Our presumed president has changed his position on marriage. Today, he released a statement declaring his support for same-sex “marriage.” To say that I’m disappointed is an understatement.
But surprised? Nah.
Please take a moment to read more thoughts about this unfortunate turn of events. You can read it by clicking this link: http://familycouncil.org/?p=5108
Thanks.
More from Michael Farris:
I am not content to sit on the sidelines while the government gradually usurps the very essence of parental rights.
I hope you share my determination.
We need to stand with people like Scott and Jodi Ferris (obviously no relation to someone named Farris).
Here’s their story: Jodi went into labor a bit earlier than she had expected—and the baby was coming rapidly. Given their location and other factors, the midwife they had hoped would deliver the baby at their home encouraged them to get in an ambulance and head to the hospital.
Their baby, whom I will call “Annie,” was born in the ambulance in the parking lot of the Hershey Medical Center—a government hospital in Pennsylvania. Hospital personnel arrived very quickly and took charge of both baby and mom.
As any mother would do, Jodi immediately began to ask the nurses and attendants how her baby was doing. The hospital staff was utterly unresponsive. When they started to give Jodi an injection, she asked what it was and what it was for. They gave her vague answers like, “It’s just to help.”
Only after giving her the injection of oxytocin did they tell her what it was and then asked, “You aren’t allergic to that are you?”
Jodi persisted in asking about Annie. No one would tell her anything other than “she’s in good hands and you’ll be able to see her soon.” Eventually a doctor told her that Annie scored a 9 on a physical exam applied to newborns known as the APGAR test. A score of 8 or higher is considered healthy. (It is unclear when the score was given since she was in the ambulance at birth.) But shortly after this a different doctor told Jodi that Annie was “very sick” and would need to stay in the hospital. This doctor’s comments were accompanied by an explanation of his disdain for midwives saying, “Too many people think they know what they’re doing.”
About an hour later, another hospital staffer finally brought Annie to Jodi and said, “The baby is doing good. She will be able to go home in no time.”
Legal Requirements?
However, several hours later yet another staffer told Scott and Jodi that Annie would have to stay in the hospital for 48 to 72 hours for observation. Even though they persisted in asking why Annie would need to stay, his only answer was that “the law requires us to keep the baby for 48 hours.”
When they asked for a reference to this supposed law, he answered, “you’ll have to get that from risk management.” (By the way, there is no such law in Pennsylvania.)
The risk management staffer eventually told them that even though they saw nothing wrong with the baby, they just like “to keep babies like this” for 48–72 hours. The Ferrises were told that Annie would not be released for this period since it was “unsafe for her to leave the hospital.”
Eventually, a risk management staffer admitted that the risk that was being managed was not the health of Annie but the risk that the hospital might get sued if something went wrong after she was discharged. Ultimately, risk management said that they would be satisfied with a 24-hour stay and that Jodi and Scott could remain with the baby overnight.
You have been Accused
Late in the afternoon, a government social worker named Angelica Lopez-Heagy came into Jodi’s room announcing that she was there to conduct an investigation. Jodi asked to know the allegations. The social worker claimed that it would be against the law for her to show Jodi the allegations. Jodi replied that she would not be comfortable answering the questions if she couldn’t know the allegations.
Immediately the social worker proclaimed, “Since you’re not going to cooperate, I’ll just go and call the police and we can take custody of the baby.” Fearing that the social worker would carry out her threat, Jodi replied that she was willing to cooperate.
The social worker soon intimated that the issue was Jodi’s refusal to consent to medical treatment for the baby. Jodi replied that she had no idea why anyone would say that. The social worker claimed that she had refused to allow a Vitamin K shot for Annie. Jodi replied that no one had asked her about such a shot. Moreover, she had overheard hospital staffers saying that they had already given Annie such a shot.
Neither the social worker nor any hospital staffer ever gave Jodi or Scott any example of any medically necessary treatment that they had refused for Annie.
At this point, Scott left the hospital to tend to their older children who were staying with friends.
Ordering Tests
Shortly after this, the hospital asked to check Annie’s white blood cell count and to perform a strep test. Jodi agreed to the testing. Then the hospital demanded that they give a Annie shot for Hepatitis B. Jodi said that she would agree only if they tested her or Annie to see if either of them were positive. If so, then she was quite willing to have the shot for Annie.
The hospital claimed that they had forgotten about this earlier when it was still possible to test that day, and that they needed to give the shot anyway without any testing. When the social worker pressed her to make an immediate decision about this shot, Jodi asked her if they could simply wait until Scott got back before they decided.
Put yourself in Jodi’s shoes at this moment. You gave birth that morning in an ambulance. The hospital has made wild and conflicting claims about your baby’s health all day long. You are exhausted. You are in pain. Your husband has gone to check on your children. And a social worker who has threatened to take your baby into police custody is standing in your hospital room demanding that you make an immediate decision.
