Boston Children’s Hospital because the gastroenterologist she had been seeing had recently moved there.
What happened next is a parent’s nightmare.
Lou and Linda Pelletier never did consult with the gastroenterologist.  Instead, Children’s doctors examined Justina and formed their own plan of action, which included discontinuing the medication she was on and diagnosing her with somatoform disorder.  The treatment?  Psychiatric care.
Lou and Linda objected strenuously.  And when they did, Children’s Hospital contacted DCF, the state’s child welfare department and alleged abuse.
This week a judge ruled that Justina would be placed in the foster care system and will be transferred to a non-medical facility.  Linda fainted outside the courtroom and was taken to a hospital.
“I was nearby when Linda collapsed, and it was heartbreaking,” said Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA.  “No parent should suffer as the Pelletiers are suffering.  Knowing that their daughter will be cruelly and intentionally transferred to a facility that is unable to care for her medical needs is devastating.”
Mat Staver with Liberty Counsel is defending the family.
“The story of Justina Pelletier is like a horror movie,” he said. “The very purpose of the First Amendment’s protections is to protect citizens against this kind of governmental oppression.”
Child welfare representatives asked a judge to intervene, alleging Lou Pelletier violated a gag order about the case, but no such order was ever put in writing.
“The DCF’s motion for contempt is nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from gaining access to information concerning the State’s unconstitutional intrusion into the fundamental parental rights of the Pelletiers,” said Staver, “and to extend the secrecy of these proceedings.”
Rev. Patrick Mahoney announced that a national coalition to Free Justina would be holding a prayer vigil and public witness at noon on Saturday, March 1 at the facility where Justina is being held.
As for Justina’s physical condition – she is now confined to a wheelchair.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Learn more about the Pelletier’s and their case.

Family Restoration and Advance Directives in Protocal Medical Care

Advance Directives afford individuals an important opportunity to make their wishes regarding end of life decisions known to medical professionals, courts, and family members.  These documents, signed by the creating party, can confer decisions regarding pain management, hospitalization, and resuscitation decisions.

These decisions are important for individuals and families to understand.

Recent Regent Law Graduate, Colby Barron Hein, researched these concerns under Texas law for her article and presentation entitled "Death Panels in Texas?  An Examination of the Texas Advanced Directives Act." She writes about the case of one individual named S.M., and her family's fight for her life:

For several weeks, S.M. had been complaining of severe headaches to her parents.  S.M. was desperate for relief from the pain, so her parents took her to the emergency room to ensure there were no serious problems.  The doctors performed a brain scan and discovered she had severe sinusitis, which had leaked into the brain and caused an abscess.  To drain the abscess, the doctors performed a routine craniotomy.   S.M. was expected to fully recover in a matter of weeks.  However, the day after the surgery S.M. felt nauseous and complained of severe pain.  Nurses gave her morphine, but it failed to alleviate the pain.  S.M. begged for help and started vomiting.  Frantically tearing at the I.V. and the post-surgical wrappings on her head, the nurses strapped her arms with restraints and administered another dose of morphine.  Without warning, S.M.’s body seized up, her back arched, she gasped, and then collapsed onto the bed.  She flat-lined.

 The hospital staff revived S.M., but the swelling pressure in her head necessitated an emergency brain surgery.  After the second surgery, S.M.’s parents were told that their daughter had two strokes and was in a coma that the doctors believed would be permanent.  Within days of the second surgery, the hospital staff began discussing S.M.’s “options” with her parents.  Doctors and nurses began pressuring S.M.’s parents to withhold treatment, food, and water, which would starve S.M. to death.  When her parents refused to withdraw life-sustaining treatment (LST), the hospital repeatedly harassed them to terminate care and “did everything they could to end . . . [S.M.]’s life  . . . .”  The hospital eventually threatened to convene the ethics committee, which under Texas law can withdraw LST from a patient over the objections of the patient or the patient’s surrogate decision maker.  Fortunately for S.M., an experienced attorney intervened and transferred S.M. to another hospital willing to provide medical care.  S.M. will never be able to take care of herself again; but on the other hand, she is still alive.

