The Justina Pelletier Boston Children's Hospital experience, as reported by The Boston Globe, demonstrates that parents and children have no substantive rights in the matter of medical child abuse allegations. Parents who follow physicians' recommendations may be charged with abuse and lose their children to state welfare agencies.
Initiators of the medical child abuse theory, Drs. Carole Jenny and Thomas Roesler, posit that parents, especially mothers, are able to coerce professionals into performing dangerous surgery and prescribing unnecessary drugs. If this dubious concept has any merit, the state is accusing the wrong party. The perpetrators are the medical practitioners.
When Dr. Alice Newton, head of Boston Children's Hospital child protection unit, levied charges of medical child abuse in February 2013 she targeted Justina's parents, not the child's primary physician, Dr. Mark Korson. In Dr. Newton's professional opinion, Lou and Linda Pelletier were the cause of Justina's illness, not the mitochondrial disorder identified by her physician. Defending her diagnosis, Dr. Newton said “It’s the kind of diagnosis vulnerable to manipulation by parents.”
Dr. Newton was able to make her somatoform disorder diagnosis in an improbable three days and it was this judgment that prompted the Department of Children and Families to petition Juvenile Judge Joseph Johnston to revoke Pelletier parental rights.
A medical dispute case e.g. Boston Children's Hospital versus Tufts Medical Center is complicated and critically so when a child's health and well being is under consideration. Judge Johnston did not question the validity of the BCH charges and because of his actions the Pelletiers lost custody and Justina became and remains a ward of the state.
Justina suffered cruel tribulations while under Judge Johnston's protection. Examples are: change in prescription regime, no contact with her former attending physician, a ten-month confinement in BCH's psychiatric ward, absence of education/religious providers, and an hour a week with her parents.
Because Justina is a state ward, Lou and Linda Pelletier have no knowledge of their daughter's current treatment plan or whether she has been prescribed psychotropic drugs. Judge Johnston decided last month that Justina may not have any physical contact with her parents.
Under existing law, BCH and other like institutions are permitted to subject children to this treatment and more. As referenced, children under state care may be used in drug trials and medical research. The following is extracted from Boston Children's Hospital Clinical Investigation Policy and Procedure Manual:
Children who are Wards of the state may be included in research that presents minimal risk 46.404 (50.51) or greater than minimal risk with a prospect of direct benefit 46.405 ( 50.52) of subpart DPlease continue reading the hospital's manual for further details. The abbreviated IRB term refers to Institutional Review Board.
Children who are Wards of the state may be included in research that presents greater than minimal risk with no prospect of direct benefit (46.406 (50.53) or 46.407 ( 50.54) only if the IRB determines and documents that such research is...
It may seem implausible that minors are test products, but these industry-conceived programs have been federally sanctioned for decades.
A recent study commissioned by the Georgia Supreme Court found that anywhere from 26% to 43% of foster care children have been prescribed psychotropic drugs. Most, 45-75 %, of these medications are not FDA approved for use in children. In other words pharmaceutical reps via physicians are prescribing these behavioral agents off label. This is definitively medical child abuse.
Boston Children's Hospital experimentation practices on "taken children" are detailed in the Kathleen Higgins complaint letter and The Boston Globe articles: " A medical collision with a child in the middle" and " Frustration on all fronts in struggle over child’s future."