Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous's Latest Target: Boston Children's Hospital

Brandon Butler writes: "Supporters of the faceless collective known as Anonymous have taken up the cause of a young girl, after the State of Massachusetts removed her from her parents earlier this year. However, the methods used to show support may have unintended consequences, which could impact patient care. On Thursday, the Boston Children's Hospital confirmed that they were subjected to multiple DDoS attacks over the Easter holiday. Said attacks, which have continued throughout the week, aim to take the hospital's website offline. Similar attacks, including website defacement, have also targeted the Wayside Youth and Family Support Network. Both organizations are at the heart of a sensitive topic, child welfare and the rights of a parent." Members of Anonymous are now calling for a halt to the attacks.

202 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. faceless collective? by Virtucon · · Score: 1
    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:faceless collective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's reichstaging, pure and simple. First, they'll call gun owners the bad guys, criminalize firearms and take away ownership. Then, they'll call hackers the bad guys, criminalize computers and take away access. Then, they'll call students the bad guys, criminalize colleges and take away the books. Ad infinitum.

      If you're one of the bad guys, then they're one of the good guys and don't have to be good to you -- jew.

    2. Re:faceless collective? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      That is not dead which can eternal lie
      Yet with stranger eons, even death may die

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    3. Re:faceless collective? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Is "Reichstag-ing" an actual thing? I'm confused as to how the Nazi leadership burning down the national legislature's building works in this analogy...as they were political opponents, not really a gathering of "Untermensch." Although I'm sure the standard "the Jews are secretly in charge of everything" bit was in play.

      If you're going to Godwin the conversation, at least use the right terminology, eh?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    4. Re:faceless collective? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Well if that's the definition, we could just use "serendipity" to describe it with a word people actually know. Added bonus of not being a Godwin.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    5. Re:faceless collective? by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Dude (or dudette) you need to iron your tinfoil hat cause the wrinkles are affecting your logic. If you questions with a rant based on linear logic I suggest you get some logic texts and improve your understanding of what leads to the kind of beliefs you have brewing in your tinfoil covered head.
      Seriously, I don't want to demean you, I just want you to understand that your understanding and response to the problems of today, our world, whatever you want to call it, do nothing to solve the real problems. You do care, which I support, but you need to study to understand what direction your caring could/should lead you. Then your opinions will help find solutions rather than snarky replies.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  2. That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've worked in healthcare.
    The company I worked for had their services hosted for at a data center. That Data Center also hosted some Banks.
    Groups like anonymous think they are performing some social disobedience by DDoS the banks, Also DDoS the actual Data center. While it took a few minutes for the network to switch over there were a few hundred doctors who couldn't access their software, for that time.

    XKCD described these attacks like vandalizing a bill board. But it is more like vandalizing a bill board by shooting a gun at it, and not knowing who or what is behind it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sounds like your post's subject should be reading "This is why hosted services are Bad MmmKaa."

      It's all good and well to blame the 'hackers' - and they should be - but next time a critter chews through a cable, lightning strikes, somebody trips over a wire, or something else rather more benign happens and those doctors would have had the same issue.

      On the up side, at least there was a switch-over.

    2. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes people trip and fall down stairs. Sometimes assholes push people down stairs. That doesn't mean "stairs are bad" nor does it make someone who pushes someone down the stairs any less of an asshole.

    3. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      So you are expecting every small company to afford a large network infrastructure. A lot of the services you enjoy a rather a cheap price, is due to these data centers.
      The customers who were not hosted didn't go down... However because they ran the software on a PC under the desk, they had 2x the total outages and often lasted for hours, due to poor infrastructure.

      I do blame the "hackers", as they were the ones who went on purpose to damage a computer network. They said to themselves "Self, I am going to do something today that will negatively effect someone else".

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by QuasiSteve · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you are expecting every small company to afford a large network infrastructure

      Not at all - I do expect the large network infrastructure providers to be able to harden themselves against such attacks, especially given their clients.

      Like I said - at least it had a switch-over, so although doctors could not access things for 'minutes' (how many are we talking about anyway?), they should have been mostly unaffected.

      That said - some absolutely critical things should not be placed under the total care of service providers. Would you do away with your HDD/SSD and rely entirely on cloud storage?

    5. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by cdrudge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you are expecting every small company to afford a large network infrastructure.

      No. But I do expect companies that require their hosted services in order to function have backup plans should the service go down.

      If in this case of the original comment about several hundred doctors not being able to access their information when the banks were under attack...several hundred doctors isn't a small company. That's a large medical organization. Or if whoever was running the service was treating it like an overloaded shared server then they get what they pay for.

    6. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So like when a woman is drunk and she gets raped, it's her fault. Gotcha.

      You "Don't blame the victim!" people are completely mindless. Do you know what "false dichotomy" means? It is possible for multiple parties to be at fault. It is possible that the victim is an idiot for putting themselves in a situation that a reasonable person would know not to put themselves into. This doesn't really apply in a situation where you're going about your business and someone decides to rape you, but it does in a situation where you choose to use technology you know is insecure, something that puts other people *at risk* no matter how much you whine and cry about how evil other people are.

      And have you ever heard of "negligence," or anything remotely similar to it? Jesus. Get a fucking brain, and drop the "stop blaming the victim" bullshit; it's old and tired, and you have no idea how to use it.

    7. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Really? Looked to me like he was saying that it's partly the fault of people who choose to use something that they know is insecure. He did not say that the crackers are blameless or should not be punished; that was your own delusion, and is a mere straw man.

      Victims can indeed share some of the blame, especially in situations like this. The false dilemmas are mind bogglingly stupid.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    8. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So then you're agreeing if I leave my door unlocked at night and someone comes in and steals something, it's my fault because the asshat thought it was okay to steal?

      Shall we take that twisted logic to the next phase and say if you get shot it's partly your fault because you weren't wearing a bullet-resistant vest? After all, you knowingly wore something which wasn't secure (your shirt/jacket) so obviously it's partly your fault for getting shot.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    9. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      So then you're agreeing if I leave my door unlocked at night and someone comes in and steals something, it's my fault because the asshat thought it was okay to steal?

      It is entirely possible that multiple parties could be at fault. Now, there are certain limitations, and that's when it isn't reasonable to expect someone to do something (as it would affect their life in a large way) or they couldn't possibly know how to counter whatever the Bad Thing is. The fact that you're taking this to the extreme without even attempting to understand the general idea of what other people are saying is rather annoying.

      The problem with attitudes like yours is that they don't take into account reality. It seems you'd rather ignore reality and whine, cry, and scream about evil people exist, all the while knowingly choosing to be insecure.

      Shall we take that twisted logic to the next phase and say if you get shot it's partly your fault because you weren't wearing a bullet-resistant vest?

      Shall I take that twisted logic to mean that we should never have developed any sort of security whatsoever, and just whined when something we knew could be prevented happened?

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    10. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      So you are expecting every small company to afford a large network infrastructure.

      Small companies like banks and hospitals..... sure.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    11. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So like when a woman is drunk and she gets raped, it's her fault. Gotcha.

      Your analogy isn't perfectly correct: It's more like 'If some woman walks into the bad part of town and gets drunk, then proceeds to wander through the streets wearing only a negligee and waving around a bag of condoms while screaming "somebody fuck me!", then she bears some of the liability.

      Before you react - allow me to clarify what GP did not: She gets none of the legal blame (and should never bear any), but reality dictates that you don't go wandering into a pit of starving bears wearing only a loincloth made of steaks.

      Similarly, setting up services in a shared datacenter means you should know up-front the risks of doing so (accidentally cut fiber, datacenter management fuckup, FBI ICE seizure, DDoS, carrier fuckups, etc), and if your services are critical, you damned sure need to plan/mitigate accordingly.

      Essentially what you're saying is asshats like Anonymous don't have to take personal responsibility for their actions because their victims were asking for it.

      No, GP did not. What he did say was that if you don't know the (pretty damned obvious) risks and mitigations of going into something, then you shouldn't be considered competent enough to do it, and therefore should not do it.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    12. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by tangelogee · · Score: 1

      So then you're agreeing if I leave my door unlocked at night and someone comes in and steals something, it's my fault because the asshat thought it was okay to steal?

      Whereas you are right to a certain extent, there are cases that victims can be partially to blame. In New York State, you can be ticketed for leaving an unattended car running. There have been cases of people reporting their car stolen, and getting ticketed when the police show up.

    13. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Yaur · · Score: 1

      I pay 9$ a month for hosting of my projects server through webfaction which is substantially less than any connection I could get that included a static IP. There is really no excuse except ignorance for hosting your website "under your desk" except ignorance. Obviously there are issues with shared hosting for places like hospitals, but once you have to deal with stuff like HIPPA there is even less excuse for under the desk hosting.

    14. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      If I'm in a hospital or doctors office and the quality of my care is dependent on the stability of their network, there's definitely something very wrong.

    15. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      In addition to considering the risks, consider the limitations and the probabilities. If Boston Children's Hospital had an unlimited IT budget, they could buy the best hardware and security staff money could buy. Similarly, if they were a front for an organized crime operation, they'd want full control over their IT because it's likely they'd be attacked (by law enforcement.) Finally, if this was Kabul Children's Hospital in Afghanistan, they'd want to spend more on security (both physical and virtual) due to the higher likelihood of being attacked (both physically and probably virtually.)

      But I suspect BCH doesn't have a security staff armed with machine guns because they estimated the probability of a group of armed individuals attacking the facility at "extremely small." Similarly, they opted for the hosting they did rather than something more secure and expensive because they estimated the probability of an electronic attack as extremely small because who would attack the network of a HOSPITAL for CHILDREN in Boston?

      In my opinion, there's a right way to fight this fight -- as the family is doing, through the courts. I think Anonymous is fighting the wrong way and it's going to come around to bite Anonymous in the ass sooner or later. If anyone is caught and prosecuted for this, you bet the prosecution is going to paint them as someone who endangered the lives of sick children and that would resonate strongly in jurors' minds. The defense would have a tough time counteracting that characterization. That characterization is likely to leak into the media's depiction and characterization of Anonymous.

    16. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The both your organization and the banks fucked up. You shouldn't have outsourced something so critical to your business if thats the case.

      You most certainly don't connect devices and networks for medical devices to a public network, if you did, you shouldn't be fired, you should be fired at with a large caliber weapon for not knowing what the fuck you were doing. YOU put peoples lives at risk.

      What the hell is wrong with you that you have software that has to be used offsite for medical purposes?

      Note: I've worked in health care too, NOTHING critical EVER is allowed to rely on something that isn't ENTIRELY under the hospitals control. If you need to talk to the outside world for basic medical care, you absolutely, beyond any argument FUCKED UP.

      And in this case, I'm willing to bet that the hospital had no care issues, their just trying to play politics and say how evil this attack is, trying to play bleeding hearts and ignorance.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    17. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by N_Piper · · Score: 1

      Hospitals are not "every small company" the simple fact is that they are currently legally bound to various parts of the Hippocratic oath does not automatically make the hospital manager a saintly self sacrificing person.

