3 ms·

Yeah, it seems very strange to pin this on the hospitals. I wonder how significant their negligence was to lead to a 250 million judgment. Given that CPS, like

Yeah, it seems very strange to pin this on the hospitals. I wonder how significant their negligence was to lead to a 250 million judgment. Given that CPS, like the police, have no obligation to help, it makes sense to error on the cautionary side of Do no harm. Sacrificing the lives of some children and families for the greater good is not the type of utilitarian calculus the government should be engaging in.

bluebaru 3y ago
> it makes sense to error on the cautionary side of Do no harm. Unfortunately many hospitals have mandated reporter policies, which in some states makes them effectively extensions of law enforcement bodies (including CPS). My personal opinion is that this is in direct conflict with the need for privacy between patients and their providers, who are no longer able to exercise judgement about what is best for the people they are treating.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think it is one thing to mandate reporting, and another thing entirely for the state to absolve itself of responsibility for vetting that reporting.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> I wonder how significant their negligence was to lead to a 250 million judgment. The linked article makes it sound as if the accusation was entirely due to a bad diagnosis of a medical condition, which was easily contradicted by standard medical tests/imaging that was available to the hospital staff. But make no mistake, a $250mil judgement has nothing to do with the significance of judgement, and everything to do with juries that make up ridiculous amounts which are later reduced on appeal.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  bad diagnoses happens. Im more concerned that there was insufficient review to catch a bad diagnosis before the state took action, or in follow-up to a precautionary action.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    Bad initial diagnoses, when the concern is purely medical, rarely cause problems outside of trauma. You get the shit scared out of you maybe, but the doctors/specialists ask for more followup tests just to be sure, and it gets sorted. Bad initial diagnoses that are also criminal accusations have your kids sent to the rape orphanages for 5 months until a judge gets it settled. > Im more concerned that there was insufficient review to catch a bad diagnosis before the state took action, Well, same here. A few hostile glares from hospital staff are something I could weather, if 30 minutes later a second set of eyes tells the first that they're stupid and this is just an accident from whatever, and not shaken baby syndrome. Arguably, some minimally competent review would have caught not only this case, but many others.
Caligatio 3y ago
It's pinned on the hospital because there was a CPS consultant on the hospital's payroll that was seemingly allowed access to the children/records as a CPS consultant by using their hospital employee role. Basically, hospital employees have reasonable access to patients/records as part of their care but CPS needs to go through a process for the same access. This particular employee wore both hats to obtain alleged illegal access to the children/records.

bluebaru 3y ago

> it makes sense to error on the cautionary side of Do no harm. Unfortunately many hospitals have mandated reporter policies, which in some states makes them effectively extensions of law enforcement bodies (including CPS). My personal opinion is that this is in direct conflict with the need for privacy between patients and their providers, who are no longer able to exercise judgement about what is best for the people they are treating.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I think it is one thing to mandate reporting, and another thing entirely for the state to absolve itself of responsibility for vetting that reporting.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> I wonder how significant their negligence was to lead to a 250 million judgment. The linked article makes it sound as if the accusation was entirely due to a bad diagnosis of a medical condition, which was easily contradicted by standard medical tests/imaging that was available to the hospital staff. But make no mistake, a $250mil judgement has nothing to do with the significance of judgement, and everything to do with juries that make up ridiculous amounts which are later reduced on appeal.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
bad diagnoses happens. Im more concerned that there was insufficient review to catch a bad diagnosis before the state took action, or in follow-up to a precautionary action.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  Bad initial diagnoses, when the concern is purely medical, rarely cause problems outside of trauma. You get the shit scared out of you maybe, but the doctors/specialists ask for more followup tests just to be sure, and it gets sorted. Bad initial diagnoses that are also criminal accusations have your kids sent to the rape orphanages for 5 months until a judge gets it settled. > Im more concerned that there was insufficient review to catch a bad diagnosis before the state took action, Well, same here. A few hostile glares from hospital staff are something I could weather, if 30 minutes later a second set of eyes tells the first that they're stupid and this is just an accident from whatever, and not shaken baby syndrome. Arguably, some minimally competent review would have caught not only this case, but many others.

Caligatio 3y ago

It's pinned on the hospital because there was a CPS consultant on the hospital's payroll that was seemingly allowed access to the children/records as a CPS consultant by using their hospital employee role. Basically, hospital employees have reasonable access to patients/records as part of their care but CPS needs to go through a process for the same access. This particular employee wore both hats to obtain alleged illegal access to the children/records.