- About
- Blogosphere Buzz
- Archived Posts 2007-2008
- Register for Email Alerts
- The Book: Before You Take That Pill: Why the Drug Industry May Be Bad For Your Health
- Follow me on twitter @dougbremner
- Subscribe to my podcasts
- Rave Reviews for “The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg: Accutane, the truth that had to be told”
- Follow me on goodreads
- Catania! The movie
from @pharmawars
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Hysterical.
This is hysterical, but actually reflects a fairly accurate occurrence.
Dr John Smith’s expertise adds validity to the screening results, in my book at least.
Evelyn Pringle
btw I did not make this, it came from twitter, @pharmawars
LOL… this is like every session with my psychiatrist. He actually CONVINCED me that I had been depressed my whole life and just didn’t know it.
Honestly, though, how do we know that one person’s euthymia is another person’s euthymia?
Nothing like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
More like delegating the health and safety of the infant to the bottom of the barrel, in order to profit off the poor, unsuspecting mother.
didn’t find an email link so posted here… did you see this:
http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1247782973.shtml
?
Whoa. Now, I can understand the desire not to have a c-section. Furthermore I am confused as to how they knew the baby was in distress if she refused fetal monitoring.
“[w]ithout appropriate psychiatric treatment,
including aggressive psychopharmacological intervention, neither
[V.M.] nor [B.G.] presents as a fit parent at this time.”
Basically refusing to consent to a c-section got her labeled psychotic. Read the case… it basically concludes that because the parents refused psychological evaluation / treatment, they are delusional.
Also the baby was never neglected or in any danger whatsoever, the baby was born vaginally without incident.
I would probably be described as either thrashing, noncompliant or whatever if someone tried to force me to have a lot of procedures. I think that the proof is in the pudding, the baby was born fine and had no problems. It also says no drugs were found in the baby’s system but it does’nt say if any medications were found. It says she was prescribed three psych drugs, but she says she wasn’t taking some of them. Had the baby been exposed to epidural anesthesia, it could have died especially if the mother was really taking any of those other drugs.
Time for judges to stop acting like doctors and doctors to stop acting like God. Um, I mean… not God. Someone less nice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXwBRfxRSz8
So you lose your kids because you don’t want aggressive psychopharma therapy? Better straighten up and shut up, America.
P.S. I was probably thrashing quite a bit during my own two births. I challenge any doctor or judge to give birth with no epidural without a fair amount of movement. Maybe they should have labeled her movement disordered too.
I briefly read over the statements by the courts in this case and a point that jumped out at me was, since when can anything a woman might say during labor and delivery be used to judge her mental status.
I went through labor and childbirth without any type of pain medication with both of my children (by choice), and I would hate to think that the things I said and did during the experience of childbirth could be used against me to build a case that I was mentally ill.
I have vivid memories of some pretty bizarre behaviors on my part. But in my day, such behavior was accepted as being “normal” in the throws of the extreme pain of labor and childbirth.
In fact, I remember laughing with female friends and family members about our behaviors during labor and delivery and comparing notes on who acted the most bizarre.
No freaking kidding. Also, in CPS cases the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore because of a case from the 50s called Lassiter, which upheld a precedent on the amount of due process allowed civil defendants in termination of parental rights proceedings, (removal of a child from custody is a civil matter) parents do not have an absolute right to due process / a fair trial or to be provided an attorney, if the risk of erroneous deprivation is outweighed by the burden of providing additional due process. Her word vs. the CPS case worker’s word.
Because the first shrink said she was crazy, and a second shrink said she was competent to refuse, the court appointed an “independent” third shrink who – surprise, surprise, said she was crazy.
Guess what I did during my first labor? While on pitocin I was in so much pain that I actually (gasp) had a hard time holding still so that the anesthesiologist could insert the epidural needle into my __ing spinal dura DURING a contraction. They were so close together he had no other choice.
Being pretty well versed on the risk of various birth interventions, I can understand why a mom who is told she is endangering her child might refuse more of them because they are trying to use them against her to force a c-section on her. I would not be surprised if they also would not give her the epidural because she was thrashing and that that could have been why she complained she was not getting “treatment.”
There is a line in the mothers act that scares the crud out of me and that is the one about enhancing inpatient services to ensure the future development / well being of the infant. Sounds like code for the B.S. inflicted on this family.
The Matthew test for civil cases “balances (1) the importance of the interest at stake; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest because of the procedures used, and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest.”
Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/8480/Mathews-v-Eldridge-Test.html#ixzz0M92KSiNV
Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/8480/Mathews-v-Eldridge-Test.html#ixzz0M92KSiNV
Basically they weigh the risk of erroneous deprivation with the level of importance of the govt. interest and the individual’s interest.
In this case the interest of the mother to her own child is considered low, while the interest of the state in protecting the baby from the delusional anti-psychiatric drug cocktail / anti-self-incrimination opinions of the mother is high.