    18. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by rezme · · Score: 1

      Have you ever left your car door unlocked and come back to find your radio or other valuables missing? I'm willing to bet that if you had, you were equally pissed at the asshats that stole your stuff, and yourself for forgetting to lock the door. It's happened to me, and I was pretty pissed at myself for allowing the situation that caused my stuff to get stolen. I bore the blame for my part in that interaction, namely leaving my stuff out available to be stolen, even while blaming the little thieves that chose to steal it. The existence of fault on one party's side doesn't preclude the existence of fault on the other. I don't think a single person here has said that Anon is not to blame for the issue here, but there is some responsibility on the part of an organization that is in charge of children's medical information to exercise a little due diligence in ensuring that data is secure. If that comes down to hiring an independent contractor to perform an assessment of their proposed hosting solution because nobody at the hospital has the skill to perform such an assessment themselves, then so be it.

    19. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      "But I suspect BCH doesn't have a security staff armed with machine guns"

      You never know. As soon as the Peltiers tried to take their daughter home, men with guns showed up pretty fast.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    20. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      If you're intentionally walking in a bad part of town, alone and drunk in the middle of the night, yes.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    21. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      But some people NEED to be pushed down stairs, so it doesn't always make the pusher an asshole.

      Nobody NEEDS to be pushed down stairs.

      They should be shoved.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    22. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's failsafes and safeguards in place for stuff like that - redundant connections, generators, that kind of thing. However when someone intentionally attempts to take a facility offline, they attack the safeguards as well (e.g. flooding the redundant link too). And that affects thousands more than the intended target.

      Of course they'll just dismiss that as "guilty by association. Shouldn't host with such places that host criminals" (ignoring the fact that they themselves are the criminals).

      Which is why people who DDoS need to get a life and cut that shit out.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    23. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And when your accountant is also an accountant to the mob, when he's arrested, you are out an accountant. The government should never have enforced those laws because it harmed others.

      Or maybe there should be a move towards ethical hosting?

    24. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So then you're agreeing if I leave my door unlocked at night and someone comes in and steals something, it's my fault because the asshat thought it was okay to steal?

      Did you fail to take due care to look after your stuff? I think so, so yes, it's your fault. If you hadn't acted negligently, you wouldn't have lost your stuff.

    25. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "because who would attack the network of a HOSPITAL for CHILDREN in Boston?"

      yah who would want the names, dates, SSN #s, and all related medical data of patients?!? crazy to think anyone would.. oh wait.

      and then of course there are the hippa laws which mandate patient data security... hmm

    26. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So then you're agreeing if I leave my door unlocked at night and someone comes in and steals something, it's my fault because the asshat thought it was okay to steal?

      If "your stuff" includes, say, my medical files you left on the kitchen table, then yes, you're responsible. The burglar is guilty of burglary and you are guilty of negligence.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    27. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Intron · · Score: 1

      Shall we take that twisted logic to the next phase and say if you get shot it's partly your fault because you weren't wearing a bullet-resistant vest? After all, you knowingly wore something which wasn't secure (your shirt/jacket) so obviously it's partly your fault for getting shot.

      Depends. Are you in Afghanistan?

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    28. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      Don't trust the shover robot.

    29. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Groups like anonymous think they are performing some social disobedience by DDoS the banks, Also DDoS the actual Data center. While it took a few minutes for the network to switch over there were a few hundred doctors who couldn't access their software, for that time.

      I prefer means that don't do harm, but from an incentives perspective, Anonymous may be making some difference.

      Is a datacenter contemplating taking on a shitty client like a bank that screws its customers? They're going to have to spend more time and money on DDoS protection.

      Is a hospital contemplating the costs of doing a very douchy thing to a kid? They're going to have to include the cost of defending against online attacks.

      One effective way to dissuade a bully is to fight back. Kicking him in the balls is not out of bounds. Anonymous may be behaving poorly _and_ getting results. Probably too soon to tell for sure.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    30. Re: That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by astar · · Score: 1

      +1
      As it happens I am fine blaming the victim. But maybe blame is sort of something a dumb ass does. But that suggests that if you learned to blame yourself for what happened to the victim then you might end up less a dumb ass. As far as our standardized victim she should blame herself for not seeing how you set her up. After getting over that, she should recognize that you the dumb ass are not going to be helpful and the only one who will help her situation is herself. At this point we have a nice Hobbsian utopia.

    31. Re:That is why social Hacking is Bad MmmKaa. by NateTech · · Score: 1

      That's what Boston Children's wants... if she dies before the Courts decide to let her out, there's no witnesses.

      --
      +++OK ATH
  3. What we would like to know by BisuDagger · · Score: 1

    Is, why the girl was removed from her parents? Seems kind of hard to take sides on this without the full story. if someone could provide a link to the issues with the girl that'd be great.

    1. Re:What we would like to know by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      If I recall the story the parents and her primary care physician disagreed with the hospital on her treatment (and her illness). The hospital decided the parents and the doctor were acting in a manner unsafe for the child and took her.

      Personally a bunch of BS, the families own doctor selected the course of treatment, why should the hospital have the ability to override and steal a child?

    2. Re:What we would like to know by alen · · Score: 1

      the way i understand it is that your family doctor may have privileges in the hospital where you are staying, but the hospital's own doctor's make the final decision on the diagnosis and the treatment. The chief of the department to the attending and the residents. your doctor is there to answer their questions unless he is one of the above in the pecking order. even then depending on the diagnosis, you may have several departments in the hospital have to agree on a diagnosis and treatment plan and course of action

    3. Re:What we would like to know by Tucan · · Score: 5, Informative
    4. Re:What we would like to know by rhsanborn · · Score: 3, Informative

      We can't know the details, because releasing them would be a violation of patient health information privacy laws. So we only get to hear the story from the side of the parents. We do know the physicians at the hospital have diagnosed the child with medical child abuse. A key point form the Slate article someone else linked is that 1 in 10 children who are abused medically, die. It isn't something that is taken lightly.

    5. Re:What we would like to know by greyparrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would like to see the followup on this story. Did she do better after being removed from her parents? That would be the test, in part, for Munchausen. The whole thing has become very political.

    6. Re:What we would like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The family's own doctor selected a course of treatment _without_ performing the standard diagnostic test to indicate the condition. Also, this family went forum-shopping for a doctor until they found one that gave the diagnosis they wanted.

      On the surface this looks like a classic case of Münchausen syndrome by proxy. Other clues--the hospital said that the girl seemed less tense when her parents weren't around.

      I was taken away from my alcoholic mother for a year. I met two other kids (brother and sister) while in foster care whose parents pimped them out.

      It's a drastic measure to take kids away from their parents, but the kids will survive, whether it turns out to have been warranted or not. Calm the f* down.

    7. Re:What we would like to know by Talderas · · Score: 1

      The same thing would probably happen to most of their members?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    8. Re:What we would like to know by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It seems odd that she still hasn't had a muscle biopsy to confirm the diagnosis because of concerns over pain and anesthesia even though she's already had surgery to insert a port into her digestive tract.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    9. Re:What we would like to know by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Are you implying I'm not calm? I don't understand that last sentence...

      If the doctor is not doing his job, perhaps the hospital should move to have his license to practice medicine revoked. That seems like the best way to solve this problem. If he truly does invasive medical procedures without cause he should be removed from the profession to protect us all.

    10. Re:What we would like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The doctor diagnosed her with an actual physical illness without running the tests needed to diagnose her. Boston Children's Hospital did some of those tests, and they indicated that she probably didn't have it.

      They said her parents were medically abusing her because they took her to a large number of doctors and appeared to be doing forum-shopping until they found a diagnosis they liked - mitochondrial disease is claimed by roughly 50% of parents who are ultimately found guilty of medical abuse. Her parents also had a port installed in her digestive tract, which was fairly risky (due to the surgery and increased chance of infection until it's removed) and wouldn't have helped with her disease, if it was real.

    11. Re:What we would like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just that whenever someone hears about child protective services taking a child away, they usually freak out, unless the family is obviously raving lunatics, which is rarely the case (because families tend to hide their problems). Yes, there are times when the state needlessly takes a kid. But how should they err--on the side of false negatives or false positives? Which is more harmful, accidentally taking a kid away from a family, or allowing physical or psychological abuse to continue? Normally, the latter is by far the greater risk. A kid taken away from their parents is not going to be permanently scarred for life; kids aren't that fragile.

      As for the diagnosis, maybe the doctor was justified in not ordering the diagnostic muscle biopsy. Maybe not. All we know is that a hospital committee (composed of multiple doctors) came to one conclusion, and a single doctor--the family's doctor--came to another. And the hospital went to the state to take the child away _temporarily_ until things are cleared up.

    12. Re:What we would like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Two different hospitals and two different doctors. The doctor who made the desired diagnosis realized that he was out of his depth at some point and referred the patient to the 2nd hospital. The 2nd hospital (with more expertise in the relevant areas) examined the facts and made a different diagnosis. Despite best efforts misdiagnoses happen all the time because medicine and biology are extremely complex. People don't lose their license over it; they learn and move on. In borderline cases the disagreement can persist and in that case, the State usually goes with the institution with the better track record (as they did here).

    13. Re:What we would like to know by PortHaven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The hospital pretty much does not believe in Mitochondrial disease. Just as many didn't believe in fibromylangia or Lyme disease.

      And instead claim "she is just crazy..."

      They might as well say the reason your daughter can't walk anymore is because she is a teenage girl and suffers from hysteria.

    14. Re:What we would like to know by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I was looking for that.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    15. Re:What we would like to know by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      Google - we're not your lazy ass servant.

      There are hundreds of articles documenting the fact that she has become almost incapacitated under BCH/CPS care.

      This family will receive a $50 million settlement when this is all done.

    16. Re:What we would like to know by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Great, but what's their source? I have a million articles saying candy is a cure for cancer. They're all sourced out of my ass, but I have a lot of them!

      If you make a claim, you back it up. I can't seem to find where Justina is losing her goddamned hair.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    17. Re:What we would like to know by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Wait, I just realized their is a test of this illness....

      This should be pretty cut and dry then, perform the test, if she has the illness then she can go home...right?

    18. Re:What we would like to know by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Looked to me like a psychiatrist doesn't believe in the disease she was being treated for, and so considered the treatment abuse. The rest was the "natural result" of that. http://www.madinamerica.com/20... http://www.theblaze.com/storie... (just the first two links from my search, there are piles more)

    19. Re:What we would like to know by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      She's losing her hair and refusing to walk because of all the stress from the DDoS.

    20. Re:What we would like to know by jazkat · · Score: 1

      I understand your view, given your background. And yeah, in normal circumstances, the kids will survive. But this is not a normal circumstance.

      Given that her physical condition is much, much worse now than it was when these shenanigans began, and given that DCF is not permitting the treatment for the condition that she actually has, it's highly likely that if she is not released to her parents in the next month or two she will die.

    21. Re:What we would like to know by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      It's strange having a disease that some doctors don't accept.

      I've had doctors look at my chart or ask me for background and give great sympathy for having fibromyalgia, and mention other patients they have whose symptoms are even worse. Then there are other doctors who have sneered at it, and basically accused the other doctors of being incompetent for even believing in such a thing.

    22. Re:What we would like to know by jazkat · · Score: 1

      It's very telling that the Pelletiers have not been charged with anything... furthermore, the Connecticut DCF investigated their home and family and found everything to be in excellent condition. If the "medical child abuse" claims had any actual merit, why haven't the parents been charged with anything after 14 months?

