On Oct 24, 9:32=A0am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2:09=A0pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > G > Betty, Do you really think that a kid
> > G > who is 10th percentile (5% of population)
> > G > would not set off huge alarm bells for
> > G > a doctor?
>
> > BW > My bad. =A0I thought he said four.
>
> > G > Betty, In another thread you
> > G > accused me a priori of MOCKING you!
> > G >
> > G > In this thread I asked a direct,
> > G > fair and reasonable question.
> > G >
> > G > Apparently you don't want to answer it
> > G > so you join in with Dan's juvenile crap.
> > G >
> > G > You MOCK yourself.
>
> > G > Betty, Do you really think that a kid
> > G > who is 10th percentile (5% of population)
> > G > would not set off huge alarm bells for
> > G > a doctor?
>
> What percentage of kids are in the 10th percentile, grag???
>
> TEN percent!
>
> What percentage of kids are above the 90th percentile?
>
> TEN percent!
>
> Is CPS supposed to be investigating the reasons behind 20 percent of
> the kids being either too heavy or too light?
>
> > G > Can't just answer a simple question directly?
> > G > If you don't KNOW, just admit you don't.
>
> Why don't you post what YOU know, grag.
>
> Post YOUR answers.
>
>
>
>
>
> > BW > I know the answer very well Greg.
> > BW > I just can't figure out why you insist
> > BW > on asking irrelevant questions.
> > BW > The article said that the girl had
> > BW > not been to the doctor in years.
> > BW > It would be impossible for those
> > BW > 'alarms' to be set off by someone
> > BW > that a doctor hasn't seen.
>
> > G > When the child was to the doctor years
> > G > before, the doctor THEN should have
> > G > insisted on CLOSE SUPERVISION.
> > G >
> > G > It doesn't take a SERIES of low weight
> > G > or a trend, if the kid is THAT LOW!
>
> > BW > Do you think it was the doctor's job
> > BW > to make sure the parents brought
> > BW > the girl to subsequent check ups?
>
> > What do the guidelines of the AMA and
> > pediatric association say on this?
>
> > Doctors ADMIT kids to hospitals for far smaller
> > problems than this.
>
> Such as?
>
> Post five examples of lesser reasons doctors admit kids to hospitals.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Doctors also re****t to CPS for smaller problems than this.
>
> > I don't like the NAZI like world we've made with the
> > relation****p between doctor and patient with
> > CPS quietly in the mix. =A0I'm just pointing it out.
>
> > We've got doctors calling CPS on their patients
> > all the time, there have even been stories of how
> > doctors have used re****ting to CPS in an attempt
> > to prevent parents from getting a second opinion.
> > In a few cases the second opinion proved that the
> > first (re****ting) doctor was horribly WRONG in their
> > determination.
>
> > Hell, One of the biggest Family Rights advocates
> > even experiencede an ER NURSE who used CPS
> > at the drop of a hat in an attempt to back up or
> > enlarge the nurses aggrandized authority. =A0The
> > nurse phoned in a rediculously false re****t. =A0The
> > re****t included completely fictional elements
> > borrowed from famous national CPS cases, like
> > that the mother was a preacher traveling in a
> > BUS with her kids. =A0(Not a preacher, no bus.)
> > CPS (Missouri DFS) sent a newbie caseworker.
> > =A0When the caseworke told her superiors who
> > the mother was, they asked the caseworker
> > to apologize and LEAVE. =A0The child involved
> > lives with lifelong cerebral injuries as the result
> > of a foster care experience. =A0The mother was
> > doing exactly as the doctor directed,
> > was told to go to the ER and have him paged
> > immediately, but the ER nurse saw this as some
> > sort of challenge to her AUTHORITY so she called
> > CPS before she paged the doctor.
>
> > Remember than in many states mandatory
> > re****ters have to re****t situations which MIGHT
> > possibly be abuse, or face legal liabilities.
> > There is a big difference between re****ting
> > every damned thing that MIGHT POSSIBLY
> > be abuse (almost everything!) as opposed
> > to re****ting only where they reasonably believe
> > there is actual child abuse.
>
> > Missouri law is a bit stricter about this than most
> > states (thanks to the Mom above) but you
> > know very well that the doctors MALPRACTICE
> > insurer would urge them to re****t such a case
> > unless there is some really good explanation!
>
> Post any credible evidence you have of that a "MALPRACTICE insurer"
> would urge a doctor to re****t suspected child abuse.
>
> > I don't LIKE how it is, I'm just telling it.
>
> Tell what you know to be true?
>
> Or what you imagine to be true?
Dan, Why are you arguing about whether or not
CPS should be involved in underweight/overweight cases
when in fact CPS WAS involved in this case?
You pointed out yourself that it was closed in 30 days!
How much weight do you think she gained in only 30 days?
|