(p.s. side effects of epidurals include respiratory distress, drop in blood pressure & fetal distress – all of which we experienced in my labor with Isaac. If they had forcibly done a c-section on her they would have done the epidural which could have actually hurt the baby as well, and further caused the mother to need additional oxygen / epinephrine / etc. So they need to allow women the right to refuse.)
Oh yeah – remember that thing called the 5th amendment – the right not to incriminate yourself? What ever happened to that (screening / forced evaluations by people who obviously already think you are delusional).
(p.s. Evelyn, you probably know this but a long time ago, not certain if it was during the time you had your kids or not, they had twilight births, and because the drugs were hallucinogenic drugs that did not actually relieve pain but erased the memory of the event, women used to thrash around and scream and do all sorts of things. Eventually they decided to tie women down during this experience so they would not hurt themselves.
Even with my birth with Toby I did a fair amount of moaning / screaming / yelling and “thrashing” aka uncontrollable contractions causing full body movements to push the baby out. I am pretty amazed that any judge, lawyer or CPS worker would be stupid enough to believe this was a real symptom of a mental disorder. The fact that Volokh believes it is pretty scary. WTHeck are these people smoking? Have they NEVER witnessed an unmedicated birth or heard about what contractions do to your body? Um, uncontrollable movements is what they do if you are not under anesthesia from the waist down. Get a freakin’ clue legal morons. Actually all it comes down to is retaliation for her opinions and questioning of the almighty OB. And I have met some who are rather arrogant, as well as many nice ones, so this is not to denegrate the OB profession but obviously this one. I have also met rude and obnoxious midwives. I guess there are plenty to go around.)
Yes, it’s all very disturbing. I don’t even know where to start… The strange thing is – it’s not in mainstream news!
My friends wife threatened to kill him during the birth. With 3 witnesses in the room. Good thing she wasn’t sentenced for that….
I was very young, with not much knowledge about labor and childbirth the first time around, and I remember hitting and kicking at the nurses who were holding me down and calling them pigs at one point.
I told my husband to get the hell away from me, several times in fact, and a few times using words much worse than hell as I recall.
Haha, maybe the fact that I didn’t say a single word (except to remind hubby to go move the car so we didn’t get a parking ticket) nor thrash around at all, should have been their first clue that I was a nutcase
(and I didn’t use pain meds either- I’m just weird)
Kimbriel, women for all of history have given birth without pain medication. You’re not weird, you’re just not too posh to push. Why didn’t you get your c-section and tummy tuck done on the same day?
LOL… you should have seen the looks on their faces when they shuffled over to offer me pain meds (I had given no indication that I was in any pain- I was NOT in any pain)… my husband told them “She’s not interested in anything like that” and they walked away like a puppy with its tail between its legs… I never got a bill as I was on Medicaid at the time, but I’ll bet money they billed for anesthesia anyway… hospitals are always trying to bill for stuff that never happened – I’ve caught so many shennanigans… ER billing for a urine test when I know I did NOT pee in a cup, etc.
Oh, maybe that’s my anosognosia again
I hate to keep using the term “in my day” because it gives away my old age.
But I cannot emphasize enough that in my day, medical professionals “never” encouraged the use of any drug with pregnant women unless it was absolutely necessary.
Just as it should be today.
It’s a valid point- it’s just that simple. Why would you put your baby in harm’s way when it can be avoided?
Because a lot of these women are told by their physicians that the risks of depression/psychosis/whatever are a greater concern than the risk the “safe” meds pose to the baby.
Excuse me while I don’t believe them.
It’s getting to the point where I’m not willing to let these women off the hook so easily.
I find it hard to believe that with the internet available 24 hours day, a pregnant woman would allow herself to be conned into taking any drug without thoroughly checking it out.
And, for the few women who are truly depressed, I find it hard to believe that they would not try every available alternative before taking the first pill.
The term “selfish” comes to mind quite often these days.
Yeah, but docs can be very convincing, and they’ll put the fear of god into you. I know that’s what my psychiatrist did to get me to take that awful crap for so long. But I do hear you – no way would he have been able to convince me if I was pregnant. No way. There’s just NO way of knowing what effects it will have, and why take the chance?
Kimbriel said:
“Yeah, but docs can be very convincing, and they’ll put the fear of god into you.”
I know this is true and that’s why I said “I’m getting to the point where I’m not willing…,”
But by now, the info on psych drugs and the harm to the fetus has been available on the internet for a decade so there’s no excuse for not checking it out.
People don’t know about this anymore, and they trust their doctors. Pregnant women and new moms are very vulnerable. Especially when not in the greatest state of mind. I’m not so sure they are selfish, but definitely scared. THey did everything they did to put the fear in me and other moms in my childbirth class, they act like they can tell when someone is about to become the next Andrea Yates etc. They make it sound all scientific and give out all the horror stories they can to scare you. I was not being selfish when I took my drugs. I was told they were very safe and I had no reason to distrust my doctor. Why would I think my doctor would do something to hurt me or why would he lie to me?