    23. Re:What we would like to know by jazkat · · Score: 1

      I'm curious where you read that Tufts didn't do tests and Boston Children's did do the tests. All of the evidence I've seen is that this whole mess is based upon the uninformed opinion of a junior doctor 7 months out of med school. They didn't do any tests - they simply declared that she was a victim of medical child abuse and took her away from her parents.

    24. Re:What we would like to know by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      The hospital pretty much does not believe in Mitochondrial disease. Just as many didn't believe in fibromylangia or Lyme disease.

      I'm not aware of anyone who "didn't believe in Lyme disease". I AM aware that the vast majority of medical professionals still reject "chronic Lyme disease", because there's no evidence for it.

      Fibromylangia is just a label that's been stuck on a bunch of symptoms which may or may not be related, and may or may not have a common cause. Everyone agrees that the symptoms exist - nobody can show a mechanism which explains them all.

      And instead claim "she is just crazy..."

      In cases like the ones you mentioned, that diagnosis is accurate 9 times out of 10. Mitochondrial disease is different since we actually know more or less what causes it, and have pretty good tests for it which can rule out purely psychosomatic illnesses. However, given that her only real assessment was a diagnosis by her parents who then went doctor-shopping for a guy who agreed with them .... I'd say "you're all crazy" is a far more likely explanation than "she has a rare and trendy disease which you've successfully diagnosed via google and paranoia".

    25. Re:What we would like to know by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      BCH had a doctor on staff that had previously treated her. The girl had been referred to that doctor by a doctor at Tufts. Wouldn't you think that just maybe they should have talked to that doctor on staff before making a hip shoot diagnosis of "psychological problem"? The doctor at Tufts was completely cut out despite being the referring physician.

      As to Lyme disease, my recollection is that it took some time before the mysterious collection of symptoms had an identifiable cause let a lone a diagnostic test.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    26. Re:What we would like to know by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't just the parents. The referring physician has some things to say, and the Boston Globe reports that BCH has a string of highly contentious cases in which children were taken away. I think a key question is why didn't BCH have the doctor on staff that had previously treated her see her, since that was the reason she was referred to BCH? You might think that would be useful before saying the whole problem is in her head. The way this travesty is working out it is the state and BCH that is engaged in medical child abuse. Surely it can't be better when the state does it.

      Frustration on all fronts in struggle over child’s future

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  4. Re:All I can say to that is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You.

    Why would you do this!

  5. Dumbass Collective by oldhack · · Score: 1

    aka Fucktard Mob, just one symptom of a fucktard country.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  6. Impacting patient care? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    If the smooth operation of a hospital's web site has any effect on patient care, I'm not sure I would entrust my mortal shell to such a hospital.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Impacting patient care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not just the website. Attacks were made on email servers, VPN endpoints (for a multi-site hospital), and substantial attempts were made to access patient record data.

  7. which could impact patient care by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Attacks to a website could impact patient care? If there is any truth at all to this (which I really doubt) then people should be made aware of it immediately. Thanks Anonymous, I really want to know if I'm going to get patient care at a hospital where that care could be compromised just by a problem on their website.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:which could impact patient care by guyniraxn · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This is another made up scare. The NetworkWorld article linked says the danger isn't in the DDOS attack but in the possibility that the evil hackers will "pivot" and probe for information. When they do that, vital life support systems assumed to be connected to the internet will malfunction because they presumably can't handle someone browsing for whatever actionable information NetworkWorld assumes Anonymous is after.

    2. Re:which could impact patient care by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, it could.

      1. Most hospitals are operating at a loss, thus do not have money to maintain a strong infrastructure. Meaning that website could be on the same pipe as the rest of the organization.

      2. The web sites now offer more services to patients and other providers. Such as logging in and able to send their Medical Records, Book and Appointment, or securely send a message to your doctor.

      3. If you kill the Router (That devices that will need to direct you to the website) as the device wouldn't expect that type of load, it causes problems with other places it is trying to work with. As the software will often need to talk to other locations. For example Lab work is often done at different locations then sent over to your Dr. for review. If the network goes down the Dr. may not get the results.

      In short you do not know how things are connected, and could be combined with other things that you don't expect.

      To say, It is only a website doesn't mean DDoS the site will not cause other problems.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:which could impact patient care by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Informative

      1. Children's hospitals receive donations and nail research grants with an alarming deftness. Boston Children's Hospital is, according to their own architecture, the best. There's no shortage of money. They did have some layoffs a couple of years ago, but with a ridiculous savings ratio (255 jobs, costing 89.5 million annually, constituting somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3% of their budget.)

      2. Their primary website is located at 134.174.13.251 (childrenshospital.org). Patient info retrieval is hosted on 134.174.13.5 (apps.childrenshospital.org). There is a booking form located on the main site, but at any rate it's working just fine now.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    4. Re:which could impact patient care by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      In short you do not know how things are connected, and could be combined with other things that you don't expect.

      I don't know how things are connected, but I do know how things should be connected. That is, for any such organization, their public website should be hosted remotely on a hosting provider somewhere. It shouldn't be a door directly into the hospital. the patient records, drug delivery control software, or even the computerized toilets. Hosting the website locally is a big red lag that someone doesn't know what they are doing and puts patients at risk.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    5. Re:which could impact patient care by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Yes, it could.

      1. Most hospitals are operating at a loss, thus do not have money to maintain a strong infrastructure. Meaning that website could be on the same pipe as the rest of the organization.

      One would think that HIPAA would nix that idea. I could be wrong, but patient records on the same direct wiring as the public Internet? I'd not only fire the architect, I'd have the SOB castrated to insure that his stupidity didn't pass on to any future progeny. It ain't that expensive to buy a decent pair of firewalls and segment things out.

      2. The web sites now offer more services to patients and other providers. Such as logging in and able to send their Medical Records, Book and Appointment, or securely send a message to your doctor.

      So do banking sites (money transfers, billpay, etc), which often run even leaner than hospitals (at least the smaller banks and credit unions do) - they also know enough that a breach on their site could send them to insolvency, so they plan and spend appropriately. You;d think that a hospital, who stands to literally kill people if their stuff is breached, would do the same. Please let me know which ones do not, so I can avoid ever using their services.

      3. If you kill the Router (That devices that will need to direct you to the website) as the device wouldn't expect that type of load, it causes problems with other places it is trying to work with.

      *cough*port channels*cough*vlans*cough*ACLs*cough*...

      As the software will often need to talk to other locations. For example Lab work is often done at different locations then sent over to your Dr. for review. If the network goes down the Dr. may not get the results.

      ...which is why the humble fax machine and telephone still exists: Call lab, lab sends fax, etc...

      Long story short - even on a budget, if it's important, there are workarounds.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:which could impact patient care by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      "1. Most hospitals are operating at a loss, thus do not have money to maintain a strong infrastructure. Meaning that website could be on the same pipe as the rest of the organization."

      Then they should not be running internet facing machines if they cant afford robust hosting and compatmentalization. This is like saying 'well we cant afford elevators so we will jsut use the stairs for everything.' If you have IT infrastructure, its costs BUCKETS of money to run it, if you cant afford that then you have no business running internet facing services.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:which could impact patient care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. Most hospitals are operating at a loss, thus do not have money to maintain a strong infrastructure. Meaning that website could be on the same pipe as the rest of the organization.

      Only in the same sense that every record and every movie operates at a loss.

    8. Re:which could impact patient care by maccodemonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      1. Children's hospitals receive donations and nail research grants with an alarming deftness. Boston Children's Hospital is, according to their own architecture, the best. There's no shortage of money. They did have some layoffs a couple of years ago, but with a ridiculous savings ratio (255 jobs, costing 89.5 million annually, constituting somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3% of their budget.)

      Having income is not the same thing as having money. Hospitals and medical care is expensive, especially in the US. It looks like that job cut was due to a $150 million budget shortfall.

    9. Re:which could impact patient care by stox · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, non-profit hospitals are, in many cases, a sham. Yes, the "hospital" is losing money, while all the doctors working there are pulling in substantial incomes at the same time.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    10. Re:which could impact patient care by sessamoid · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, non-profit hospitals are, in many cases, a sham. Yes, the "hospital" is losing money, while all the doctors working there are pulling in substantial incomes at the same time.

      Are you suggesting that those doctors, nurses, technicians should all work for free?

      Regardless, what the physicians make has little to do with how the hospital fares. In the US, hospitals rarely employ physicians. Hospitals are just one of the places where doctors go to take care of patients. There's usually little financial linkage between the two.

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    11. Re:which could impact patient care by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Hosting the website locally is a big red lag that someone doesn't know what they are doing and puts patients at risk.

      Uh, bullshit. There's no reason at all that the website couldn't be hosted locally behind a DMZ with no access to the internal network barring administrative access by designated website administrators. This doesn't put anyone at risk at all.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    12. Re:which could impact patient care by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      A "load balancer" is a router. They just don't claim to be, because you can get a "router" from D-Link for $50, and they are charging $20,000 for the F5 load balancer.

      DNS does direction.

      Never mind. You've heard the words before, but don't know what they mean. DNS does "direction" like a yellow pages does "direction". Giving a physical address for a logical name isn't "direction". The "direction" is given by a router (including load balancers). Load balancers are just policy-based routers (or SDN routers, if you are around too many people that like new things they don't understand).

      Load balancers are generally what goes down to a DDoS.

      Not if you get the good ones. A Russian mobster tried to take down an Australian gambling site, and the F5s protecting it stayed up. In the end, the Internet for Australia went down before the load balancers for the site went down. Australia had to go upstream and get Singapore and others to put in filters to get the Internet for Australia back up.

    13. Re:which could impact patient care by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      No, the implication of "non profit" implies some charity motive. Most "non profits" these days are run as for-profits where the excess profits are not returned to the owners (that's illegal) but to the directors and executives (legal). Though, is it legal when two non-profits have the owners of one the directors of the other, and vice versa? They make profits, but pay them out to non-owners (legal).

      Non-profit is an IRS "trick" to reduce expenses, and doesn't prevent making a profit, or paying out a profit, but prevents paying out a profit as dividends to the owners (and allows grant funding). That's about all.

      But people still have the image of "non-profit" means nun-like charity.

    14. Re:which could impact patient care by hey! · · Score: 1

      That is, for any such organization, their public website should be hosted remotely on a hosting provider somewhere. It shouldn't be a door directly into the hospital. the patient records, drug delivery control software, or even the computerized toilets.

      What makes you think Children's Internet services aren't set up exactly the way you suggest?

      Here's a conundrum: how do you make information on the hospital available to the public yet hide it from Anonymous? How do you make it possible for parents to schedule and confirm their appointments with their child's oncologist without exposing the systems they would use to DDoS?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    15. Re:which could impact patient care by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Glassdoor suggests that the doctors working there aren't making all that much money, and a quick google around suggests that the top administrator is not all that well-paid in terms of the hospital's gross income.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:which could impact patient care by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You have your non-profit well established before you try any funny business. Even if the business isn't too funny, many "charities" own private jets, and buy hookers for the CEOs (though rarely listed explicitly as such on the expense report). You only hear about a few that get caught, most don't.

