This story is being repeated verbatim all over the blogosphere, particularly by the anti-vaccination crowd. However, all of the articles are identical - there seems to a single, original source.

As awful as some local government agencies are, the story as told is simply not believable. Let's see a second source, with some independent reporting, before going all ballistic on this.

the story as told is simply not believable.

While I agree with your gist, a_random_guy, I have to disagree totally with that included part.

Doesn't mean it's not fake, I'll grant you, but if you don't believe the possibility of the story, you haven't been paying attention.

There may be a possibility that this happened, but I too don't believe it based on her word alone. Hospitals simply don't kick people out-they are WAY too CYA for that. Not even criminals under arrest.

@Unix-Jedi: The social worker is believable - they are sometimes just power-crazy nuts. However, if the whole story happened as reported, all sorts of people have just made themselves civilly liable. For example: the hospital making a patient sleep in the parking lot? I just don't buy it.

Probably something awful did happen, but this is being told from a single, very biased viewpoint, and I'll bet that some pretty important facts are either being misrepresented or have been totally omitted.

However, if the whole story happened as reported, all sorts of people have just made themselves civilly liable. For example: the hospital making a patient sleep in the parking lot? I just don't buy it.

They didn't, the police did. Not our idea or fault, and here's our lawyer's card.

The police didn't, the social worker told 'em, and they gotta listen to her. Oh, you can't sue the police, they were on duty, and you can't sue the social worker and...

Who exactly are you going to successfully sue civilly?

Based on the HLSDA article, the hospital in question was Hershey Medical Center in Pennsylvania. A quick Google search returned this story from PennLive. Apparently, there was some trouble, and the hospital in question is saying "Now wait just a minute!" We'll have to wait and see what really happened, though.

Heh heh.

“facts will show that the care afforded the Ferrises was medically and legally appropriate, [we did the bare minimum we had to, and we covered our asses with the right paper] and that the personal rights of the family were respected at all times while under our care.” [after they were kicked out, of course, they weren't under our care, and we're not going to talk about what they're saying being true cause that would cause problems].

Yeah, I think I believe that's exactly what happened, now.

Every time I read a news story like this, where one party is one-sidedly, outrageously in the wrong, I'm suspicious. The media love to write stories with a clear villain and a clear victim. Even better if it follows a popular narrative: "Hospitals are hasty to throw you out onto the street."

I am also in the "wait and see" camp.

Here's another article about it:
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/mother-who-questions-vax-at-hospital-has-newborn-taken-away/

According to a comment, the article quoted by Amy was written by a member of the parents' legal team.

I think everyone here is 100% right to be suspicious of this story since a) it is so incredibly outrageous (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof) and b) Old RPM Daddy is right that his pennlive link is the only link (I've found) that does not rely 100% on the hslpa website's story (the couple's attorney).

There is a civil lawsuit, I would guess those are public records and someone can fetch and post them.

I have no idea what happened. If the story is accurate, I'd say the hospital, the social worker, and the specific cops involved all need a good and appropriate beating.

Put me in the wait-and-see camp on this one as well.

However, if true, the hospital, its staff, the social worker, and the police should all be in big trouble.

Every coin has two sides, just like every story. A month or so ago everyone in the blogosphere, including Amy Alkon, fell hook, line and sinker for the yarn Scott Henson in Austin concocted; his story fell apart when the police department produced video that proved otherwise......

What sounds too good (or bad) to be true usually is.....

Most of the babies in the world are born in their parents' house, and the world population is coming along nicely. I dunnoe if this particular story is true, but as the Feds take over the health care system the chances of some government Co-Parent taking over the infant will approach a certainty. By the current trends your hospital-born baby will get a chipped before the cord is cut and you can accept this or be declared unfit.

(I do not expect the current trends to continue.)

There's some mention that she's an anti-vaxxer.

I don't know if that's true - I haven't read that - it's implied, but not said.

My wife and I aren't anti-vaccine, but we specifically rejected the Hep B at birth. And yes, we got quizzed about it. A lot. Had to be very firm that no, that was not on the list for today.

It's one of those "one-size-fits-all-and-the-ones-it-doesn't-oops" decisions, since people who are Hep B usually aren't the sort to take care of things....

So from asking if there was a _reason_ to give that vaccine then - which is only useful in a small subset of cases (she apparently asked them to actually test to see if she was in that subset) wasn't from a technical standpoint, out of bounds. But the Medical Establishment Does Not Appreciate Being DisRepectahed.