S.M.’s parents requested medical treatments that would have permitted S.M. to leave the hospital and be cared for at home, but the doctor’s refused alleged that the doctors refused to provide the treatments because the doctors felt S.M. “wouldn’t have a high quality of life.”  The doctors and nurses believed it was futile to provide S.M. with additional medical treatment, for the appropriate course of action was to “pull the plug.”  When a physician views medical treatment as medically inappropriate and refuses to provide the additional care in spite of the express wishes of the patient or surrogate decision maker, this situation is called a futility dispute.  When a doctor refuses to provide “futile” treatment that conflicts with the standard of care, the doctor must determine the appropriate course of action: transferring the patient to another physician, continuing the futile treatment, or unilaterally removing the treatment from the patient.  Most jurisdictions accept transfer as an appropriate resolution to futility disputes, but, if no providers are willing to accept the patient, the physician can either unilaterally withdraw the treatment or be forced by a court to continue providing LST.   In every single state but Texas, the law prohibits healthcare providers from unilaterally overriding a patient or surrogate’s wishes to continue LST.  The Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA) permits doctors to refer futility disputes to a hospital’s ethics or medical committee, which can choose to deny or withhold wanted medical treatment—including LST—over the express wishes of the patient or surrogate.

When S.M.’s parents discovered the ethics committee had the statutory authority to withdraw LST from their daughter, they were shocked.  S.M.’s case was never officially referred to the ethics committee,  but her story is one in a series of cases raising serious ethical and constitutional issues regarding the broad powers given by the TADA to review committees.  Opponents of the law—ranging from the liberal ACLU to conservative right-to-life groups—claim it gives medical providers too much power and encroaches on patient autonomy.  Proponents—primarily those working in health care—argue the TADA is essential to protect physicians when medical standards indicate treatment is inappropriate and emotional relatives cannot objectively determine the best interest of the patient.  The American Medical Association recommended an approach based on due process as the best method for balancing patient and physician rights in futility disputes.  Texas sought to incorporate a process-based approach to futility determinations in the TADA, but the law does not accurately reflect a true due-process model.

Hein's article is an attempt to reconcile advocates and opponents of the TADA by analyzing the existing law and proposing amendments that would incorporate a true process-based method. She discusses the history of futility disputes, different definitions of futility, and clarifies which definition should be adopted. Her work also describes the genesis of the Texas Advance Directives Act and explains the procedures for futility disputes set forth under the TADA, and lays out the flaws of the TADA and submits proposals to alter and improve the current law. Read the entire article here.

An understanding of the law surrounding the use and application of advance directives is necessary for strong families and a nation's attempts toward family restoration.

Medicaid and Health Care Reform for Family Restoration

As people age, families make adjustments economically, socially, and in health care.  Health care and Medicaid eligibility becomes a consideration.  Aging family members need information and family support to freely make those important decisions.

Bryon Ackerman, Regent Law 2013 Graduate, studied Medicaid law as it relates specifically to Arizona residents in his recent research for a course in Elder Law.  His findings and analysis are helpful for any family as they consider the need for Medicaid assistance.  His presentation can be viewed here.  You can read a portion of his article entitled "What You Need to Know About Medicaid" here.

Many changes are coming to the Medicaid program through Congress's passage of the Affordable Care Act.  Also in Elder Law last semester Ryan Hofman, Regent Law 2013 Graduate, researched the effects of the new health care law on the elderly and their families.  He considers the philosophical underpinnings of the Act, concluding that utilitarian theory may underlie the legislation, noting "a disturbing trend in modern medical thinking that will have a significant impact on today's elderly population."  Hofman's presentation can be viewed here.  His article provides a solid introduction to the Affordable Care Act, describing the concept of utilitarianism and its relation to the medical field, and giving a Biblical perspective on utilitarianism.  The article then offers evidence that the Act will  potentially promote utilitarian practices that will negatively affect the elderly and their families, but also considers some potential methods for dealing with this possibility.  Hofman's article attempts to answer whether there will be inequality in health care rationing based on utilitarian precepts.  The introduction to his well written article can be viewed here.

Family strength provides a safe environment for elderly family members moving toward health care concerns and Medicaid consideration.  Family restoration allows for those aging family members to be protected while moving through the seasons of life.