    17. Re:which could impact patient care by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      There's no reason at all that the website couldn't be hosted locally behind a DMZ with no access to the internal network barring administrative access by designated website administrators.

      Well, no reason other than hospitals hate IT and are not willing pay anything near industry standard to get a competent IT person.They spend hundreds of thousands a year on the doctors, millions per year on specialized machinery (which, admittedly gets frequent use, in situations where it is not called for, and then bill the patient because the insurance company knows it is not medically necessary), billions on fancy facilities, but spend almost nothing on IT and pay almost nothing to interns, residents and administrative staff.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    18. Re:which could impact patient care by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, non-profit hospitals are, in many cases, a sham. Yes, the "hospital" is losing money, while all the doctors working there are pulling in substantial incomes at the same time.

      This. How do you not make a profit? You write off construction costs, salaries, new machinery, business lunches, telecommunications, IT, all of your typical business costs. Still showing a small profit? No problem, add a wing to the hospital, pay some bonuses, throw a gala party on somebodies yacht, put it into "paid in capital". Congratulations, you now have no profit.
      Also, note that non-profit is a tax designation. For profit business pretty much operate the same way. Profits are taxable and they don't want to have to pay taxes, so they usually try to reinvest it or distribute it. For profit businesses still have to pay sales taxes, while non-profits don't, but sales tax is a deductible expense.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    19. Re:which could impact patient care by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I never said it justified it, only that there are costs to running internet facing services that you cant just handwave away.

      --
      Good-bye
    20. Re:which could impact patient care by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with that. Even in countries with socialised healthcare, this is a major problem. Where I am, the hospital's network engineers might get $80k (if they're lucky) and require so many qualifications that noone bothers applying for the job, and still have to pay for their own parking (while senior doctors get $120k, free parking, free lunch, and anything else they ask for).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    21. Re:which could impact patient care by Silas+is+back · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, non-profit hospitals are, in many cases, a sham. Yes, the "hospital" is losing money, while all the doctors working there are pulling in substantial incomes at the same time.

      You do realize that med school leaves you with student loans of around 300k and the real money doesn't start to flow before you're 35-40 – by which time you probably have kids and should start to save up for their education? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... And the very high suicide rate is probably not because of the 80-100 hours a week and litigation threats but because they can't afford to have both their Porsches waxed twice a week.

      --
      this sig is useless
  8. Re:All I can say to that is... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

    No, it's just 'Doctor'.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  9. Re:Stupidity in action. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    21st century lynch mob in action

  10. Of course he is by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Blame the victim is popular on Slashdot. If a person doesn't have perfect digital security, run all their services themselves, and stay on top of everything, why it is their own fault if they get hacked!

    Of course the people who think that then would get extremely angry if someone broke in to their house, despite their piss poor physical security (almost nobody has good security on their house). Basically it is just a mentality of "I can do what I want but you can't do anything to me."

    1. Re:Of course he is by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blame the victim is popular on Slashdot.

      You know what else is popular? Playing the "You're blaming the victim!" card, and doing it in a way that's utterly absurd. I know you can't fathom how it's possible that *multiple people* can be at fault for something, or that you could say that the victim should have taken reasonable measures to prevent the Bad Thing from happening (In situations where this is reasonable and possible, of course.) without saying that the attacker is blameless or deserves no punishment, but it is possible.

      Funnily enough, he even said: "It's all good and well to blame the 'hackers' - and they should be".

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    2. Re:Of course he is by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Now, now, it's quite literally blaming the victim of the crime for the crime. That's what's going on here.

    3. Re:Of course he is by dugancent · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is, unfortunately, a hotbed of educated people with little common sense.

      As a side note, a DDOS attack is the lamest form of protest I can imagine.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    4. Re:Of course he is by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance, so is the price of hosting services on the internet. Hell i have to keep a close eye on my personal NAS, i get about 5 attempts to hack every single day. Also DDOS isnt breaking into anyones house, its a million people ringing your doorbell to the point no one else can ring it.

      --
      Good-bye
    5. Re:Of course he is by tomhath · · Score: 1

      if BCH did not kidnap children (Justina), then Anonymous would have no reason to go after them.

      It is not anyone from Anonymous' place to judge that there was a kidnapping.

    6. Re:Of course he is by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      I hate "common sense." Detest the phrase, detest the use of it as a justification for anything, detest the people that embrace it. No, the people who are douchebags on slashdot are engaged in good old fashioned is/should fallacy, a world-wide human favorite.

    7. Re:Of course he is by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      You're working on the assumption that blaming the victim is always unjustified. We seem to suffer a lot from "that's a fallacy! BOOM--conversation over, you lost, instant Godwin!" around here instead of actually listening to the argument for five fucking seconds.

      Knee-jerk pop psychology. Crack out the book of fallacies--there's one in here for everything! :D

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    8. Re:Of course he is by Kalriath · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure Occupy Wall Street managed to increase exposure of a problem without burning down some buildings too. Attacking infrastructure to draw attention to your cause does nothing but cement your status as a criminal and harm sympathy for your cause.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    9. Re:Of course he is by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The only victim here is Justina. Justina is not being blamed. So no, that's not what is going on here.

    10. Re:Of course he is by Intron · · Score: 1

      But its ok for people on Slashdot to judge Anonymous.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    11. Re:Of course he is by Intron · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Occupy Wall Street managed to increase exposure of a problem without burning down some buildings too. Attacking infrastructure to draw attention to your cause does nothing but cement your status as a criminal and harm sympathy for your cause.

      So obstructing access to a building is ok,but not obstructing access to a website? Or did they burn down a website, I'm confused.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    12. Re:Of course he is by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I don't believe Occupy Wall Street actually did obstruct access to a building (apart from maybe some bad actors).

      And DDoS is by no means equivalent to "obstructing access to a building". The scattergun methods by which it works have flow on effects to all the infrastructure leading up to and including the target (any routes in between, any hosts co-located in the same facility) and have costs far in excess of the "lost business" (seen the bandwidth cost of a DDoS? Let's just say expect a $20k invoice from the service provider).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    13. Re:Of course he is by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Jesus Fuck, it's like in your haste to show us all how smart you are, you forgot to consider how monumentally fucking retarded you are.

      And you're completely worthless and unintelligent for utterly misinterpreting my words. I said nothing about this specific case, or whether they took reasonable measures against attacks. If you want to debate that, go elsewhere, because I sure didn't say anything about it in my post. Instead, I was telling people not to use the bullshit "Stop blaming the victim!" card.

      Try reading next time, you piece of trash.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    14. Re:Of course he is by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      And I was responding to you to explain EXACTLY how it truly IS "blaming the victim."

      You didn't explain that. You were disputing how effective and reasonable their solution is, which is 100% different. That's what you should be doing, rather than resorting to that "You're blaming the victim!" bullshit, which is 100% illogical.

      You ARE blaming the victim.

      I never said anything about the victim; I merely said that other people weren't blaming any victim. Saying that someone could do something to improve their security isn't at all the same thing as saying they're 100% at fault for the crime and that the attacker should get away.

      I explained all this. Debunked that "You're blaming the victim!" bullshit in a bunch of different posts, and you still continue with it. I responded to every possible stupid argue. Just stop it. Argue over the reasonableness of their security, but don't use bullshit emotional appeals to try to get out of making logical arguments. I'm not even going to bother responding to more pointless analogies, as I've debunked that sort of bullshit logic.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    15. Re:Of course he is by BiIl_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      So yeah, try actually reading the posts in the discussion next time before accusing me of "blaming the victims" (especially when I didn't say anything about the victim, and I explained how other people were not doing so, and even debunked the same sort of arguments you made in that fucking post elsewhere).

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    16. Re:Of course he is by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      The best part about so-called "common sense" is that you most often hear about it from those claiming that nobody has it.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  11. Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state power by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Informative

    I heard about it on the radio a couple of weeks ago. This case is an absolutely appalling abuse of power.

    Advocates Fight for Justina Pelletier, Teen Held by State in Psych Ward

    One day Justina Pelletier was a seemingly healthy teenager performing jumps and spirals at a skating show and six weeks later, on Feb. 10, 2013, she was in the emergency room at Children's Hospital in Boston after a severe bout with the flu, refusing to eat and barely able to walk.

    Her parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier of West Hartford, Conn., say their daughter was diagnosed and being treated at Tufts Medical Center for mitochondrial disease, a rare genetic disorder with physical symptoms that can affect every part of the body. Justina's sister Jessica, 25, is also being treated for the disease.

    But three days later, a team of doctors at Boston Children's said her symptoms were psychosomatic, according to the family. The hospital then filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families, as required by law, because they suspected the parents of child abuse for subjecting their daughter to invasive medical treatments and denying her mental health therapy. ... more

    Pelletier Family Files Habeas Corpus Pleading, Points Out Disturbing Facts About Boston Children’s Hospital

    ... Among other things, the Petition also argues that the requirement to issue detailed written findings of fact and conclusions of law justifying DCF’s intervention has never been met. Never has the juvenile court issued such required findings of fact or conclusions of law.

    “This case comes down to the simple fact that new doctors at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH), who had no experience with Justina, came up with a different diagnosis than her expert treating physicians at Tufts Medical Center,” said Staver. “The state cannot take children from their parents when the parents make reasonable choices for their medical care. This case is outrageous,” said Staver. .... Justina has gone from a competitive figure skater to being confined to a wheelchair,” said Staver.

    Fourteen months ago, Justina, now fifteen years old, was seized by Massachusetts DCF after her parents, at the direction of Dr. Mark Korson, took her to Boston Children’s Hospital to see Dr. Alejandro Flores, a gastroenterologist who had previously treated Justina when he worked at Tufts Medical Center before he transferred to BCH. Dr. Korson, Chief of Metabolic Services at Tufts Medical Center, was Justina’s primary physician who was treating her for Mitochondrial disease. Instead of allowing Justina to see Dr. Flores, Justina saw Dr. Jurriaan Peters, a BCH resident only seven months out of medical school. He brought in Dr. Simona Bujoreanu, a psychologist who coauthored an article in which she contends that in up to 50% of children who present with physical complaints, the complaints are not physical but mental. Without consulting with Dr. Korson or Flores, Dr. Bujoreanu rendered a diagnosis of Somatoform disorder. Without a thorough review of her care, she opined that Justina’s physical complaints were mental, not physical. BCH then presented the family with a new treatment plan to discontinue all medical care and medications and which forbade any second opinions. When the parents refused to sign the new treatment plan and requested that Justina be discharged so they could take her back to Tufts Medical Center, BCH called DCF, and DCF prevented the family from discharging Justina

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  12. Adolescent script kiddies by jopet · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some probably adolescent script kiddies with an ego by far exceeding their intelligence try to play digital lynch mob.
    What pathetic little cunts.
    Not for the first time showing how much worse than individual stupidity their collective stupditiy can be.

    1. Re:Adolescent script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have no idea. I ran with Anonymous before they became "hacktivists" (back when they were still doing POOL'S CLOSED, etc). Encyclopedia Dramatica had a picture of one of the raids on Habbo I participated in - I think the newer incarnation of it still does (I was the guy copy-pasting Clarence Carter's "Strokin'" over and over again). Back then, Anonymous raided PURELY to screw with people and get a reaction. It wasn't about activism, it wasn't about "changing things" or trying to fight perceived injustices. It was about hearing Hal Turner (pre-arrest) scream himself hoarse on the radio after the tenth caller in a row started playing the Fresh Prince themesong over the phone, or sending people thousands of empty USPS boxes.