Storm, the world population includes some pretty ridiculous infant mortality, in most of the world. Should we stop all medical care for infants because we have enough growth, thanks anyway?

If the hospital did it's standard of care she had to stay 48 hours. If she wasn't allowed to, she has grounds for a suit. That's federal, even the cops can't take that right from you.

"The hospital has made wild and conflicting claims about your baby's health all day long."

This part is believable. My experience was that each and every "professional" who comes to look at the baby has a different opinion of what's healthy, and most are really eager to declare them as unhealthy. Ick.

While I'm a little skeptical of the story as a whole, I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened to be true. As Unix-Jedi stated (and my few hospitalizations concur): "But the Medical Establishment Does Not Appreciate Being DisRepectahed."

>>"That said, do we force medical treatment on people who are not in immediate danger of dying? What's your opinion on this?"

This is a really difficult question, and one that I'm truly on the fence about. I hate anti-vaxxers and I hate the risk they put on society. But I'm sincerely afraid that once we give the gov't the power to go "You MUST give your child this shot or else", then they won't stop there. It's the food thing all over again. It never stops with just giving them medically necessary treatment, it continues with giving them *government approved* medically "necessary" treatment. Which is quite different.

I'm having trouble believing this story. It sounds like anti vaccination propaganda. The big bad government kicked this poor mom out after a stressful birth in an ambulance all because she asked for a period of time to recover before making decisions about a vaccine. Sounds far fetched.

Most expectant mothers meet a pediatrician before they give birth and have not just a birthing plan set up but also conditions regarding circumcision and vaccinations. If this mom was opposed, she would have been afforded the opportunity well before the birth to take care of that. I know a few anti vaccination people who all made sure to take care of that well in advance to avoid messy hospital situations.

"Most expectant mothers meet a pediatrician before they give birth and have not just a birthing plan set up but also conditions regarding circumcision and vaccinations. If this mom was opposed, she would have been afforded the opportunity well before the birth to take care of that. I know a few anti vaccination people who all made sure to take care of that well in advance to avoid messy hospital situations."

It's alway a shame when a writer writes and no one reads the article.

Hint: "Jodi went into labor a bit earlier than she had expected—and the baby was coming rapidly. Given their location and other factors, the midwife they had hoped would deliver the baby at their home encouraged them to get in an ambulance and head to the hospital."

Let's just say "it's for the children" all together now, and the Constitution no longer applies.

I have no first hand knowledge of this situation. I would not be surprised if it did happen, exactly as written.

Kristen: Most expectant mothers meet a pediatrician before they give birth and have not just a birthing plan set up but also conditions regarding circumcision and vaccinations.

Not here. We had registered with them, and called them afterward. But there was no visit or discussion until the day after, when doctor on call from the office dropped by, and the day after that when we went to the office for the visit.

IOW: In my experience, the pediatrician wasn't involved at all with the Hep-B decision making until later when we got into the vaccinations at the office.

(And it turns out that our paperwork said we'd had one administered at the hospital, seems someone forgot to actually verify that, which really ticked the doctor off.)

I'm having trouble believing this story. It sounds like anti vaccination propaganda.

I was more skeptical til I read the hospital's response, which was very specific. "the personal rights of the family were respected at all times while under our care.”"

That's a pretty interesting disclaimer to put on that, isn't it?

"It's alway a shame when a writer writes and no one reads the article."

I read the article Jerry and I'm aware she went in early labor and gave birth in the ambulance. Did you read my comment or just skim?

From my own experience and based on the experience of friends, even those who live in different parts of the country, meeting a pediatrician and going over plans for the hospital is done during the pregnancy. Had I gone into labor early or had an emergency, my pediatrician was aware of what I wanted regarding vaccinations, circumcisions, and any type of do not resuscitate orders.

Maybe this woman didn't have a plan in advance but again, my experience with people who don't believe in vaccinations or question them is that they make sure to get things taken care of well in advance to avoid situations like the one Amy posted about here.

I just have trouble with a social worker in a hospital having so much power. In all three of my births, it was nurses all around me. I was given plenty of time to bond with my baby and for my husband to go back and forth to check on our other kids. I could be completely wrong, but something about this story just doesn't add up.

Unix-Jedi, I'd think the hospital's statement was suspect except with all of the privacy laws, I'm sure they don't want to tell their side and get sued for privacy violations as well. It sounds like they're saving it for court, which is their right.