Restorative Measures to Inadequate Government Provision for Senior Access to Prescription Drugs

Some families of seniors in particular require medication that is not affordable even with aid from the United States government through Medicare Part D. Pamela Cianci, a cardiology nurse reported that even with Medicare Part D insurance coverage “many people over 65 come close to bankruptcy over medication.” With an eye toward restorative measures, Megan R. (Herwald) Donley, Regent Juris Doctor 2012, recently researched this problem in her article entitled "Ripping the Band-Aid off of Medicare Part D: The Problem of Access to Prescription Drugs."

This article, written by Donley for a course in Elder Law with a focus on family restoration, examines whether it is the United States government’s proper role to provide senior citizens with all prescription medications to solve the problem of the lack of access to necessary medication. She begins by detailing the problem that many seniors face in obtaining their medications by examining Medicare Part D and its infamous donut hole, establishing that wealth is not the only hindrance to access, and reviewing the facts and figures relating to the rising cost of prescription drugs. Then she examines various theories presented for solving the access problem including the international or socialized medicine model, the rights based approach, the theory of consensus, the solution through economics and rationing, and finally an ethical model.

Understanding the lack of provision under federal law, and implementing the significance of common good and personal responsibility, Donley proposes creative solutions involving individual responsibility and corporate ethics. Her article concludes by advocating creative solutions over universal health care or increased government interference as the most effective solution to the problem that seniors face in accessing prescription drugs. You can read her entire article here.

If healthcare businesses adopt an ethical focus and seniors are empowered to champion their own medical choices, then there would be much less dissatisfaction with the health care system.

Religious Liberty, Family, & Authentic Promises

A Lawyer Priest, Fr. Sammie L. Maletta, Jr. is pastor of Saint John the Evangelist R.C. Parish, Saint John, Indiana. Passionate about his love for the Lord Jesus, Fr. Maletta has felt betrayal by current government administrators in their promises of protected faith and conscience concerns.

Religious liberty is eroded by government health care requirements on reproductive services that terminate life. Below is a sermon that Fr. Maletta preached on February 5, 2012 that tackles this very real problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltTd81XpDnc.

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews [Catholics], but I was not a Jew [Catholic] so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

More than two thousand years ago, Jesus proclaimed victory over the grave to give eternal life for all who believe in him. In John 5:24 he promises that "Whoever hears My Word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

It is finished.

Rx for Florida Medicaid in light of PPACA

As states struggle with the growing costs of Medicaid as well as the uncertainty surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA"), they are working to manage the costs of Medicaid while at the same time maintaining adequate healthcare for their citizens. PPACA will challenge families' financial health, and bring new economic burdens to states.

Florida Governor Rick Scott recently pledged, "In light of the threat of ObamaCare's rapid growth of Florida's Medicaid population, we must ensure Floridians have the doctors they need to receive quality care, while also protecting taxpayers from out-of-control Medicaid costs."[i][i]

Is there a way to ensure that Medicaid has enough funds without Floridians incurring additional taxes? Whitnae Hallbauer, Regent Law J.D. 2012, has written an article which considers whether the Florida intestate succession statutes, which allow for a decedent's children only to take part of the intestate estate with the surviving spouse should be altered to allow for the elderly parents of the decedent to take part of the intestate estate as well when the parents rely on Medicaid. She writes, "In order to help alleviate the problems that the Medicaid program in Florida will be facing in the future, especially since the elder generation population will continue to grow in the upcoming years, Florida may need to temporarily change the intestacy statutes as one option to relieve the burden of Medicaid." Read her article here.

New health care laws will challenge states and families economically, and may even carry with them new concerns for family deconstruction.

________________________________________

[i][i] Governor Scott Signs Legislation Reinforcing Florida’s Health Care Safety Net, THE OFFICE OF THE 45TH GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA RICK SCOTT (July 1, 2011), http://www.flgov.com/2011/07/01/governor-scott-signs-legislation-reinforcing-florida%E2%80%99s-health-care-safety-net/.

Contraceptive Mandate and Rights of Conscience Drive a Political Wedge that Harms Families

The Regent University Federalist Society hosted Professor Robin Fretwell Wilson of Washington and Lee University School of Law on Monday, March 19 for a special event to discuss "The Contraceptive Mandate and Rights of Conscience." Professor Wilson is the Class of 1958 Law Alumni Professor of Law, and has been focusing her recent scholarship on providing accommodations for religious organizations on social issues that seem publicly divisive, but about which reasonable people, particularly people of faith, may have valid objections.