      The real split (though I think this is well-known history at this point) came when Anonymous started attacking Scientology. There were those of us who were doing it for laughs, who did the whole "WE DO NOT FORGIVE WE DO NOT FORGET" thing purely as a joke, and were basically just a group of people from 4Chan's /b/ who had nothing better to do.

      The current incarnation of Anonymous are the people who started taking that joke seriously and decided to venture into hacking (even though as far as I know, Anonymous actually has only a few real hackers), DDoS, and other script kiddie stuff. I personally left because I knew that at that point, the level of what Anonymous was doing had gone from (relatively) harmless trolling to things that could get people arrested. Plenty of other people thought the same way. I'm willing to bet that very few, if any, of the current people in Anonymous trace their roots back to the Habbo raids, or to 4Chan at all, and that's because all of the people who were around for the Habbo raids were the ones who were smart enough to leave when things started getting serious.

      The only real Anonymous is the one on 4Chan. The new group are just using the name.

  13. What about Justina? by BBF_BBF · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's been a year now since Justina was removed from her parents.

    It should be painfully obvious if her health issues were as a result of her parents' psychological pressure since she hasn't been under their influence for over a year. So why don't any of the "advocates" fighting for the parents actually show us how Justina's doing now?

    If Justina is FINE now, then it would be quite obvious that the Doctors at the Boston Children's Hospital were correct. If she's still suffering from the same symptoms, then the parents have a much stronger case.

    1. Re:What about Justina? by Megol · · Score: 1

      So you think psychological problems just goes away like the flick of a switch? It doesn't. Many mental diseases are permanent and treatment just lessens the problems or make the symptom free periods longer.

      That includes the mental scars from abuse.

    2. Re:What about Justina? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      She is not fine, in fact she is degrading. Her hair is falling out and she can no longer even walk.

    3. Re:What about Justina? by psm321 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They do... if you review any of the available information on the case it's obvious that she is both physically and psychologically much worse off now. Wheelchair-bound instead of ice-skating and smuggling notes begging to be taken out and saying "I feel like I'm in jail". BCH and the judge messed up (possibly with good intentions at first) and now are perpetuating their mistake to try to cover it up.

  14. "State takes custody of teenage girl" by Onuma · · Score: 2

    If she were my child, there would be no way I would let them stop me from getting her back. If paperwork and appeals didn't do the trick, I would very quickly escalate the actions I took to ensure her safety and care under my responsibility. That might mean intimidation or violence...so be it. They threw the first stone.

    The State has absolutely no reason to take these parents' child from them.

    --
    What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    1. Re:"State takes custody of teenage girl" by TC+Wilcox · · Score: 2

      If she were my child, there would be no way I would let them stop me from getting her back. If paperwork and appeals didn't do the trick, I would very quickly escalate the actions I took to ensure her safety and care under my responsibility. That might mean intimidation or violence...so be it. They threw the first stone. The State has absolutely no reason to take these parents' child from them.

      I agree with you that that The State had no reason to take the child, but be careful. The State views those that use violence against it as the most vile criminals and would not hesitate to have you thrown in prison. If you are in prison how can you help your child?

    2. Re:"State takes custody of teenage girl" by Onuma · · Score: 1

      I get that, but neither can you help your child if there is so much red tape binding your hands and so much bureaucratic process blocking the way.

      Violence is never the preferred answer...but when it IS the answer, there is no other substitute.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    3. Re:"State takes custody of teenage girl" by hey! · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if you were physically assaulting your daughter and putting her life at risk, I'd still be happy when DYS came to take her out of your custody. And I'd probably cheer when some Boston cop put a bullet in your brain to stop your deranged rampage.

      But that scenario, like yours, is based on presuppositions, not facts. Maybe we should wait for the facts to come out before advocating violence. When this girl is 18, she can tell her own story.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:"State takes custody of teenage girl" by Onuma · · Score: 1

      You mistake my intent. I'm not saying these parents should be using violence, but I am stating that it may be worth considering, and that I would have very likely resorted to calculated violence in order to gain my own child back by this point. I consider means which these parents have obviously ruled out by this point.

      And as for facts, we have wildly conflicting opinions from two regularly-reputable sources: Tufts and BCH (who was referred by Tufts). The former diagnosed Mitochondrial Disease, which makes sense given the symptoms we know. The latter diagnosed Somatoform Disorder, which is psychological in nature. If there is a dispute, then why have doctors at Tufts not asserted their opinion more fervently, or reconsidered their diagnoses? Why have the doctors at BCH not considered the possibility that Tufts may be right? Why hasn't a completely external review been done on this case, which has been an international headline? After all, most medical professionals consider alternate opinions a good thing.

      You don't need a PhD to understand that something is wrong with the medical system, at least in this particular instance. One or more parties are obviously withholding information, being suppressed, or are lying. The real question is: why?

      In the meanwhile, I side with the parents. Yes, I am biased because I am a parent myself.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    5. Re:"State takes custody of teenage girl" by hey! · · Score: 1

      And as for facts, we have wildly conflicting opinions from two regularly-reputable sources: Tufts and BCH (who was referred by Tufts).

      True, but the problem is that the parents went shopping for a diagnosis they'd previously settled on. So it's not just Tufts vs. Children's. It's Tufts vs. Children's and all the other doctors who gave the parents a diagnosis they didn't like.

      This doesn't necessarily mean the parents are deliberate medical abusers. Diagnosis shopping *is* a red flag, but it's entirely possible they settled on "mitochondrial disease" because they have an older daughter who received that diagnosis and were familiar with some of the symptoms. This would also explain the form the younger daughter's somatoform disorder took. Given a daughter with somatoform disorder inspired by her older sister, and a disease with somewhat fuzzy diagnostic criteria, it wouldn't be hard for well-intentioned but stubborn parents to find a doctor who will give them the diagnosis they seek. Maybe even a very *good* doctor, particularly given that repeated rejections give them an opportunity to unconsciously tweak their presentation.

      In the meanwhile, I side with the parents. Yes, I am biased because I am a parent myself.

      I side with the hospital, and *I'm* a parent myself. And it's not because I'm a fan of authority, because I'm not. It's because I think there is no motive for Children's to act in bad faith here. This is a bad situation for them, and the easiest, most self-interested thing to do would have been to send the girl back to Tufts to be treated for a disease they didn't think she had. BCH may be *wrong* in their diagnosis, but I think the prima facie evidence tends to indicate that they're acting in good faith.

      I *assume* the Tufts doctor is acting in good faith, but given that Children's has implicitly accused him of being duped into giving substandard care he may be a little defensive. This is understandable, even though if the patient's parents had been physician shopping they'd have learned, consciously or not, how to be very convincing in obtaining the diagnosis they wanted.

      As for the parents, their good faith is neither here nor there. Their good faith would not be probative in the question of their child's diagnosis. Crusading advocate parents making emotional (read "bad") decisions can be hard to tell from Munchhausen by proxy parents. So for now I choose to believe that they're acting in good faith. There can be horrible situations which arise from *everyone* trying to do the right thing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  15. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

    Munchausen by proxy? That would be tough since they have so little access to her. If anything this is Munchausen by state agency.

    Why she has gotten progressively worse in state care over the last year plus? Might that be a sign that treating a physical ailment by psychological means may be ... "ineffective"?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  16. Doubts by asmcmnemonic · · Score: 1

    From one angle, why do I have a feeling that this possiblility of the system being complex and fragile was deliberately intended to use the patients as potential human-shields against Anonymous? And from another angle, assuming that complexity and fragility was a false claim aimed for trickery, wouldn't that confuse Anonymous' attacks to possibly control and lessen the potential damage caused by their attacks on the healthcare servers? If those healthcare centers are cooperating with the corrupted jurisdictional system, sooner or later, things wouldn't look good at all, neither the cyberspace nor in the streets against the officials. Another way to see it would be the possibility that the system is indeed complex and fragile, that it does affect the patients' alarm system, leading to patients getting either severly harmed or death. Those attacks wouldn't justify the prevention of harm just to return Justina home, and it wouldn't support Anonymous for their cause to help the powerless against perhaps the corporational bullies and corrupts. Classifying Anonymous as a group of criminals that tries to help a girl that was forcefully taken away from her parents return back home is absurd. Being a criminal is one thing, while being a vigilante for the sake of helping the weak is something totally different.

  17. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    You didn't really get the back story right, and I never claimed that DDoSing the hospital helps at all. I have to say it is odd that you think that.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  18. Members calling for a halt to the attacks. by mmell · · Score: 1
    "The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."

    Incidentally, an avalanche is generally considered a destructive force.

    1. Re:Members calling for a halt to the attacks. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've heard "an avalanche of good fortune", it's not destructive, just a large thing that comes all at once.

  19. I assume this is the Justina Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I assume this is the Justina Case

    https://www.theskepticsguide.org/podcast/sgu/457 has a segment on it.

  20. Re:All I can say to that is... by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    Hospitals and doctors are just an awful symptom of our horrible health care system.
    How would you like to sit in an ER all day?

    Versus?

  21. Already affecting patients by Cobalt+Jacket · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My son is a child with fragile health, and we associate with many other, similar families as a support mechanism. While I am not in the Boston area, we do know families that are there, and who frequent Boston Children's. One of them that we associate with let everyone in one of these support groups know that the patient scheduling system had been affected by the Anonymous operation, and so she was unable to schedule her son's surgery. Boston Children's needs to keep their clinical systems more protected, but the bottom line is that Anonymous is filled with grade-A assholes.

    1. Re:Already affecting patients by Cobalt+Jacket · · Score: 1

      That's nice. I don't think any of us know the full side of the story. That part doesn't matter. Anonymous is now potentially interfering with the health of other children. This is not a bank. Also, as I have already mentioned, my child is a frequent flier at a children's hospital, so let me say, fuck you very much.

    2. Re:Already affecting patients by hey! · · Score: 1

      You are supporting a hospital that is currently using the law to abuse a child,

      And why, pray tell, would they do that? What's the mysterious incentive to file a spurious child abuse report that's worth risking malpractice, loss of medical license, and public shame?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Already affecting patients by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So they refuse to schedule over the phone? Or are their internal systems down because of outside traffic? If that's the case, just pull the plug (on the Internet, not the kid).

    4. Re:Already affecting patients by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And why, pray tell, would they do that? What's the mysterious incentive to file a spurious child abuse report that's worth risking malpractice, loss of medical license, and public shame?

      Oh, there need not be a mystery. Idiots double down on their mistakes *all the time*. In fact, that's one of the things that defines an idiot.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  22. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Little access? They had like 15 _years_ of access to her. What in the fuck are you carrying on about?

    She has been under state control now for well over a year. She has gotten worse under state control.

    If you think this is all "in her head" you are wrong. Go read the ABC News story. There is enough medical history to show that it isn't.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  23. Another possibility you haven't thought of by tomhath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everyone agrees that there is something wrong with the child.