The hospital's "while under our care" is just typical legalese because they have no way of knowing what others did or did not do to her once she was no longer a patient, and to claim they did would be stupid. It would be like me saying the cops treated you perfectly, after they've driven you away from my house. How do I know?

I repeat-no hospital is kicking out a woman the day she gives birth. For any reason. The Drs and nurses aren't going to expose themselves like that, not to even mention the vast majority of them DO care about people's health.

momof4:

The hospital's "while under our care" is just typical legalese ... once she was no longer a patient, and to claim they did would be stupid.

Not quite. They didn't say -in the press release - when that was.
Had it been the "standard" amount of time, they'd have said that. Instead, they made a totally different claim - not that she was there for the usual amount of time, but that they did their job well when she was there. Seems pretty obvious that this is going to be easy to check. Was the kid vaccinated? Whose signature is on the permission form? What was the time of discharge of the mother?

The claim is the social worker called the cops, cops evicted her.

That's fully in keeping with what the hospital says with their legalese. And had that not been the case, that's not how it would have been written. But now they've got to be as honest as possible with the PR, or else they will be in hotter water, so read what it says and exactly what it says.

no hospital is kicking out a woman the day she gives birth.

So full stop, you know she did not get kicked out that day? Period. Did Not Happen?

... Cause it sure seems that she did. The hospital is just saying "Hey, it wasn't US. We were doing OUR job!"

You're quoting legalese - they didn't. The guy with the gun did. They didn't tell her she had to leave, they had nottting, notting, we know noooooooothing to do with it, no, no, they aren't involved, not their choice, etc.

That's what that legalese tells me - and I've read and written enough of it to read between the lines.

The Drs and nurses aren't going to expose themselves like that, not to even mention the vast majority of them DO care about people's health.

What doctors? What nurses? Which of them had a hand in ejecting her? Oh, right, they didn't. Nor do Drs or Nurses have much of a say in admissions and certainly not when the cops start ejecting people. I guess they could have stepped up and objected - but if the story is true, and they were facing a social worker "just doing her job" and a cop "just doing his job", what do you think would have been the case for them stepping up?

I know I'd think they'd be at risk for themselves being arrested and maybe tasered - and as a result of the arrest, fired and with a potential loss of license. It's not like the kid was being tortured, what's the big damn deal here. What's the upside in them standing up? What's the downside?

Kristen:
I just have trouble with a social worker in a hospital having so much power.

Well, so do I. I have issues with that much power. Are you doubting that the social worker could have done that or that did do that?

Because I've got no doubts that they could have done that. The question now is did they. The circumstantial evidence is strong that the basic facts and timeline are correct. We'll see.

"Well, so do I. I have issues with that much power. Are you doubting that the social worker could have done that or that did do that?"

I'm having trouble with both. I'm not from Hershey though so I don't know what roles a social worker has on a maternity ward. My experience has been that social workers visited to make sure I was feeling ok, to tell me about the possibility of post partum depression, etc. The social workers did not have more administrative responsibilities relating to admission or discharge. That was all doctors and nurses.

Again, I can only go by my own experience and that of friends. I have one friend who did live in Pennsylvania, not far from Hershey, and her experience was very similar to mine. I just feel we're not being told the full story here.

I agree with Kristin and MO4. The story does not add up and the press realease is typical hospital legalese (I work at one and go over boatloads of paperwork daily). The odds she got kicked out the day she gave birth are slim to none. Far too many liabilities to violate federal law. They keep you for 48 hours unless you specifically request otherwise and sign forms, or up and leave AMA (which I'm more inclined to believe if she was unhappy with her care). She'd be much more likely to be kicked out of the hospital parking lot by security for sleeping in her car than the hospital by anyone.

And I also agree about having all your wishes for vaccines, circumcisions, et cetera in place before you deliver. I had that in place and registered with the hospital at 29 weeks. I delivered my son at 35 weeks. No one caused me grief about what I did or didn't want to do, nor was social work or other nonmedical staff involved.

This article sounds like propaganda for the granola crown that supports homebirth, limited medical care, anti-vax, et cetera, and stating that a hospital commited all these atrocities against someone who fell into the granola group further serves their point of pushing people from anything outside those views.

It is never stated that she was anti-vax. In fact, in one or more of the articles linked, it's noted that the child received a vitamin K shot, and the mother apparently approved of that, because it was before the social worker got involved.

