Giving kids botox vs. refusing lifesaving medical treatment...

[Despareux]

I just read that the botox story was a hoax--the mother was paid a small amount of money to create a lot of issues in her and her daughter's life.

I'm just thinking out loud and wanted your thoughts.

What I'm trying to rationalize is the fact that a kid was taken away from her mother because the mother claimed to inject the child with botox, which COULD have serious implications. But then you have parents who refuse their children lifesaving medical treatment, and they will absolutely die without it--definitely harmful from a medical perspective; yet, their parental rights remain intact (I think).

I get that certain parenting ways are based on religions and cultures, but I'm just not getting the double standard.

[AgentBeast, BSN, RN]

Well in one case it's causing direct harm to the child.

In the other case it's an issue of parental rights.

In the eyes of the law it's not okay to beat your kid with a baseball bat.

It is however okay to send your 14 year old kid to school looking like this and probably beat up, or at the very least emotionally scarred.

[Despareux]

Well in one case it's causing direct harm to the child.

In the other case it's an issue of parental rights.

In the eyes of the law it's not okay to beat your kid with a baseball bat.

It is however okay to send your 14 year old kid to school looking like this and probably beat up, or at the very least emotionally scarred.

True.

[JenniferSews]

Because for some reason religious freedom is more important than a child's health.

[JDZ344]

Wrong thread, sorry :)

[psu_213, BSN, RN]

Because for some reason religious freedom is more important than a child's health.

The Constitution does not guarantee a child's right to good health....

[babyNP., APRN]

Huh? The courts frequently override parents who deny life-saving treatments to their children...in some cases will take away custody.

[simboka]

What gets me is the returning of parental rights when they were removed for completely legitiment reasons. Case in point, very dear family friends were fostering a child whose mother was jailed for drug offenses. Child was less than 1y/o when mom went to jail. Fast forward a couple of years, mom gets out, and I believe within 6 months has child back. Our friends were pretty much the only family that child knew up until then.

Double standard? hopelessly optimistic in reform? too many cases and not enough workers/fosters? who knows? As with everything, probably a combination of everything.

[BabyLady, BSN, RN]

I have seen three cases of where parents refused care since I have been in the NICU, in all three cases they were very, very treatable cases and treatment would result in a normal life for the infant.

One had to do with a platelet transfusion, the other was refusal of antibiotics for a mother with untreated Group B strep, the last was the refusal of surgery to correct a minor birth defect...the parents could not "see" how repairable it was and was willing to let the kid suffer and die.

In all three cases, an ethics consult was done followed by an emergency court order to allow treatment.

So far, I haven't seen decisions that I disagreed with in regards to life/death.

However, I have seen a couple of infants discharged that in my opinion, should not have been.

[tablefor9, RN]

In another post for another day, I might mention concerns about what we are turning into when we think the collective should make decisions for individual families. But, that's another post.

Today, I'll just say that I am a parent, as well as a labor nurse. Since I don't do drugs, don't abuse my children, and can meet their needs, I get to make the decisions that are best for my family. Other medical professionals, assuming they don't do drugs, don't abuse their children, and can meet their children's needs, can do the same, FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN. Everybody wins.

The rights of the individual are only limited by the rights of another individual, and we have case by case analysis of ethical issues arising from the conflict of a parent's religious beliefs and the health needs and rights of the child to treatment. This is not a double standard, this is protection from government intrusion into the lives of the many for the sake of the few.

[chicookie, BSN, RN]

"But then you have parents who refuse their children lifesaving medical treatment, and they will absolutely die without it--definitely harmful from a medical perspective; yet, their parental rights remain intact (I think)."

I can speak from experience that parents who refuse lifesaving medical treatment usually don't understand that is what they are doing. In regards to the religious aspect of it, for example the Witness community and their refusal of blood products, its not that they want their child to die. They want the best care possible just without the use of blood. I have actually helped parents take their child overseas to have the necessary medical care without the use of blood.

Plus you also have to take into consideration that if the staff agree that it is necessary they can always call a judge to have the parental rights removed so that the child can have whatever procedure and treatment that is needed.

[Double-Helix, BSN, RN]

What gets me is the returning of parental rights when they were removed for completely legitiment reasons. Case in point, very dear family friends were fostering a child whose mother was jailed for drug offenses. Child was less than 1y/o when mom went to jail. Fast forward a couple of years, mom gets out, and I believe within 6 months has child back. Our friends were pretty much the only family that child knew up until then.

Double standard? hopelessly optimistic in reform? too many cases and not enough workers/fosters? who knows? As with everything, probably a combination of everything.

I'm sure this must have been a difficult adjustment for your friends and the child. While I don't know the circumstances of the case, I can say that there are parents who make mistakes and end up in jail and can be great parents once they get some help and get out of jail. I do not believe that because of some bad decisions, drug use, something that requires a short term jail sentance, the parent should lose custody of their child forever. Obviously, it's a situational decision and I'm not trying to make light of criminal behavior. There are many reasons that someone might end up in jail. Not all of those reasons should mean they have to forfeit rights to their children.