As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act citizens and employers in the United States will be forced to pay to make contraceptives available free of charge to any consumers who wish to use them. Being made to participate in the reproductive health care of others is not something Americans expected in health care reform. In light of discussions on this matter over the past two weeks, this issue is most controversial for those of faith, but it is not unreasonable to think that some Americans may have objections to such provisions not necessarily based on faith, but simply based on liberty. See the rise of the Catholic Church on this issue at The Daily Caller, and USA Today's recent discussion of government sponsored accommodations for religious objectors.

Professor Wilson argued that being made to participate in the reproductive health of others appears to be a neutral rule with a disproportionate effect on religious institutions and organizations, and therefore argues for carving out accommodations that honor religious objectives yet still comply with the law. She also discussed the concerns over contraceptives and sterilization generally, as well as concerns over contragestives (often labeled as contraceptives) particularly, noting their abortive qualities. Responses were offered by Regent Law Professors David Wagner, Lynne Marie Kohm, and Thomas Folsom for a lively discussion. The Federalist Society sponsored a vibrant, sprite, timely and well received event on this important issue.

Forced payment of contraception not only harms religious employers, but it drives a political wedge into the fabric of American liberty. That liberty generally protects individuals and families to make their own reproductive health care choices, rather than being coerced to be a funding party to anyone else's sexual choices. Contraceptive mandates violate rights of conscience for individuals, families, religious employers, and many other Americans, and in no way foster family restoration.

New Congress Appears to Bring Federal Reversal of Health Care Death Counseilng

The current federal administration has altered its original view mandating end-of-life counseling with a change to Obamacare, as noted in this article by the New York Times.

This development is most interesting for several reasons:

1. Required death counseling has been a hot cultural and political button, dubbed as "death panels" by Gov. Sarah Palin in her commentary on this provision in the new health care law;
2. The new Congress has set their sights on a complete repeal of the health care act;
3. The new Congressional conservative majority has also stated that if a wholesale repeal is not politically possible they will work piece-meal to defund and deconstruct the act;
4. This change is being made not in accordance with law as it does not appear to follow the US Administrative Procedure Act.

For a view of the original rule (of more than 700 pages) that "incorporates new legislative requirements regarding face-to-face encounters with providers related to home health and hospice care" read here.

The new health care act became effective January 1, 2011, and refers to death counseling as "medical social services."

Health care that counsels toward ending life does not restore Americans or their families, but disregards the value of life, and the value that any life affords a family.

Pending Health Care Reform Will Not Help to Restore Families

This week President Obama asserted that he and Democratic leaders in the Senate were "on the precipice" of achieving the government takeover of health care. This act by our federal government would mandate taxpayer funding of abortions. This appropriate word choice is ominous. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "precipice" as (1) an overhanging or extremely steep mass of rock, such as a crag or the face of a cliff; or (2) the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation: on the precipice of defeat.

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll revealed that only 32% of Americans support this health care takeover. We may indeed be on the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation, particularly if our federal government requires taxpayers to pay for the elective termination of unborn life in abortion. This health care legislation does not help families who need health insurance. Pro-family pro-life citizens do not favor this legislation.

In an effort to prevent millions of unborn children from being thrown over this "cliff" tens of thousands of people joined together for "Stop the Abortion Mandate - Senate Crisis" webcast, learning the latest breaking news from Washington, D.C. from a panel of nationally respected pro-life and pro-family leaders, gathered at a conference table just around the corner from the White House. The entire event was recorded and the audio is now posted online for you at: http://www.StopTheAbortionMandate.com.

There you can hear from SEN. MIKE JOHANNS, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, ABBY JOHNSON, Former Planned Parenthood director, CHARMAINE YOEST, Americans United for Life, MARJORIE DANNENFELSER, Susan B. Anthony List, TONY PERKINS, Family Research Council, KRISTAN HAWKINS, Students for Life of America, DAVID BEREIT, 40 Days for Life, WENDY WRIGHT, Concerned Women for America and DOUGLAS JOHNSON, National Right to Life Committee.

If the health care bill passes it will not help to restore families. Rather, it will be the largest expansion of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. Families are destroyed by making abortion health care. And taxpayers do not want the American government to fund the destruction of human life.