Just to throw my hat into the ring, I never met with a pediatrician before my son was born, the only thing that was brought up ahead of time was whether or not we planned to circumcise, and then only in the context of, "This is what it costs, and most insurances don't cover it, so you have all the info."
There was a pediatrician at the hospital after he was born who went over vaccinations, and testing, but nothing beforehand.
I also don't recall ever meeting with a social worker at all. I could be wrong, but it wasn't a social worker who went over the possibility of ppd, or asked how I was feeling, that was my doctor, you know, the person qualified to care for me if I wasn't feeling okay.

As to the rest of the "granola group" propaganda, it's entirely possible that it is propaganda, but it's also likely that the social worker was trying to teach this woman a lesson. The woman wanted to have a home birth, which I think is idiotic, but she has the right to make that decision. Because everything didn't go as planned, she wound up delivering in an ambulance, rather than at home or at the hospital. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the social worker was trying to teach her a lesson, along the lines of, "If you don't do things the way I think they should be done, obviously that means that I care more about your child than you do, and therefore I will take your child away."
It sounds as if the social worker was already on a power trip, and then the mom waffling about the hep b shot pushed her over the edge into righteousness territory.
That is, of course, provided that the account being passed around the web is at least basically what happened, specific details aside.

Not to mention, hospital social workers CAN NOT TAKE YOUR CHILD. They can call CPS. Period. Or, I suppose, the cops. Do we really think that some power-mad social worker risked her job, and the cops who came risked their jobs and pensions just to back her up because...what? People tend to have more self preservation than that. The odds of every single person involved in this BUT the mom being power-mad and a little psychotic are about nil.

THE COPS CAN NOT TAKE YOU OR MAKE YOU LEAVE UNTIL YOU ARE MEDICALLY CLEARED. Shall we repeat that? You think a Dr is going to risk his liscense and a patient dying from post-partum eclampsia or stroke or any other number of things for some power-mad beauracrats? Discharging early is FAR more likely to have negative outcomes for the Dr than telling a social worker (bottom of the hospital food chain) no. And they know it.

IF this happened as reported by the mom, then I'l volunteer to off the people responsible. But I really, really, really doubt it. It simply makes no possible sense. The world does not have it out for this particular mom, and too many people from different fields were involved for it to be collusion.

hospital social workers CAN NOT TAKE YOUR CHILD. They can call CPS. Period. Or, I suppose, the cops. Do we really think that some power-mad social worker risked her job, and the cops who came risked their jobs and pensions just to back her up because...what?

momof4:

Apparently, this was CPS.

Because that part of the story happened. The child was removed. They had to regain custody at an emergency hearing the next day.

(OK, that might also not be true. But yannow, I betcha that sort of documentation, or lack therof, is either there, or not, so I"m going with "is".)

So you and Kristen keep arguing "Oh, I don't think that could have happened" to the parts that the Hospital's ass-covering on, and there should be plenty of court documentation of.

the cops who came risked their jobs and pensions just to back her up because...what?

The cops, and CPS, didn't risk anything, that's the problem I'm trying to get across to you. They're covered. Bloody hell, momof4, have you seen what it takes to fire a government employee and the order of magnitude higher bar to fire a cop?

THE COPS CAN NOT TAKE YOU OR MAKE YOU LEAVE UNTIL YOU ARE MEDICALLY CLEARED.

momof4, I hate to tell you, but the world has some nasty surprises ahead for you.

Yes, they can. Yes, they have.

Shall we repeat that?

You can repeat it, but it doesn't make it correct, and it doesn't make it true.

You think a Dr is going to risk his liscense and a patient dying from post-partum eclampsia or stroke or any other number of things for some power-mad beauracrats?

I think the doctor is far more worried about power-mad bureacrats, who can stop him from making money and having his license within hours - not years

Discharging early is FAR more likely to have negative outcomes for the Dr than telling a social worker (bottom of the hospital food chain) no. And they know it.

A "social worker" isn't the
bottom of the hospital food chain". They're not in the hospital hierarchy. They're bureacrats, insulated from the results of their decisions, and we already know that the custody was removed from the parents. Happened. (I feel 100% confident if this isn't a April Fools that the paperwork for that, and the worker signing on the vaccination paperwork, etc, will be there.)

