nobody_special
New member
I cleared this with Antipitas... he suggested I open a new thread.
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20080108/VALLEYNEWS/248366321
I'd prefer that the discussion avoid the religious aspects that surfaced in the previous thread... religion really isn't relevant. Let's ignore that, and just consider that the man is a former medic and did not believe his son's injury warranted a visit to the ER.
I'm interested in discussion of the following points:
1. At what point does the state have the right to intervene when it comes to medical decisions for a child? Note in this particular case, there appears to be no allegation of systematic abuse, only "mistreatment" for failure "to provide him proper medical care for a head injury." Was this a civil rights violation? Why / why not?
2. I'll offer the opinion that the use of a SWAT team was unwarranted and excessive force. However, the article indicates that the father was uncooperative when he was notified of the court order. What would have been the proper response or course of action from the authorities?
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20080108/VALLEYNEWS/248366321
NEW CASTLE - The Garfield County All Hazards Response Team broke down Tom Shiflett's door Friday night and, following a court order, took his son for medical treatment.
The doctor's recommendation: Take Tylenol and apply ice to the bruises. The boy was back home a few hours later.
I'd prefer that the discussion avoid the religious aspects that surfaced in the previous thread... religion really isn't relevant. Let's ignore that, and just consider that the man is a former medic and did not believe his son's injury warranted a visit to the ER.
I'm interested in discussion of the following points:
1. At what point does the state have the right to intervene when it comes to medical decisions for a child? Note in this particular case, there appears to be no allegation of systematic abuse, only "mistreatment" for failure "to provide him proper medical care for a head injury." Was this a civil rights violation? Why / why not?
2. I'll offer the opinion that the use of a SWAT team was unwarranted and excessive force. However, the article indicates that the father was uncooperative when he was notified of the court order. What would have been the proper response or course of action from the authorities?