PDA

View Full Version : Maine gov orders state to back mom in legal battle over baby's DNR order



Gunny
09-06-2014, 05:45 AM
Maine Gov. Paul LePage reversed state bureaucrats and vowed to defy a state Supreme Court court ruling if necessary to back a teen mom seeking to lift a "Do Not Resuscitate" order from her one-year-old baby, who was allegedly shaken into a coma but miraculously recovered.

The family of 1-year-old Aleah Peaslee, who was left in a coma and with possible brain damage last December after allegedly being abused by her 21-year-old father, signed a DNR order after being told her brain damage was severe. But when the tot unexpectedly regained consciousness not long after being placed in the arms of her mother, Virginia Trask, the family sought to rescind the order. State child welfare officials, who had taken temporary custody of the baby due to alleged abuse, refused, convincing an Augusta District Court judge that “neither parent can be counted on to be physically or emotionally available to make the necessary informed decision when needed.”

.....

“This case is disturbing and is not reflective of my administration’s position that a parent who is the legal guardian of their child should have final say in medical decisions about life-sustaining treatment,” said LePage. “The existing law violates the sanctity of parental rights, and I cannot support it. Unless a parent is deemed unfit and parental rights are severed, the state should not override a parent’s right to make medical decisions for their own child.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/05/maine-mother-fighting-for-abused-daughter-right-to-live-attorneys-say/

This ought to be interesting. I'm not seeing why the state has an issue with rescinding the DNR order. They want to kill a baby on principle? Each person that went to court to fight against rescinding this order needs to sign a DNR on themselves,to include the judge, and put their money where their mouths are.

Gunny
09-06-2014, 05:59 AM
Attorney David Crocker, who is serving as local counsel on behalf of the groups that filed the amicus brief, said the case centers around the question of who gets to make the ultimate decision regarding a child whose parent never lost their parental rights.


“Who gets to make these decisions?” Crocker told FoxNews.com. “The precise legal issue here is: Does the state get to make that kind of life-or-death decision when parental rights have not been formally terminated? That’s the $64,000 question.”


Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew left no doubt that LePage’s wishes will be followed in the case.

“If the higher court upholds the previous decision that a parent’s rights can be overridden by the Department, this administration will not exercise that misplaced authority,” Mayhew said. “The Department of Health and Human Service remains firmly committed to due process in any case where the rights of a parent are in question.”



Wow. Somebody grew some balls and is standing up against the bureaucracy to do what's right? Frankly, I'm amazed. I don't have that much faith in the people in this country anymore.

revelarts
09-06-2014, 08:02 AM
this is one of those
"hard cases" that make bad precedents.

Parental rights should trump state wishes.
however the state has a real responsibility to protect the lives of the citizens from direct harm or negligence. (even if police in New York don't think so (http://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-protect-subway-hero-who-subdued-killer/)).

I guess 1 debatable issue here is "what's considered resuscitation"
If the baby stops breathing do you give him air? or is it if the child's heart stops do you do heart surgery? or what?

another is, do we have 2 kinds of health care?
one for people with no (suspected?) brain damage and
one for people with (suspected?) brain damage?
With national health care moving to standardize these kinda questions there's a lot to consider.

Gunny
09-06-2014, 08:11 AM
this is one of those
"hard cases" that make bad precedents.

Parental rights should trump state wishes.
however the state has a real responsibility to protect the lives of the citizens from direct harm or negligence. (even if police in New York don't think so (http://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-protect-subway-hero-who-subdued-killer/)).

I guess 1 debatable issue here is "what's considered resuscitation"
If the baby stops breathing do you give him air? or is it if the child's heart stops do you do heart surgery? or what?

another is, do we have 2 kinds of health care?
one for people with no (suspected?) brain damage and
one for people with (suspected?) brain damage?
With national health care moving to standardize these kinda questions there's a lot to consider.

Read the entire article. The baby regained consciousness after the parents were told it wouldn't happen. They signed a DNR based on THAT diagnosis.

Everything is conditional and things change. The baby regaining consciousness completely changed this issue.

What the state is basically saying here is if I sign a DNR, I can't change my mind later due to mitigating circumstances. There's NO controversy here. It's perfectly clear. The state has taken a stance and refuses to back down even when what they are doing is wrong. Happens in courtrooms every day. Posturing for position rather than doing the right thing.

revelarts
09-06-2014, 08:36 AM
I just read it all,
and ya know,
the article is poorly written, but if i'm clear on the issue now.

the yeah the the state is stepping in where it has no biz. IMO. The mother didn't not give up her rights as parent when she made 1 decision based on the info at hand at one point.
And the state hasn't proven she doesn't have the best interest of the child in mind.
(though state child services groups tend to operate above the law).
So all the state Players should back away and the the mom and her family deal with the health of the child IMO.