State at war with family!

Mother Loses Custody of Teen For Refusing to Give Her Antipsychotics.

"A Detroit mother lost custody of her daughter after refusing to give her antipsychotic medications, which officials say the teen may not need in the first place. Her mother, Maryanne Godboldo, was accused of medical neglect when her 13-year-old daughter, Ariana, began to have erratic symptoms following a series of vaccinations, and was given an antipsychotic drug by a center for at-risk youth. Godboldo felt that the drug, however, made her daughter worse, and began looking for holistic treatments instead. Child Protective Services then tried to remove Ariana from her home, resulting in a "stand-off" with a police SWAT team during which Godboldo reportedly fired a gun."


"Ariana remains in protective care, despite the fact that the judge says she would like to have her discharged to a family member."

http://www.care2.com/causes/health-p...ntipsychotics/

This high lights the problem of the right of the family to protect its members versus the risk of children in risk families versus and the right (or might? duty?) of the state to interfere.

A SWAT team to take away a child???

Over medication??

We all want children to be protected, and we all want to protect our children.

If the state come in and take them without cause, there is virtually nothing you can do to protect them! The social servervices do not give back what they take, and at the same time, the whole system cannot not garantee their saftey, as is so often shown. What do you do?

There are times when children have to be taken away, surely, but how to determine that?

How much power should the state have over parents? What is the balance? Do the social services have too much power?

I'd like to know a lot more about this; the article raises more questions than it answers. But one thing that's probably relevant is the tendency of some doctors to reach for the pills because it's simpler than asking difficult questions about why someone may be behaving oddly. And, of course, the tendency of almost all doctors to defend their decisions to the (patient's) death.

It's always a tough call when a parent refuses medical treatment for a child. We've had a brand new measles epidemic because of parents refusing to have their children vaccinated, and we've had the children of Jehovah's Witnesses taken into care so their lives could be saved by blood transfusions. Somewhere between those extremes the law has to decide how much control a parent is allowed over a child's health, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to rule on it.

I'd like to see how this works out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

It's always a tough call when a parent refuses medical treatment for a child. We've had a brand new measles epidemic because of parents refusing to have their children vaccinated, and we've had the children of Jehovah's Witnesses taken into care so their lives could be saved by blood transfusions. Somewhere between those extremes the law has to decide how much control a parent is allowed over a child's health, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to rule on it.
I'd like to see how this works out.

---

In a way it is easy enough. When children are neclected or abused, the state has a responsiblity to step in. Likewise to take care of orphans.

But the state cannot, and should not, interfere with parents who are doing what they think is best for their children.

I have seen programs about grown ups too, either old people, or invalids, who were medicated in ways that really harmed them, but if a doctor thinks they should be medcated, medicated they are, life quality or damage non-withstanding and the families could do=nothing! (UK.)

Are we living in a dictatorship? Or under Stalin? Or what happened to freedom here?

Tough call. Medication is not an EXACT Science, Science is not an EXACT Field , I have been on meds for years for varios Conditions, most are Maintnence Drugs. meaning simpy I HAVE to b on thenm to remain alive, I would rather "TRY someting see if it works and if not move to someting else, then not take ANYTHING and risk my Health and well bring and everytime I am given a new med my Docotor alwaystell me, "Medication is NOT an Exact Medication, we try it and if it does not work we try sometinig else til we find what wil work for you
The Key here is that Neither Medication nor Science is an EXACT eveyone responds differently to sll medicationsYes it is Trial and Error, but it beats no choices at all, Science wil never be an EXACT field so you dowhat you need to do to survivie been doing so for 25 years, it ceertainl;y beats the alternative
And in most States, the State will always do what it feels is in the best interest of the Mnior Child not necessarily what the Mother or Parent want, a childs welfare MUST ALWAYS COME FIRST

[QUOTE=
And in most States, the State will always do what it feels is in the best interest of the Mnior Child not necessarily what the Mother or Parent want, a childs welfare MUST ALWAYS COME FIRST[/QUOTE]

The problem is that the state will do what someone FEELS - not actually knows nor considers with understanding the complete consequences. Child Social Services are frequently overrun with people who utilize their own emotions to control others with the power of the state. Medications are tested to provide a positive reaction in 70% of the cases utilized. If your child happens to be in the 30% that is not responsive and the State says that the kid gonna take it anyway, tough to be the kid. I've tried meds that work for most people...and I CANNOT tolerate them. So I stop taking them. Thankfully, I'm not a minor who could be forced to take adverse meds. To compound the problem, the courts most times will side with the CSS and the kid and family suffers. In some cases the CSS actually ignores the order of the court without recriminations. But, after all, "its for the children".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrictMasterD

Tough call. Medication is not an EXACT Science, Science is not an EXACT Field , I have been on meds for years for varios Conditions, most are Maintnence Drugs. meaning simpy I HAVE to b on thenm to remain alive, I would rather "TRY someting see if it works and if not move to someting else, then not take ANYTHING and risk my Health and well bring and everytime I am given a new med my Docotor alwaystell me, "Medication is NOT an Exact Medication, we try it and if it does not work we try sometinig else til we find what wil work for you

---

You have a point with medicine not being an exact science. For that reason people should be allowed to have an opinion, don't you think? To me your key words here are "I would rather ", indication that you do have a choice.

Quote:

---

And in most States, the State will always do what it feels is in the best interest of the Mnior Child not necessarily what the Mother or Parent want, a childs welfare MUST ALWAYS COME FIRST

---

The problem here is that everybody agrees that it was not a good idea, and also not a good idea that the child should be taken away from her home. In other words, what happened was not in the childs interest or to her welfare. But these things take on a life on their own!

Why should the state decide these things? The mother is the one who is home with the child and knows what the reactions of the meds are. Same problem with old parents or sick relatives - their reports of bad reactions to medicine counts for nothing. Why? What right has the state to take over control here? And, perhaps more importantly, who says they are always right??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrictMasterD

And in most States, the State will always do what it feels is in the best interest of the Mnior Child not necessarily what the Mother or Parent want, a childs welfare MUST ALWAYS COME FIRST

---

Which is why my son spent six years being abused in foster homes, because some policeman reckoned it was in his "best interests" to take him away from a sexually perverted father. (Because, you know, gays and BDSMers and such are all child molesters really.) Giving authority figures absolute power "for the children" doesn't work any better than when parents had absolute power "for the children."