    The problem is that the parents are fixated on a specific disease which clinical tests do not support. So instead of trying to find out what's really wrong with her, the parents went looking for another doctor who would give them the diagnosis they want. Think about that.

    1. Re:Another possibility you haven't thought of by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      That's not true, necessarily. It's difficult, but doable.

      Source.

      For instance, you can do muscle, blood and urinary tests.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  24. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by maccodemonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    I heard about it on the radio a couple of weeks ago. This case is an absolutely appalling abuse of power.

    I did some Googling on this case in since I hadn't yet heard about it. Found this article:
    http://www.slate.com/articles/...

    If it's true that the parents shopped around for doctors to perform surgeries, and had extreme surgeries carried out around mitochondrial disease with no diagnostic based diagnosis that raises a ton of red flags.

    If you're going to make your kid get a stomach shunt, you'd at least want to run a few tests first, no? It seems reasonable that the doctors would want to separate the child from her parents if they thought they were unreasonably subjecting their daughter to medical procedures. Worst case: Childrens runs the diagnostics that should have been run in the first place, finds evidence of mitochondrial disease, gives the child back, and there is no harm done. If the doctors are right? Then a child's health may have been destroyed for no reason.

  25. Because by PortHaven · · Score: 1, Insightful

    BCH is kidnapping and torturing children.

  26. Well... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Since the elective representative process is broken. Would you prefer they used guns instead to enact change?

  27. Most businesses by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Are operating at a loss....but that's largely because of accounting, and paying execs millions of dollars.

    1. Re:Most businesses by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Having low margins as an organization doesn't neccessarily mean anything. There's plenty of "Hollywood accounting" even outside the movie industry.

    2. Re:Most businesses by tragedy · · Score: 1

      I already replied to you, but I thought It was worth noting that the CEO you were listening to makes about $2 million dollars a year.

  28. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by fermion · · Score: 2

    The law says that if a abuse is suspected, it must be reported and investigation must occur. There is no abuse of state power if a child is taken away because there is significant indication that abuse occurs. The problem here is the medical profession. They do not nearly spend enough time admitting they most administer palliatives and in many cases just choose the obvious diagnosis without really checking if it makes sense. Patients are also to blame as they believe the media, which has convinced most of us that a pill or topical solution is the answer to all our problems. So here is a child with a problem. Doctors have 10 minutes to make a diagnosis. Parents are desperate for a solution. Parents may have caused the problem,but if the did then doctors need to treat the parents, not the child. If doctors were trained to treat patients instead of individual problems maybe they could have treated the family. The Boston doctors appeared to be the first to look at the entire medical history, the family, and make a diagnosis. The NYT has monthly articles on patients that suffer because doctors are treating a symptom instead of the patients. I don't if this child has a illness that is treatable by drugs or a procedure, or if the illness requires the parents to change the behavior. What is suggested by the article is past doctors have not been helping her, so with the framework of trying something new, this seems a next reasonable step.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  29. Thoughtless how... by PortHaven · · Score: 2

    Pretty much all other means outside of the use of force have failed. What else do you want us to do to help these parants.

    Cause frankly, if this dad asked for help to rescue his daughter by force, I will tell you there are quite a few of us ready to come up to Mass and pledge our rifles if need be.

    1. Re:Thoughtless how... by KrackerJax · · Score: 1

      How do you KNOW a situation like this isn't occurring: http://www.tdcaa.com/node/2871

      Oh right, it is much more fun to form a strong opinion and talk about mach shit like rifles than carefully thinking through a situation and gathering more information.

      --
      Sauer
    2. Re:Thoughtless how... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      While I won't outright dismiss your viewpoint, I would point out that "come up to Mass and pledge our rifles if need be" is the definition of vigilantism as you've framed it and guaranteed to end up in the lynching of an innocent person sooner or later.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    3. Re:Thoughtless how... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I don't want to help the parents. The child is the person who should be helped, not the parents.

    4. Re:Thoughtless how... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      if this dad asked for help to rescue his daughter by force, I will tell you there are quite a few of us ready to come up to Mass and pledge our rifles if need be.

      I'm sure... The crazies always seem to attract more crazies:

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  30. And some possibilites you may not have thought of by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

    Its great you have a theory, but two sisters having the same genetic disease wouldn't be shocking. If you read the ABC news story above you'll see that there is meaningful medical history there that can't be faked. You're assuming that the chief of metabolism at Tufts medical center is wrong, and that Boston Children's diagnosis, for which there is no diagnostic test, is right. And then there is the fact that Boston Children's apparently has a history of these sort of "contentious" actions as noted in the story below.

    Frustration on all fronts in struggle over child’s future

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  31. Why girl was removed. by PortHaven · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Girl has a rare mitochondrial disease, her sibling has been diagnosed with it as well. She was receiving treatment at Tuft's. She was ill with a stomach bug, but has complications (ie: has a access point in her intestines for treatment access). When they contacted the primary physican they work with on their daughter's illness. He informed the family that the gastreoentologist they work with was now at BCH (not too far away). And that they might want to go there since he is already familiar with her and her case.

    PROBLEM:

    When they arrive, they don't get to see their regular specialist. Instead, a doctor with only a few years of experience decides that she doesn't have mitochondrial disease. Why? Because BCH doesn't really believe it exists (this has in fact led to the death of a 5 year old patient in BCH's care, when the sibling was later diagnosed with it as well and confirmed by three other tests. They released the child. The parents now receive care at Tufts. And their son has greatly improved under Tuft's care. Sadly, their daughter is dead because of BCH.)

    So BCH essentially says that ALL of these ailments are in fact in the daughter's head. They seize the daughter. File a claim against the parents for medical abuse. That's right, the abuse the parents are charged with is NOT refusing medical treatment for their daughter, but in seeking medical treatment for their daughter.

    Their daughter was locked away for 7 months in BCH's psych ward. Probably about the time the family's insurance quit paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for her to be there. Then she was released into Child Protective Services care. Since being in BCH/CPS' care, their daughter's health has deteriorated. And many are concerned the lack of treatment will eventually kill Justina.

    As for the case against the parents. BCH/CPS pretty much disallowed participation (even against the law) of doctors and personel who worked prior with Justina. In fact, they refuse to conduct tests that would prove them wrong. And here lies the crux of the problem.

    What BCH and CPS has done constitutes a several million dollar lawsuit. If they back down, they are sure to be sued and lose millions. So they've dug their heels in....

    It's pretty insane...but this is the same government that sends SWAT teams to arrest elderly handicapped folk who grow orchids and fail to file the proper paperwork.

    1. Re:Why girl was removed. by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      What BCH and CPS has done constitutes a several million dollar lawsuit. If they back down, they are sure to be sued and lose millions. So they've dug their heels in....

      It would be nice if a law suit were possible. But when I was researching this subject, I couldn't uncover one successful suit against a state CPS (If we ignore gripes by employees and contractors. I mean an action by a parent against CPS for wrongly taking the parent's kid). CPS (or more specifically, a particular state CPS agency) can not be legally accused of having insufficient justification for taking a kid. I'll try to explain.

      In criminal law, in order for the state to remove a defendant's freedom, the state must show that she or he broke a law, something defined by statute. The statute will have conditions which must be met For example, in order for the state to convict someone for trespassing, the perpetrator must have knowingly been on the property, and he/she must have disobeyed a sign, barrier (like a fence), or a personally-communicated no-trespassing order from the property owner or his/her agent. The law has a definition, and someone can look it up for their jurisdiction.

      In family court law, in a CPS action, legally, the state isn't accusing the kid or his parents of wrongdoing. The state is claiming that the kid is "at risk" of something happening to the kid, and, legally, although the kid may go to kiddy-jail, the action is not about the kid's freedom. The action is legally for the kid's benefit. The Guardian ad Litem, one of the attorneys working to lock-up the kid, is legally the kid's attorney. --- I'm getting too far from my point.

      There is no pre-defined list of behaviors that merit taking a kid away from his/her family. There is no clear definition of "neglect" or "abuse" in respect to a kid-removing action. Many states have a criminal statute of child abuse, but that's something different. A parent doesn't need to be charged with anything to lose his or her baby.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
  32. Except that's not exactly true... by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Informative

    a) Mitochondrial disease is not well understood, and Justina in fact shows symptoms that point to such. As does her sibling.

    b) BCH had a similar case, they tried to seize a 5 year old girl. Only thing is when Child Protective Services (CPS) went to the home, they realized it was someone who used to work for them and that they knew were not a danger. So custody was restored.

    c) But at this point, their 5 year old daughter had gone without treatment for so long. She died.

    d) Their son began to show similar symptoms. This time BCH did do a test. The result showed positive. But they did not inform the parents for three months. And still did not act on it. A second test was done by an independent lab. Which also confirmed evidence of mitochondrial disease. Their son was released.

    e) Their son has since gotten treatment at Tufts under the same doctor treating Justina. Who is regarded as one of the premier experts in this field. Oh, guess what. After the restoration of treatment, their son's condition improved. Shame their daughter hadn't been treated by BCH, or she'd probably be alive.

    f) BCH killed one child and is now killing another.

    1. Re:Except that's not exactly true... by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      a)... Only thing is when Child Protective Services (CPS) went to the home, they realized it was someone who used to work for them and that they knew were not a danger. So custody was restored.

      Incorrect. (And let's assume your details are all accurate.) CPSs of any state don't have a bit of care about if there is "a danger" for the kid or not. That's just propaganda for public consumption. It's simply about money.

      However, there are certain groups of people who are immune from getting their kids snatched. These are groups that may cause repercussions to their racket: Lawyers; Judges; Police; Other members of the legal system; CPS employees and contractors, including foster contractors; Famous people; Religious leaders of some decent rank; Noted civil rights people; American Indians (this is a special statutory group); People with political connections; and Rich people.

      Your person "who used to work for them" was, I'm guessing, a foster contractor. This places him/her in an immune category, but certainly not a safe one considering statistically a kid is many times more likely to get hurt of killed in foster custody as opposed to the custody of the natural parents.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
  33. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Informative

    No! What is going on at Boston Childre's is in no way reasonable. Please read the ABC News story. Does this seem "psychosomatic" to you?

    Justina's ordeal began in 2010, when she had severe cramps because of a stomach blockage, according to her father. Doctors at Connecticut Children's Hospital unsuccessfully tried to "flush" her lower intestinal tract and subsequently did exploratory surgery, he said. Doctors found a congenital band, about 20 inches of cartilage wrapped around her colon and removed that and the girl's appendix, he said.

    In 2011, when her condition did not improve, he said doctors referred Justina to Dr. Alejandro F. Flores, a gastroenterologist at Tufts.

    Does referral to a gastroenterologist seem "unreasonable" for a problems of the bowel and stomach??

    You don't suppose that the problem could be with Boston Children's? You might want to read this too:

    Frustration on all fronts in struggle over child’s future

    The abuse here is by Boston Children's in the form of an ultimatum: abandon the treatment plan from an expert in the medical area where your daughter has been experiencing problems, as proven by surgery, for our treatment plan that says it is all in your daughter's head or we will use state power to seize control of your child.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  34. No... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    What we know is that several doctors were excluded. Doctors who by law and policy should of been included. What we know is that BCH has a history of issues over this diagnosis, because they don't recognize it.

