Deputies Seize Baby From Parents
Do we have due process any longer? Do parents have the right to care for their children in the manner they see fit? Obviously not.
You can’t even justify it with the numbers.
Last year, out of 26,819 babies tested, 537 tested positive for one of the dozens of diseases, and 43 of those results were confirmed, according to the state’s Newborn Screening Program.
So this program possibly helped 43 out of 26,819 babies. That’s 0.16% of those screened. Seems to be an unnecessary waste of money for most people. Sure it’s nice to make sure there’s nothing wrong with your child, most parents would gladly do this test. For those that don’t, such a small percentage of it actually helping would make me think denying parents control over their children’s health care is unwarranted. Sure I could understand it if there was an actual high risk to the child, but the odds of anything being wrong that can be found with this test is just 1 in 624.
Even beyond this one situation, the issue is a minefield. How often have we condemned childrens’ protective services for NOT taking kids out of a dangerous situation? But if the state determines what is dangerous, that could lead to anything being declared “dangerous.” We have a system to keep this balance, however, and we need to be vigilant that the system of checks and balances remains open, free, fair and available.
Where’s Solomon when you need him? The larger issue here isn’t just about due process and religious freedom (Big enough on their own!), it’s where is the dividing line between parental rights and the power and interest of the state.
On one hand, if we give the parents unlimited rights, we would then allow any form of sexual abuse, physical abuse and murder. Before you say the blessing of G*d makes something ok, consider that there are many accepted religious practices that are considered by many to be abominations. You can start with Islam or religions requiring live sacrifices. Just because each of us believes that we are following G*d in the best possible way, doesn’t mean that everyone agrees with us. On the other hand, the state seems to be encroaching much too much already, with proposed laws about smoking in the presence of children, child safety seats, bicycle (and roller skate?)helmet laws and much more. I’m particularly concerned in cases where the parents do no have the right to discipline their child, yet still have responsibility for the child’s actions. I’ve no doubt that many here can give lots of examples of the state over reaching its bounds.
In this particular case, I think I can say that the state went too far. The actual danger to the child if the tests were not done is pretty minor. Where and how can we safely draw a line in other cases? What principles can we all agree on that should govern such cases? Obviously, the “if it only saves one...” argument is bull.
This is an issue where I am interested in hearing ideas as to how this could work for everyone’s best interest. I think individual cases can usually be evaluated pretty well, but there will always be cases where there will not always be comfortable answers.
...and to add a bit in my “and another thing” style, here’s another bit about the state expending resources on what seems to be a non problem. There’s an interesting hook in the problem though.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/halloween.offenders/index.htmlFor starters it doesn’t seem like the tests are very accurate. Only 8% of the positives were confirmed? That’s pathetic. And while there is not correlation I can draw from this concerning false positives to false negatives, it makes me wonder.
What the parent’s stance has to do with anything, Mr. C., is that their personal beliefs could be putting my children at risk. We see a similar thing with childhood immunizations; I don’t want your non-immunized little germ monster anywhere near mine. Granted that there may be problems with the immunizations themselves - the whole mercury based preservatives leading to Alzheimers (et al) thing - but that can be overcome with a change in formulas. The other part that has to do with anything is that there is already well established legal precedent that says allowing your kid to die from disease by refusing medication is negligent or abusive parenting. It’s a very short legal hop to extend that to required testing and vaccinations.
We live in an age where medicine works miracles. So few people get the horrible diseases today that we forget that they are here. In the air, the soil, everywhere. Polio, Yellow Fever, Cholera, Beubonic Plague, Diptheria, Tuberculosis, and so forth. Its just that most of us are immunized, so we don’t get sick from them.
I don’t know what diseases this test looks for. It may not matter. Sorry to go all Mr. Spock, but there are times when the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. This is one of them.
But - and its a bigger but then even Kim Kardashian’s - this whole debate is a side issue to this particular story. What’s at stake here is the issue of due process. Nebraska has a law that says all newborns will be tested. There may be some very early point in the baby’s life that this testing must be done by to be effective (or to allow effective treatment). I don’t know. But it shouldn’t have taken 7 weeks to get the issue in front of a judge, since it’s “for the children”. The only possible scenario I can see for the state being right in snagging this kid and forcing the test would be if such a deadline was fast approaching, the consequences could be fatal, and the whole situation was tied up in legal red tape. Otherwise Nebraska is playing Jack Booted Thug.
Well perceived risk is the crux. “Totally safe” doesn’t exist in anything but seems to be the “standard” many people demand. Figuring out where to draw the line is the hard part, whether its finding an acceptable risk level or deciding if the state should have preemptive powers in cases like this. I do not know how to find the answer.
Many schools demand immunization as a precursor to enrollment. I support that but my wife doesn’t.
It can get worse, you know. There’s a woman in England by the name of Fran Lyon who was informed, when several months pregnant, that their equivalent to Child Protective Services would take her baby from her at birth, because someone who’d never even met her deemed her emotionally unstable.
I fear that sort of thing will be coming to America all too soon.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto
10/31/2007 at 06:11 PM
Ok - while I myself do have a problem with the parents religious aversion to drawing blood - this isn’t a life or death or even a ‘put the child at risk’ deal here. These are rare, genetic diseases that for some reason (as I sent in the note to Mr. Christian - is this a pre-cursor to genetic engineering and/or a way to deny people medical treatment) Nebraska wants to identify. By the way, Cystic Fibrosis is notoriously false positive if done before 6 weeks - it opens up such a broad area of Government control gone wild. If this was their first child - maybe I could, a little, understand the uber response of the system - but their 10th?!? BTW, Elliot - that is 0.0016% - hardly worth the money wasted, oops spent.