That. Happened. You're still saying "Oh, I don't think that would happen", to the parts we know did happen. So what does that mean for the parts you say "Oh, I don't think that could ever happen" for the parts that are not as ironclad?

(And yes, I damn well KNOW it can happen, There are plenty of cases to demonstrate that it CAN.)

The world does not have it out for this particular mom, and too many people from different fields were involved for it to be collusion.

Only in your head. That's what I'm telling you. It ONLY took a power-mad bureaucrat. That's it. Period. Everything else was "policy" and "procedure" and "chuss doink my job" "chuss followink orders".

This is why I'm hammering on this. You and Kristen are "I can't ever see this happening" and I'm trying to open your eyes that yes, yes this could happen, and not only that, it happens on a daily basis. Ignoring it doesn't change that.

Ask TJIC about "making no possible sense". For a offhand, cruel, but commonly expressed comment, he was stripped of his 2nd Amendment rights.

And what he said was far less violent and actionable than what you just did.

I'l volunteer to off the people responsible.

Believe the story or not, don't say things like that. Ask TJIC.

Unix-Jedi, I'm not going to argue and say there is no such thing as a bad social worker because every profession has their bad apples. However, everything a social worker goes to school for and becomes licensed for goes against the supposed actions of this social worker. I just feel there's more to the story, not that its impossible that it happened, but that there's more and we aren't getting the full account. But please, don't entertain that possibility at all.

"I also don't recall ever meeting with a social worker at all. I could be wrong, but it wasn't a social worker who went over the possibility of ppd, or asked how I was feeling, that was my doctor, you know, the person qualified to care for me if I wasn't feeling okay."

Well Jazzhands, I did have a doctor and several nurses on hand, you know, the ones you so smugly pointed out are qualified to care for you if you're not feeling ok. The social worker was also part of the overall health plan. Her role was to make sure I knew of any and all resources available to me as a new mom and again as a mom adjusting to the second and third. She wasn't in lieu of a doctor or nurse. She was in addition. I had wonderful care for all of my pregnancies and births.

However, everything a social worker goes to school for and becomes licensed for goes against the supposed actions of this social worker.

Kristen:

No, it doesn't. You think it does, but it does not.

What the social worker is trained to do - at all costs - is "The best welfare of the child."

At no point is that declared to be "according to the parents" - if that was the case, we wouldn't need many social workers, would we?

So that becomes in the social worker's eyes, the best welfare of the child. Vaccination? Sure thing. Parent saying no, well, it's in the best interest of the child to have it, so OK, let me operate that procedure and tada.

You're missing the real world picture to support what you think is how things work. I don't doubt that the worker in question thought they were doing the right thing. I'm positive of that, and it's why I'm pretty sure that the case is going to turn out to be pretty close to the parent's story. At no point do I think anybody involved did this out of evil, or nefariousness, or anything other than what they thought was the best choice for the child.

I don't think it was a cabal or a conspiracy or anything set out to do evil.

But that's the thing about "Evil". It's almost never entered into for the purpose of evil. It's always ostensibly for a really "good" reason.

She was in addition. I had wonderful care for all of my pregnancies and births.

We didn't. Nothing to do with social workers, and a lot longer story, but we had horrific care during the birth.

It's great that you did - and I know some people do. But the fact that you got great care in no way means that this story is wrong. (Nor does, for example, our bad care mean you didn't get good care.)

I'm betting she tested positive for controlled substances. A FB friend/former coworker of mine popped for pot at the hospital, and had to go through a whole rigamarole to get her baby. And the hospital would not in any way be allowed to divulge that to the press.

momof4:

That would certainly make more sense.

Unix-Jedi, I wasn't saying I had wonderful care during my pregnancies as proof the story is false. It was in response to another's comment regarding a social worker's presence. I'm sorry to hear you didn't receive great care. I know that happens too and I have friends who's hospital stay was horrendous. Still, despite their horrendous stay, other things were in place well in advance. That's more my point. I think having a plan and something in writing is important. The anti-vaccination people I know get legal documents early on to avoid any fight with the hospital. I had a professor who was a chiropractor and wanted to do an adjustment on the babies as they were born. He went to court to get that right well before the birth. Whether I think he should do that or not is not up to me. But he made a wise choice making everything legal to avoid hassles at the hospital.

You seem very sure that this story is true. I'm not saying its definitely false, just that it seems far fetched based on my experience and the experience of others I know. I don't know that we're getting the whole story is all.