    And hey shithead. Her condition has significantly worsened while she's been trapped and tortured in the mental ward without receiving medical care. Oh, we're not talking about a podunk hospital doctor here. We're talking about a head of Tufts Hospital.

    Oh, and pretty much every independent review, has come away in Justina's family's favor.

    1. Re:No... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      How about 300 to 500 million?

      People often look at it from a point of view of reimbursing the victims. But in cases like these, the goal is to dissuade further like behavior.

      How do you do that with BCH? Hit them in the pocket book. If it costs the stake holders money (not sure it it's a state or public hospital), changes will be made, people will lose their jobs, etc. As it should be. If the State does own BCH, then every taxpayer should have a line item on their property tax bill..."$100 because BCH was a bunch of pricks."

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:No... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What we know is that one (and apparently only one) doctor diagnosed her with a rare condition (that was diagnosed by the parents first, and they shopped docs until they found someone that would confirm it). And, when taken to a "real" hospital for an intestinal issue, the doctors there didn't confirm the diagnosis of the family doctor. When the diagnosis wasn't confirmed, the psychiatrists were called in, and think that the parents forced the diagnosis on the child to make her special.

      So, if the one lone doctor is right, then the hospital is staffed with idiots. If the hospital is right and the lone doctor wrong, then it looks like actual abuse. So how would you like it handled?

    3. Re:No... by hey! · · Score: 2

      Tufts NEMC does have a long history with pediatrics, but Boston Children's is the go to hospital for advanced pediatric care in Boston -- possibly even the US. Tufts has 66 pediatric beds; Children's has 395.

      Children's is obligated by law to report suspected cases of Munchhausen by proxy; it was the courts that ordered this girl taken out of her parents' care. There's no upside to Children's for reporting a parent they don't actually suspect of medical abuse. For one thing, the parents and Internet "activists" can make any claim they want about Children's, but the hospital can't even defend itself. It's hands are tied by HIPAA.

      Nobody not directly involved with this case knows the truth. All anyone else knows is what the parents have told the media. It's entirely possible that the parents sincerely believe they're doing the best possible thing by their daughter. But stretches credulity that Children's reported the parents out of vindictiveness. Children's has a high degree of public regard and trust; it's been rated the top pediatric hospital in the country by US News an World Report for the last 23 consecutive years. It's hard to imagine any reason the hospital would jeopardize that degree of public regard by deliberately issuing a *spurious* report of suspected child abuse.

      So I think it's safe to say that Children's reported what its doctors suspected was a case of child abuse, as it is obligated to under the law. If anyone should be attacked by hactivists, it should be the Massachusetts legislature for passing child protection laws, and the courts that enforced the law.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:No... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Why did her parents never confirm the diagnosis? There wasn't a medical test confirming her disgnosis ever done. Because this basic step was deliberately avoided by the parents, they got into trouble later. Some things seem fishy from both sides. It doesn't appear as clear-cut as you assert (multiple times in similar wording).

      Also, it appears the parents shopped doctors looking for one that was willing to diagnose her without doing any tests. She had been seen by others for the same mitochondrial disease, but wasn't diagnosed with it. So they kept looking. Why? Is it that they read about it on the Internet, and didn't care whether she had it, but diagnosed her with it, so she'd have it, even if she didn't?

      It may be as simple as someone seeing that most medical abuse is by parents who insisted the child had mitochondrial disease, so BCH made the assumption that anyone who insisted it was such, without a prior objective diagnosis, was considered abusive. Given the numbers involved, that's a logical conclusion, even if it results in too many false positives.

      I know that if I were still in the US, I'd likely have had CPS issues. I moved out of the US because it's unfixable. But I have a 7 year old who managed at age 4 to jump off a box 3 feet high and break an arm clean through (highly improbable), or fell getting out of a car at about the same age, landing on his face, and breaking a tooth, and recently fell in the shower, requiring 12 stitches across his eyebrow. At least all but one were when he was under supervised care (day care or after-school programs) with well established organizations with good reputations, so no suspicion was cast. He's just a klutz. He has constant bruises from where he runs into door knobs, walls, chairs, and such.

      In the US, there are protests if a child was reported but not immediately pulled in cases of "real abuse" and protests when "real abuse" is reported and the child is immediately pulled.

      My mother worked CPS her whole life. My sister worked CPS. Lasted a year before she had her breakdown and quit. Her example of why is:
      "You go to a house. The parents are loving and safe. But they won't say no to an uncle who comes in and rapes the children. So you know, for certain, that if you don't pull the children, the next time the uncle gets out of prison, he will be allowed to rape the children by the negligent parents. And you know that the parents love the children, and care for them well, aside from a blind spot for a particular relative. So, do you pull the children out of a loving household, subjecting them to foster care for as long as they are children (over 8 siblings have a near-zero chance of adoption), or leave them in a household with a 100% chance of being raped?"

      When you can answer that, you can comment on CPS.

    5. Re:No... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The articles conflict. Some indicate she was wheelchair bound and "hair falling out" when BCH reported abuse. Others say that happened since. The only ones legally allowed to comment are the parents, and they are obviously not unbiased.

    6. Re:No... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      BCH has been involved in a string of highly contentious cases in which children were taken from their parents. In this case the child had been referred to a doctor at BCH that had previous treated the child and it appears that doctor was never seen and had no say before the new diagnosis of a psychological problem was used to take the child. Doesn't that strike you as more than a little odd? The referring physician at Tufts that had seen her and referred her was cut out completely, and she was his patient. Yet another oddity. Your theory regarding a "*spurious*" report doesn't really seem to describe the situation. It looks more like someone had a pet theory and applied it to this case, resulting in disaster for the family and improper treatment for the girl who is reported to be going down hill. The hactivists are wrong, but BCH and DFS haven't covered themselves in glory in this case either.

      Frustration on all fronts in struggle over child’s future

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  35. AC by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    100% not true.

    When this is done, I sadly wager that someone will be dead (probably Justina) and the BCH doctor will lose his license.

  36. Okay... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    So let me ask you this...

    When parents refuse to allow their children to receive medical treatment...what do we do? We take their kids away and exclaim that we're erring on the side of real medical treatment.

    So why the fuck when a hospital as well known as Tufts, and who is the premier expert in this particular area is treating a child with very good results. Do we let another hospital say, no, we're going to refuse medical care because we think she's just faking it.

    WTF

  37. Okay...let's clear some things up. by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Justina has a GI issue, essentially her intestines down move stuff properly. They get clogged. Rather than remove much of the colin as many recommend for such, the doctor proposed the port be added to allow them to flush.

    This was not a "we are doing more than we should", but let's try an alternative to avoid doing a horrendous surgery.

    Her sister was tested and confirmed. BCH won't test. They don't beleive in the disease. In fact they killed a 5 year old girl by refusing to test or treat. Her brother later was confirmed to have it. And was dying under BCH care. But after an independent lab also confirmed the boy to have it. BCH released him. He is since doing well, being treated at Tufts by Justina's doctor.

    But his older sister is DEAD!!!

    Read that FUCKING DEAD!!!! Because of BCH's ego.

  38. It's NOT complex... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    It was done largely without basis because BCH doesn't recognize the illness that Justina was being treated for. That is the real issue.

    If it was ALL in her !@#$ head, Justina would be getting better. Not worse....

    The fact she has gotten severely worse without treatment pretty much shows that BCH's diagnosis was WRONG. And Tuft's is in fact more likely correct.

    But you dumb fucks are arguing that it's better to say "oh silly girl, it's all in your head, we're going to refuse to get you medical care, as you continue to sicken and die". And if a parent said this, Child Protective Services would call it abuse. But because Harvard's children's hospital says it....we blame the parents.

    But Justina was doing fairly well under treatment at Tufts. She's becoming an invalid under BCH.

  39. Actually, no... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    I've read reports by doctors, reports by investigators, reports by even some involved who have admitted that the process done by BCH/CPS violated procedure (for example, those physicians already involved were supposed to be a part of the health review and were not allowed to participate).

    And we're not talking about a podunk hospital kook. We're talking about Tuft's another highly recognized hospital.

  40. No... by PortHaven · · Score: 2

    Long Story Short.

    Parents have sick child with rare condition not very well understood.

    BCH doesn't believe condition exists. (BCH is already documented with killing one child with this condition.) So when parents arrive and reference diagnosis. BCH immediately assumes the parents are harming the kids.

    BCH and CPS kidnap and torture, and likely will kill the child. All while refusing medical care. Because they like "crazy parents" who believe their kid doesn't need medical care because it's all in their silly teenage daughter's head.

    BCH's diagnosis has proved wrong by the results. But now BCH and CPS are too invested. To capitulate, admits wrong doing, which will lead to a $10-$50 million lawsuit.

  41. Blind machinegunner in Kindergarten by meerling · · Score: 1

    There have been some things I feel supportive of that 'anonymous' has done. Unfortunately they mostly inspire the desire for them to just go away due to their sheer incompetence. Their 'protests' tend to disproportionately affect the innocent. Some morons may whine it's just unavoidable collateral damage. No, no it isn't. For example, posting information about thousands of credit card users to attack the credit card company. Hey dumbass! You hurt thousands of people to mildly inconvenience a company. In the real world that would be like using chemical warfare to kill off a town so the local morgue would have more 'customers' than they could handle. It's just plain stupid.

    There are better ways of handling things, both within and without the law, but your pitchfork and torch wielding mob called 'anonymous' is just a riotous mob causing damage to everything, especially those that are innocent victims, while only inconveniencing those they claim to be targets. I guess they really are without leadership, and it shows.

  42. Tests were done... by PortHaven · · Score: 2

    She was confirmed with GI issues. The shunt, isn't extreme. It was an alternative to the proposition of removing a large portion of her intestines. (The more common treatment which has far greater life long consequences.)

    BCH refused to run the tests. They killed a five year old girl because they refused to. When her brother came with similar symptoms. They wanted to charge the mother. But finally ran a test. It confirmed mitochondrial disease, but they didn't tell the parents. Then a second lab confirmed the test. And finally they conceded the possibility their son might have the disease. Family's son is now doing well (being treated at Tuft's by Justina's doctor)...sadly, his older sister is DEAD!!! DEAD!!! DEAD!!!

    You can thank the !@#$ at BCH

    1. Re:Tests were done... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      You know, when I read posts by you, I read them in a voice of a hysterical doomsayer yelling on a street corner, because that's how you write. That and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint that counters your own because god forbid you actually consider what someone else says and say "you know what? I'm going to look into this before I shoot my mouth off".

      Basically, you sound like a rabid dog, and harm your credibility with every post.

      Plus, it doesn't help that cold fjord agrees with you, and he has the credibility of Glenn Beck.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    2. Re:Tests were done... by maccodemonkey · · Score: 2

      She was confirmed with GI issues.

      Did she see a GI specialist? No.
      Were any actual diagnostic tests run? No.
      Was she verified to have mitochondrial disease as the source of these issues? Nope, even though such tests for it exists.
      Are there other medical issues that cause the same set of problems? Yep
      Do GI issues automatically imply she has mitochondrial disease? Hell to the no

      She could very well have mitochondrial disease. But at this point she basically has Schrodinger's Cat disease because her parents won't run any actual tests that exist for the thing they say she has. That her parents refuse to run any tests for the problem they are adamant she has isn't damning, but it would set off the same Münchausen's by proxy flags it set off for the doctors.