Jodi simply said, “Please can’t this wait until my husband gets back.”
The social worker renewed her threat. If Jodi would not answer her question right then, she would call the police. And then the social worker started adding conditions. She and Scott would have to agree to sign a safety plan before she could conclude her investigation. Jodi said that she wanted her husband and an attorney to look at the plan. She felt she was in no position to read such a document and really understand what she was being pressured to sign.
Thrown Out
And then the story turns ugly.
The social worker left the room and called the police.
Without a court order they took custody of Annie, immediately claiming that she was suffering from illness or injury—a patently false claim.
The social worker consented to the administration of the Hepatitis B shot even though no blood test had been done.
The police made Jodi Ferris get up out of her hospital bed and escorted her to the entrance—they were expelling her from the hospital because she had not signed the “safety plan.”
Scott met her at the entrance to the hospital. The police escorted them both off of the grounds of the hospital.
Jodi was told that she would be allowed to return every three hours to nurse the baby through the night.
Jodi and Scott were forced to spend the night that she had given birth in their car in the parking lot of a nearby Wal-Mart.
You read that right.
They kicked this mother out of the hospital, and in order to be close enough to feed her child, she had to sleep in the car.
To add insult to injury, Jodi was given access to Annie only sporadically and not every three hours.
by Michael P. Farris
Ken and Erin Stieler are the mom and dad of Jacob—who has been cancer-free since his PET scan in early July. He has had two clean PET scans since then—the most recent in January.
Despite all of this, the Michigan Department of Human Services continues to attempt to prosecute this family for medical neglect. If they succeed they will force Jacob to resume chemotherapy despite the fact that the drugs in question are not FDA approved (either for children in general or for this particular cancer). Moreover, these drugs do not promise anything close to a guaranteed cure. And, the FDA requires the drug manufacturers to disclose that these drugs cause new cancers to form, heart disease in children, failure to sexually mature, and many other serious side effects in some cases.
The Marquette County Probate Court has twice ruled against the Department. Yet, the department keeps on fighting against these parents.
Just this afternoon, the Department’s appeal was filed in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The irony is that the Department has alleged that this case should be expedited because the situation is urgent. If it was urgent, why did the Department wait 55 days from the initial hotline call until filing its complaint? Why did the Department and a consulting doctor call two local judges trying to influence them to prosecute the Stielers—despite the fact that such out-of-court calls are clearly unethical? These calls required the case to be re-assigned twice—wasting another two months.
If it was urgent, why did the Department ask for a continuance of the December trial date by almost a month? If it was urgent, when the Department lost why did it seek a motion for rehearing, a step that is rarely granted and which took another two months to resolve? And when they filed this motion for rehearing, why did they wait until the very last day—21 days—before filing the motion? And when it came time to appeal, why did they wait until the 20th day—beating the deadline by a single day?
The Department’s actions prove that they don’t really believe in the medical urgency theory—they only believe in hassling parents that have the courage to tell them “no.”
Please commit to pray for this family and this case. And pray that Jacob will remain cancer free.
Read today’s reblog, folks. Just one page over, “Leaving Twilight Zone“. You will find an amazing fact of nurses beaten and otherwise injured-on-purpose while on the job. READ IT.
Amazingly helpful site, inspired by one woman’s painful experiences. My nod to Mental Health Month.
It was time to get back to work following a closed head injury. I thought everything was going well and my simple concussion was resolved. Oh, if I only knew what was yet to come. So by Monday November 4, 1991 and 5 days later I was ready to return to work. After all a few days have passed since I was hit in the head and certainly there should not be any reason to keep me from working.
View original post 1,082 more words
The illness my husband and I have shared has hit him much lighter than me. He is nearly well. I have coughed until it hurts my sides and I get a headache.
I guess it is just as well he is progressing so quickly, as he is making a trip to visit his dad today. He has wanted to do this for some time and has waited until just the right moment. The time is now. I will not be going along, due to the probability that I am still contagious. And still tired.
Although I managed to do laundry yesterday, I had to rest between each task. More strength does not always equal more energy. At least I’m not dizzy anymore. I am so glad of that!
I have thought lots about how I feel I’m under attack from the enemy and how my being sick just gives him such pleasure. I have wished for a miraculous healing. That would be just superb, in my opinion, to shake this disease in a moment. I would love that. But it’s not manifesting, here.
So all I know to do is be patient, let my body and the meds do their work. Then I think: The enemy also hates patience, so if I practice patience then I am defeating him, again. The body is miraculous in its ability to fight off disease, absolutely without parallel in this world of many wonders.
So I will keep plugging along, keep trying for patience, keep boosting my God-given immunities with antibiotics, antihistamines, and antitussives; hot teas and lemonades; cough drops and cough drops and cough drops. The day will come. It will.
This is long, but it is astonishing reading, in that it is a true story. In fact, I’ve included a link at the end where you can read more of it, because I think you will want to. It is written by Michael Farris, a lawyer for the people, of whom children are a part.