On immunizations - I find this another form of Governmental control that is used wrong and inappropriately. My education came about over having a child - re-immunized. If it ‘failed’ once, isn’t it going to fail again, I stupidly asked? So I began studying it - the best time to immunize is 4 to 6 years old - not from birth. So why do they routinely do it? Because it is the ‘only’ time parents bring their children in for care - the majority tend to not miss those Routine Baby checks. Is that proper to drag medical care down to the least effective and least common factor? And we see it now with the stupid Gardisal - immunize every single girl from 12 on - because less than 17% can’t keep their panties on? For a disease that may or may not be the cause of a cancer that this drug doesn’t even protect against - am I the only one who sees the utter stupidity of such a ‘need’?
When you combine Pharma corps wanting to make a buck anyway they can - don’t forget their ‘reps’ are part of the AMA team that ‘reviews’ the drug studies - which makes the results of the studies a bit suspect. Then add the FDA cutting the 10 year trial down to 5 at most - and finally ole Uncle Sam wanting to ‘require’ these immunization. It is Government gone wild.
Well - I can understand why more and more parents are opting out - of public schools, required immunizations and governmental control. And to add a real touch to the hypocrisy - one of the original reasons for limiting immigration was to prevent the wholesale influx of rampant disease - which 12 to 20 million illegals are loosing on our society - TB is now on the rise again. But that is being ‘racist’ of me. Sorry.
What I can’t understand is how this terrible legislation passed at all - and why no religion has taken it into court for not having some sort of religious objection clause. If people won’t stand up - we are going to just become another socialistic state which will then become a ripe target for the Islamic Caliphate - and I can’t do it all - I’m just one person.
"The blood test—usually performed within 48 hours of birth—screens for dozens of rare diseases, some of which can cause severe mental retardation or death if left undetected.”
Will the parents sign a waiver accepting full monetary responsibility for any treatments required if any of these conditions do arise? For the special schooling? The medical care? Treatments? Support that may last for the afflicted child’s lifetime?
Then there’s another issue: The case where a child’s right to a quality life might be compromised for lack of a simple blood test… I don’t see it as taking away parental rights, I see it as assuring the rights of the child.
We can check back when he/she is an adult to see if they object to being screened for possible retardation or death.
It’s not all about parents. Sometimes parents are just two idiots with functioning genitalia and a surprised look on their faces.
Posted by heldmyw
11/01/2007 at 12:54 PM
Got a couple good points there heldmyw. Sometimes “but its for the childreeen” is a valid issue. And some parents are just stupid.
Too bad there isn’t a parenting license exam. Course the ones who pass would be required to breed. Nice concept Drew but you’d have to be China to even get close to making it work. No thanks.
We lose sight of the negative rights: you have the right to be stupid, the right to be a less than perfect parent, the right to take risks that fail, etc. Life is a balance, so is freedom. It’s hard to find the balance just for yourself. It’s even harder when your decisions are made for people not capable of making their own, like babies.
Thanks Drew!
It’s a tough call, and doubtless there will be strong (passionate) arguments on both sides.
...And I like the idea of a Parent’s License! Basic knowledge of hygiene, care and feeding, costs of raising chill’uns, proper use of hoo-hoo dilly and cha-cha, and perhaps even a basic screening for congenital diseases.
Why pass on Lupus and such?
Don’t think of it as restrictive! Think what it would do for your chances in a bar when you whip out your license, and say, “Hey baby, I know what I’m doin’ and the State says I can… You wanna go practice?”
Pick-up City! Whooooo!
Posted by heldmyw
11/02/2007 at 08:56 AM
heldmyw - they (Nebraska) are talking about rare, genetic disease - so you buy into the line to force parents into something which is against their religion - to test for a a condition that is rare or a (already disproven in their previous 9 children) genetic disease? We are not talking about something any parent has control over - except by finding out they are a carrier and then not having children. . .And once again - by this ‘law’ you are forcing everyone - to toe a line.
I can’t decide if it is the lack of a religious exemption/objection or the fact that these are rare, genetic diseases (smacks waaaay too much of ‘quality of life’ and skirting that line of who can and can not ‘breed’ and/or be insured) that angers and bothers me most. I’ve just lived too long that I see these ‘claims’ of being for the children are tax increase scams, governmental bureaucacy increases, and invasion into the personal lives and responsibilty of American citizens.
And once they allow this kind of test to be ‘acceptable’ - what is next - everyone required - whether they like it or not - to be tested for AIDS? You can’t allow this slope to be started down - the bottom is disgusting and dangerous. And extremely anti-American.
Hi wardmama4!
Your points are well-taken, and I will be among the first to agree with a healthy distrust of “I’m from the government, I’m here to help”. The very words make my jaw clench.
Yet the article makes no mention of any action that may be required. That the parents and medical caregivers can “help prevent retardation or death” is probably far closer to the objective than preventing genetically ‘compromised’ individuals from breeding. I agree. That sort of third-reich genetic manipulation has no place in this country.
I would need to know a lot more about the statutes, the application and the force of law as is applied in this case. There are a lot of rights that deserve consideration, not the least of which is the child’s.
Your caution and skepticism is well-founded and I hope that my suggestion that prevention of retardation or death in even one infant is worth the effort does not offend. How parental rights and religious beliefs are adequately addressed is difficult (to say the least!)
Thanks for taking the time. It’s nice to rub elbows with thinking people!
Posted by heldmyw
11/02/2007 at 05:58 PM
Next entry: Jury Sides with Family against Westboro BC wackos..
Previous entry: Deporting sex offender 'breaches human rights'