    3. Re:Tests were done... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You managed to badly wrong with your post right from the start.

      Pelletier Family Files Habeas Corpus Pleading, Points Out Disturbing Facts About Boston Children’s Hospital

      Fourteen months ago, Justina, now fifteen years old, was seized by Massachusetts DCF after her parents, at the direction of Dr. Mark Korson, took her to Boston Children’s Hospital to see Dr. Alejandro Flores, a gastroenterologist who had previously treated Justina when he worked at Tufts Medical Center before he transferred to BCH. Dr. Korson, Chief of Metabolic Services at Tufts Medical Center, was Justina’s primary physician who was treating her for Mitochondrial disease. Instead of allowing Justina to see Dr. Flores, Justina saw Dr. Jurriaan Peters, a BCH resident only seven months out of medical school. He brought in Dr. Simona Bujoreanu, a psychologist who coauthored an article in which she contends that in up to 50% of children who present with physical complaints, the complaints are not physical but mental. Without consulting with Dr. Korson or Flores, Dr. Bujoreanu rendered a diagnosis of Somatoform disorder.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  43. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    You will also find... :'-(

    That a 5 year old was refused care for the same disease and died. Her brother developed similar symptoms. BCH wanted to charge her. But she had friends (basically worked for Child Services). When they BCH finally relented and tested, without notifying the parents, it showed up as a probable case of mitochondria disease. They still were satisfied and sent the muscle sample to another lab. Who confirmed it a likely case. They finally relented and released the boy, who is doing well being treated at Tuft's by one of the leading experts on this disease (Justina's doctor btw).

    But sadly, that boy no longer has a sister. She was killed by BCH.

  44. No... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    But I don't believe they cripple and incapacitate a child. And if that is occurring under supposed "proper care", than I would be strongly convinced by any rational review that perhaps a medical condition is at play. And would resume treatment.

  45. If she were my child... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    There would be an unusually high number of doctors in the ER at BCH.

    1. Re:If she were my child... by Onuma · · Score: 1

      If you think "going ballistic" is the only means of utilizing violence, then you're clearly not educated enough on violence and its potential applications.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    2. Re:If she were my child... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The problem was he wasn't calm. Walk in, take the child. If anyone stops you, make them physically stop you. Press charges for assault. Sue them, and the hospital for assault and wrongful arrest. Don't fight CPS. They do that every day for a living. Fight the unexpected fight.

  46. Perhaps you should consider by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Relocating your child to

    a) a hospital who doesn't make their scheduling system able to be taken down from the outside

    b) a hospital that believes in diagnosable medical illnesses,

    1. Re:Perhaps you should consider by Cobalt+Jacket · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Boston Children's constituent. But perhaps you should consider that in a given metro area, there is usually only one choice for top-tier pediatric care. Who says the parents in this case are right, and why are people blindly trusting them? Just like with Sarah Murnaghan -- Anonymous got involved there too, and didn't fully comprehend the issues at stake here. Many parents in the transplant community fell on both sides of that issue, but Anonymous bought the media story, lock, stock, and barrel and began threatening medical organizations with little comprehension of the issues.

  47. Re:Thoughtless, irresponsible hijinks like this .. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Yes, how thoughtless of them to draw international attention to the kidnapping of a sick child. The real issue is that a network may have run slow, not the abuse of a child at the hands of the hospital, involuntarily committed for the benefit of the hospital.

  48. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Informative

    I found it interesting that she was taken off the medications used for stroke victims which they say was diagnosed via MRI as a large stroke. MRI is a standard diagnostic for stroke or also a CT scan and that it is related to the original diagnosis as it's a possible side effect of the mitochondrial disease. It's also a physical sign that would rule out somatoform disorder or somatic symptom disorders.

    Being that it was characterized as a large stoke tells me that the MRI should have shown it clearly making misdiagnoses unlikely.

  49. Re:WRONG by tomhath · · Score: 2

    Parents knew something was wrong with their child. They found a doctor who understood the disease.

    No one disputes that something is wrong. The parents were insisting that she had mitochondrial disease and when one doctor didn't agree they went to another, and another, until they found one who would treat mitrochondrial disease.

    Oh, and you know what...one of the things the parents were accused of? and was used to justify the custody claim?

    Her mother expressed that she needed a feeding tube.

    Her mother insisted on all kinds of treatments. She was caught at the hospital with a handful of hypodermic needles.

  50. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    I know! Who would have though that actually reading the articles would impart so much information, including information about the activities of actual doctors! It's almost like magic.

    Frustration on all fronts in struggle over child’s future

    ... as the chief of metabolism at Tufts Medical Center* sat in his cluttered third-floor office in Chinatown last April, his frustration began to boil over. Two months earlier, Korson had sent a 14-year-old patient, Justina Pelletier, to Boston Children’s Hospital to see a former colleague of his who had previously treated the girl for gastrointestinal problems. But things had rapidly gotten off track.

    In short order, a team of different Children’s doctors had disputed Korson’s working diagnosis of mitochondrial disease for Justina and accused her parents of medical child abuse. This paved the way for the state child protection agency to intervene and strip the parents of custody on an emergency basis. From there, Justina, against her strong objections, was moved into the hospital’s locked psychiatric ward. Children’s and the state had ignored Korson’s requests to be included in a roundtable meeting to discuss Justina’s care.
     

    Well, no doubt BCH has "top men" working on the case.

    Justina’s hospitalization is the most extreme of a handful of unusually contentious cases over the last 18 months involving Children’s Hospital and the Department of Children and Families.

    *Cough * cough*.

    * Maybe you've heard of them.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  51. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Te parents say she's worse. The actual medical records aren't public. The parents aren't exactly unbiased.

  52. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    If nothing else, the DDoSing gets the public eye on it to ensure the best care possible for the child involved.

  53. Bad Anonymise! Go lay down in your bed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I work in Healthcare. IT Medical Imaging to be exact (PACS). This is NOT cool. I can tell you from personal experience an attack like this could cripple a hospital. Today many radiologists/cardiologists work remotely. If they cannot access the site than they cannot perform a reading or a 2nd opinion. They are down... done! And the person with the brain tumor or popped aneurysm continues to die while they try to view the contrast shots of the persons brain....

    Yes, I know one would think that hospitals have redundant internet connections (and I'm sure some do) but the truth is hospitals have been so strapped for money in recent years that redundancy is NOT always in the best interest of the bottom line.

    I have to wonder how many lives were ended due to this DDOS. My job is to maintain hospital business continuity. A down system has the repercussion of losing lives.

    This is NOT your banks website. It's a vital utility to our society. It saves lives! Attack someone else!!!!

  54. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by jazkat · · Score: 1

    "The true test will be to see if she gets better in 5 years, or if they develop better tests for Mitochondrial syndrome."

    The problem is that she's likely to die within months due to her actual physical condition.

  55. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    She was a figure skater. Now the court and hospital records show she's in a wheelchair. Improvement? Not so much. And they aren't letting the physician that referred her to a former college of his at BCH get involved, and she apparently never saw the doctor at BCH that she was referred to.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  56. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Yes, she was a figure skater. She was in a wheel chair when she went to the hospital with a severe bowel issue from a (presumably) congenital defect. That she was well before she was sick doesn't relate to whether she's better now than she was when she was first admitted. She's gotten worse since she was discharged from the hospital (presumably because the parents stopped paying when they were legally removed from her life and DCF was put in charge of her care). DCF refusing her care for financial reasons is orthogonal to BCH's care of her when they were in charge of it.

  57. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    RTFA

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  58. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    While I appreciate random guessing as much as anyone, the state is paying for her care since they removed her from her parents.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  59. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Yes, and they pulled her from care. You are asserting that cost isn't an issue? Wile I appreciate your random guessing, it's no more reliable than mine. I note the articles that come up are all months out of date, and very little has private, protected medical details that you claim to be privy to.

    Abusive parents always claim it's the system that's out to get them (especially men in a divorce trying to get the kids to prevent support payments. And the system always claims it's infallible. More often than not, both sides are wrong.

    I apologize for being so impartial that I didn't crucify the system based on your random guesses and unsubstantiated opinion. I'll try to be more biased next time.

    The system sucks. The government is always wrong. The AMA is a union, so all doctors must be wrong 100% of the time because they are all union members. Is that better?

  60. The state's motive is $. by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    I won't comment directly on this case now. However, having had my own son taken by the state (ostensibly because his mother was taking prescription methadone while pregnant) at the hospital in which he was born, I can say that the system, which is similar in all states because of federally imposed funding arrangements, is based on greed for money. It has nothing to do with the "best interest of the child" etc. And there will never be much improvement until the child (so-called) welfare funding (the Adoption and Safe Families Act) stops promoting state kidnapping, and the family courts become open to public view. They are "confidential", that is, closed to public inspection and criticism.

    After years of fighting our case, including an appeal, we lost. There is no winning these cases for the average person. Kids simply do not get returned to their families as the state claims. The exceptions are kids from influential families, kids from other government workers, kids from lawyers, and kids who somehow get publicity. That may be the saving factor in the case described above.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  61. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by Nehmo · · Score: 1
    Simply put, the state doesn't need a crime nor any act of a parent to justify taking a kid. The kid simply needs to be "at risk" in the opinion of a government worker. After the kid is placed in state custody, the onus is on the family to prove they are not unfit, and this is impossible.

    This case is an obvious abuse of state power, but, unfortunately, it is hardly the only one. Many thousands of kids are taken for even less of a pretext.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  62. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by Nehmo · · Score: 1
    "Munchausen by proxy" is a favorite of child protective service (CPS) workers. It's typically used by the state as a high-flown word to make their kidnapping sound legitimate.

    As you pointed out, it usually doesn't withstand logic.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  63. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    But normally they don't deny proper medical treatment.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  64. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    But normally they don't deny proper medical treatment.

    I'm not sure what you are saying. Sure, kids in foster custody are on Medicaid, and that means that medical care is more or less paid for if someone seeks it. But what is your point?

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  65. Re:All I can say to that is... by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

    Probably better than being in a coffin all day...

  66. Re:Unbelievable and disgusting abuse of state powe by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Yes, and they pulled her from care. You are asserting that cost isn't an issue?

    Do you have anything to substantiate that? As of a month ago she was still there. There are newer articles that indicate the same.

    The Sad, Scary Saga of Justina Pelletier - March 27 2014 9:17 AM

    Justina Pelletier spent the past year in a locked psych ward, even though doctors disagree about whether her condition is psychiatric.

    --------

    I note the articles that come up are all months out of date, and very little has private, protected medical details that you claim to be privy to.

    She's still in the hospital. She is still sick. He illness hasn't changed. The background hasn't changed. If it is reported in the story it is fair game. Perhaps you're just not reading the right stories.

    I apologize for being so impartial that I didn't crucify the system based on your random guesses and unsubstantiated opinion. I'll try to be more biased next time.

    How would I tell the difference?

    The system can suck. The government can be wrong. Doctors can be wrong, especially when pursuing their pet theories.

    FTFY.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  67. Re:Digital lynchings by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    Awww, look, members of anonymous don't like the truth. What's it like being the digital equivalent of the KKK?

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.