Medical kidnap? Discuss

Disturbing in manner of Justina Pelletier and the Diegle sisters...but...I don't know what I don't know and I've discovered that the other side of the story often turns up new details. In this case, however, Mayo's reluctance to discuss the issue makes me wonder if overstep is a new trend in medical care.

'Kidnapped' by the Mayo Clinic; Death by Colonoscopy; Health Officials' Secret Finances | Medpage Today

Would Mayo be legally allowed to discuss the issue, though?

Disturbing in manner of Justina Pelletier and the Diegle sisters...but...I don't know what I don't know and I've discovered that the other side of the story often turns up new details. In this case, however, Mayo's reluctance to discuss the issue makes me wonder if overstep is a new trend in medical care.

I had read the entire CNN article about the Mayo clinic situation (there is a link to that article in the article above). My thoughts:

As has been said many times, there are 3 sides to every story. In this case, they would be the clinic's side (probably best for them not to comment in depth on this situation--and, no, I don't view that as some kind of admission of guilt), the family's story, and the truth. The truth is usually somewhere in between the 2 other stories. The facility may very well have been overstepping, but my guess is there are some aspects that the family is failing to tell us or that they may be misintepreting. I'm not accusing the family of lying...just saying that we are not getting a full picture of what happened.

There are ALWAYS two sides to the story. But if I'm in a confidential meeting and I find a family member listening through the door- you bet I'm calling security!

ETA: Three sides as above!

Edited Aug 14, 2018 by meanmaryjean

As we always find out later, there is always way more to the story. I only trust about 30% of what the public says about healthcare.

I feel that some of the stuff the family did was over stepping their boundaries. However, it makes no sense not to transfer the patient at the family's request.

The family sounds miserable to deal with.

Whenever I read a story in the media about a case I have first hand knowledge, it's usually impressive how incorrectly the story is portrayed, and usually with these stories you can come up with a number of scenarios and circumstances that would reasonably explain the actions of a hospital, but I have yet to up with what that would be in the story.

I'm at a loss as to what information we're not getting that would reasonably explain what happened, it does appear that they were illegally refusing a patient's request to transfer, and that they were illegally holding a competent patient who was declining the treatment they were offering, which is potentially a felony offense.

Would Mayo be legally allowed to discuss the issue, though?

The patient signed an Authorization for Media Release, so there's not really anything stopping them from explaining their side, unless they know they don't have a legit argument.

Well, in the Mayo case, the family sound as if they were absolutely difficult to tolerate. However, if they were treating the patient as if she were legally able to make her own healthcare decisions then there was no reason why they should not have let her leave AMA or transfer to another facility. If you're in your right mind, of legal age, and not threatening to harm yourself they can't hold you hostage if you want to leave. Hospitals aren't prisons. To me it sounds like a pissing match (pardon my French) that got out of hand.

Moved to Nursing News

This case isn't really comparable to the Pelletier case. She was a child and the state took custody of her in response to a filing of neglect. I found the coverage of that case extremely frustrating because the media kept saying that the hospital kidnapped her when, in reality, the state of Massachusetts was her legal guardian and she couldn't be discharged because there was nowhere to discharge her to. Hospitalized kids who are taken into state custody remain hospitalized while the state looks for a suitable foster placement all the time and what foster parents in their right mind would have subjected themselves to that case?

I suspect that there are some inaccuracies in the reporting of the Gilderhaus case, as well. For example, if the hospital felt that abuse or neglect of a disabled individual was a concern they would file a report with the state but it doesn't make sense that the reports suggest that the hospital requested to be given guardianship of her. I am not aware of any scenarios in which a hospital would be given guardianship. The Department of Developmental Disabilities handles these kinds of scenarios in my state and serves as the legal guardians for adults who are so significantly disabled that they need a guardian and do not have family members to be their guardians. It looks like the Minnesota Department of Human Services handles adult protection cases so it's likely that, if this patient needed a guardian, it would be the state and not the hospital who would be appointed her guardian. Anyway, I read the article on CNN yesterday and the police who investigated the case had valid points- the hospital was accepting her consents for treatment then saying that she was incompetent to make her own decisions. It can't be both ways- she's can't be competent to consent to treatment but incompetent to decide to discharge AMA. If the mother really did listen at the office door of a social worker that is completely inappropriate and anywhere I've ever worked would have removed her from the premises too.