Who should make very difficult decisions for children? Parents or doctors?
In March of this year, 8-year-old Jacob Stieler was diagnosed with Ewing Sarcoma, a dangerous bone cancer. His parents took him to a highly-rated children’s oncology center in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Jacob had surgery to remove the tumor, which was followed by several rounds of chemotherapy. The treatment was incredibly difficult, and Jacob’s mom, Erin, told me that when she looked her son in the eyes, she knew in her heart that he simply could not survive many more rounds of these drugs.
Erin and Ken, Jacob’s mom and dad, joined by hundreds of others, prayed for Jacob and his complete recovery.
After all of these rounds of chemotherapy were completed, there was a PET scan done to check on the status of the cancer. There was no evidence of cancer detected in Jacob’s body. Jacob’s family and friends rejoiced in his healing—prasing God for this wonderful outcome.
But the doctors wanted to give Jacob several more rounds of chemotherapy and radiation, despite the clean PET Scan. When asked why they wanted to keep giving Jacob these incredibly dangerous drugs, the doctors replied that this was “the standard of care” for his illness.
Jacob’s parents begged the doctors to make an individual diagnosis, rather than simply following unbending standards. But the doctors were steadfast. All children with this cancer needed multiple rounds of these drugs—regardless of PET scan results, the doctors contended.
Jacob’s parents did extensive study of the side effects of the five different chemotherapy drugs that the doctor wanted to administer. And they believed that the risk of the drugs was far greater than the risk of recurrent cancer, since Jacob had a clean PET scan. They said no to the doctors. No more chemotherapy treatment for now.
But the doctors would not take no for an answer. They called child protective services in Jacob’s county and asked the agency to file charges against the family for medical neglect.
After looking into the matter, both the local CPS agency and the local prosecuting attorney refused to file charges. They believed that the parents were making reasonable decisions for Jacob.
The doctors still would not take no for an answer. They called higher authorities in the state level CPS agency. The doctors had to make several calls before they finally found someone who would agree with them.
As a result of all of these calls, the local CPS agency was pressured into filing medical neglect charges against the parents.
The local prosecutor still refused to take a case against the family, so the state level CPS officials hired an independent private lawyer to serve as the prosecutor against Ken and Erin Stieler.
A jury trial is scheduled for early January to determine if the doctors will be given the authority to take over the medical decision-making for Jacob.
When I heard about this case—and checked out the facts—I knew that I could not sit on the sidelines and watch this family be overrun and parental rights be trashed by well-meaning but overzealous doctors.
I recently flew to Michigan and took the depositions of all three doctors who were scheduled to testify against the family.
Jacob’s treating physician is the key.
I prepared for the depositions by obtaining copies of the official “package inserts” that the FDA requires all drug companies to give to physicians and patients. Undoubtedly, you have seen these inserts when you have picked up prescriptions for your children.
The inserts tell you several things:
“Have all of these drugs been approved by the FDA as safe and effective for children?” I asked Jacob’s treating oncologist.
“Yes,” she replied, “they have been FDA-approved for children.”
According to the official package inserts that we were able to obtain, she is just flat wrong.
She wanted to continue to give Ifosfamide to Jacob.
The FDA disclosure for this drug says: “Pediatric Use: Safety and effectiveness in pediatric patients have not been established.”
The oncologist wanted to give Jacob a week’s worth of Etoposide.
The FDA disclosure says: “Pediatric Use: Safety and effectiveness in pediatric patients have not been established.”
The warning on the drug Doxorubicin says: “Pediatric patients are at increased risk for developing delayed cardiotoxicity.” This means that the drug can cause severe harm to a child’s heart—at even higher rates than it can in adults.
In fact, as it turned out, the treating doctor had never even seen, much less read, these official FDA-required package inserts. She did state that she had seen similar information from other sources.
Most of the drugs did not list Jacob’s form of cancer as an “indicated use.” This means that these drugs had not been tested and validated as safe and effective for this particular kind of cancer—even for adults, much less for children.
And then we get to the official warnings and side effects.
In addition to the strong warnings about “congestive heart failure” from Doxorubicin, other drugs the doctor wanted to give were known to have caused cancer—new forms of cancer—in patients being treated for an original cancer. Vincristine’s label is typical of these warnings: “Patients who received chemotherapy with vinchristine sulfate in combination with anticancer drugs known to be carcinogenic have developed second malignancies.” The warning labels say that sometimes these second cancers develop years after the treatment.
All five of the drugs that the doctors want to give Jacob are either know to cause other cancers or have not been fully tested.
Some of the other side effects for these drugs include:
It would take pages to recite all of the warnings and side effects.
Parental rights are increasingly being lost in the medical arena. I am beginning to wonder why physicians even bother asking for parental consent if they will just do an end run around the parents whenever it is convenient for them to do so.
To read more, go here.
Home's Cool! 