4 ms·

No I'm not. Honestly I'm astonished that people are calling for a lawsuit. What happened? Some nurses gave her a disapproving look? Someone made an appointment

No I'm not. Honestly I'm astonished that people are calling for a lawsuit. What happened? Some nurses gave her a disapproving look? Someone made an appointment with cps that was later cancelled? So what? I'd be more sympathetic if CPS actually took the child away, but they didn't. The hospital clearly acted unprofessionally, but that is hardly grounds for a lawsuit.

biomcgary 10y ago
1. High levels of cortisol (stress hormone) are known to affect development. 2. Mother-child bonding is facilitated by the oxytocin rush at delivery and was probably disrupted by the aggressive response of the "care" providers. 3. A cascade of hormonal shifts at delivery probably make women much more susceptible to emotional stressors. 4. Care providers that cannot do math (e.g., understand a false positive rate or mg per kg of a drug) should be held liable so that the system can correct. 5. Class action lawsuits are often successful with much less clarity of harm.
slededit 10y ago
They were going to prevent her from breastfeeding.
khedoros 10y ago
Are you making an argument that distress and psychological harm aren't a form of "damage"? They added some fairly traumatic experiences to an already stressful time in these peoples' lives without sufficient cause. You're trying to say that the little things (glances, the temporary threat of CPS taking away the newborn, being told more than once not to breastfeed your child, being described as a "combative patient" just for doing what's best for the child) don't add up to a big thing. I don't think you understand the stresses involved in this situation. Maybe a lawsuit is going too far, especially if this incident isn't in some permanent CPS record. But if it is, the hospital has them set up for some serious problems down the road.
- DanBC 10y ago
  The mother and child possibly had to stay longer in hospital while extra checks were being done. In the US that has some financial implication.
Falkon1313 10y ago
From the sounds of it, the reason people are calling for a lawsuit is the typical War On Drugs approach: Without reasonable suspicion, they did a field test (known to be faulty). Without probable cause or any corroborating evidence, they falsely accused her of a crime. They then treated her as guilty until proven innocent (which violates our social standards of morality). And they topped it off by threatening violence in the form of kidnapping her newborn baby. That's quite a bit more than merely unprofessional. Something like a stray sarcastic comment or slightly distasteful joke might be unprofessional. This sort of behavior, on the other hand, quite possibly should be illegal and should have consequences. Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10883282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10883282
- hellogoodbyeeee 10y ago
  This has nothing to do with the war on drugs. She wasn't drug tested by a police officer going door-to-door in the hospital. The hospital administered a medical test to determine risks that the newborn would potentially face. You don't need probable cause to administer a medical test. Furthermore, i bet the mother could have refused the drug test with no consequences.
  - Falkon1313 10y ago
    Nonsense. Do you think if instead she had happened to test positive for strep throat, the results would have been the same? It is absolutely about the war on drugs mentality.

biomcgary 10y ago

1. High levels of cortisol (stress hormone) are known to affect development. 2. Mother-child bonding is facilitated by the oxytocin rush at delivery and was probably disrupted by the aggressive response of the "care" providers. 3. A cascade of hormonal shifts at delivery probably make women much more susceptible to emotional stressors. 4. Care providers that cannot do math (e.g., understand a false positive rate or mg per kg of a drug) should be held liable so that the system can correct. 5. Class action lawsuits are often successful with much less clarity of harm.

slededit 10y ago

They were going to prevent her from breastfeeding.

khedoros 10y ago

Are you making an argument that distress and psychological harm aren't a form of "damage"? They added some fairly traumatic experiences to an already stressful time in these peoples' lives without sufficient cause. You're trying to say that the little things (glances, the temporary threat of CPS taking away the newborn, being told more than once not to breastfeed your child, being described as a "combative patient" just for doing what's best for the child) don't add up to a big thing. I don't think you understand the stresses involved in this situation. Maybe a lawsuit is going too far, especially if this incident isn't in some permanent CPS record. But if it is, the hospital has them set up for some serious problems down the road.

DanBC 10y ago
The mother and child possibly had to stay longer in hospital while extra checks were being done. In the US that has some financial implication.

Falkon1313 10y ago

From the sounds of it, the reason people are calling for a lawsuit is the typical War On Drugs approach: Without reasonable suspicion, they did a field test (known to be faulty). Without probable cause or any corroborating evidence, they falsely accused her of a crime. They then treated her as guilty until proven innocent (which violates our social standards of morality). And they topped it off by threatening violence in the form of kidnapping her newborn baby. That's quite a bit more than merely unprofessional. Something like a stray sarcastic comment or slightly distasteful joke might be unprofessional. This sort of behavior, on the other hand, quite possibly should be illegal and should have consequences. Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10883282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10883282

hellogoodbyeeee 10y ago
This has nothing to do with the war on drugs. She wasn't drug tested by a police officer going door-to-door in the hospital. The hospital administered a medical test to determine risks that the newborn would potentially face. You don't need probable cause to administer a medical test. Furthermore, i bet the mother could have refused the drug test with no consequences.
- Falkon1313 10y ago
  Nonsense. Do you think if instead she had happened to test positive for strep throat, the results would have been the same? It is absolutely about the war on drugs mentality.