Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 135 of 135

Thread: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

  1. #131
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Fair enough.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  2. #132
    Sage

    Scrabaholic's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,549

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    No I get it. You're giving an opioid addict the benefit of the doubt.
    There were no illegal drugs found in her system ..... btw, just because someone is an addict does not mean they are lying. smh

  3. #133
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrabaholic View Post
    There were no illegal drugs found in her system .....
    That doesn't matter. She was finding opioids on the street.

    btw, just because someone is an addict does not mean they are lying. smh
    I'm aware of that but I am more skeptical about addicts spinning their story than I am about trained professional social workers who know the specific criteria by which to petition for an involuntary commitment and the judges who review them and grant them. Of course it's possible for the professionals to fail at their basic duties and for addicts to be telling the truth, but I typically would not going to bet on that being the case on average.

  4. #134
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I'm curious, how do you conclude that the information provided for this story is somehow concocted by Ms. Beltran and her attorney when the article itself states the she hasn't even been assigned an attorney yet? I get where you conclude that she was a drug addict because the article clearly states she had a "past struggle w/the painkiller Percocet," but the article also makes clear that Ms. Beltran was already going through detox on her own by taking the drug Suboxone. Furthermore, the article states that she had taken her last dose of Suboxone days before her "voluntary" prenatal visit and was clean when given a drug test after her arrest.

    I'm just curious how you can make such bold statements without any clear evidence to support your claims short of her self-admitted past addition?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    The contributors to this article are Ms. Beltran and her lawyers. Further, 42 CFR Part II prohibits release of any information about patients with substance abuse disorders.

    Suboxone is an opioid that is abused the same way other opioids are.

    When the social worker visited her, she must have had objective, observable evidence that Ms. Beltran was continuing to abuse opiates if based off of that visit s/he was compelled to petition for an involuntary commitment. Petitions to the courts for involuntary commitments require objective and observable evidence, and bad faith petitions (e.g. the social worker making up evidence or assuming) are a felony, so social workers know to avoid petitioning unless the evidence is compelling. Judges also know not to grant the petitions unless the evidence is compelling.

    We will never know what the social worker saw when she visited Beltran's home, because the law prohibits the social worker or anyone else involved in the treatment disclosing that information.

    Is it possible in this particular case that the petition was in bad faith? Yes, it's possible. It's easy to gather objective verifiable evidence of substance abuse once brought into the ER by the police and, if this lady was held for treatment despite truly being negative for all substances, then that would mean the judge who ordered the commitment made a serious and very stupid error. But that doesn't make the policy of detaining substance abusing pregnant women wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Fair enough.
    Upon further review...

    After going back and re-reading the linked article in the OP, I now find that I can't accept your conclusions. For starters, there's no evidence to support your position that Ms. Beltran nor her attorney who was hired after the initial arrest and subsequent hearing collaborated in providing information to this storyline. What you seem to be suggesting is that Ms. Beltran and her attorney somehow changed the facts. But per the story in itself, the facts are these:

    - Ms. Beltran volunteered herself for prenatal care at a local health clinic.
    - Ms. Beltran volunteered information concerning her past drug use.
    - Ms. Beltran stated to her attending physician that she was no longer using the addictive painkiller, Percocet.
    - Ms. Beltran took measures to wean herself off Percocet by taking Suboxone, a drug known to treat Percocet dependency.
    - Ms. Beltran exercised her right to refuse treatment, specifically, that she resume taking Suboxone, as recommended by non-medical personnel (i.e., a medical assistant and social worker, not a doctor or a nurse practitioner) for her health, as well as the health of her unborn child.
    - Ms. Beltran received a doctor’s exam where her pregnancy was found to be healthy and normal.
    - Ms. Beltran volunteer to take a drug test after being taken into police custody which proved negative for any illegal substances.

    Given the facts in this case per the OP article, I find no evidence to support your claims nor anything to suggest that Ms. Beltran placed the health and well-being of her unborn child in jeopardy at the time of her arrest. I could understand if Ms. Beltran's drug test proved positive OR she had admitted to medical personnel that she had recently used an illegal or potentially addictive drug leading up to her prenatal exam, but there is no evidence to support such.

    I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that this case is a clear example of "government over-reach and intrusion into someone's private life". I worry more about this type of invasion of privacy and "taking away our liberties" than the subsequent surrendering of economy liberty the health care reform law may bring due to one's irresponsibility to insure themselves. If anything, this is what American's should really be worried about.
    "A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground

  5. #135
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law [W:93]

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Upon further review...

    After going back and re-reading the linked article in the OP, I now find that I can't accept your conclusions. For starters, there's no evidence to support your position that Ms. Beltran nor her attorney who was hired after the initial arrest and subsequent hearing collaborated in providing information to this storyline.
    They provided the storyline because the information in the article was according to them.

    What you seem to be suggesting is that Ms. Beltran and her attorney somehow changed the facts.
    There are ways of saying things that are neither purely false nor purely true. For example, "struggling with dependence on the medication called Percocet" is a much nicer way of "addicted to opiates." The comments compiled by the article might have included nothing that was "factually incorrect," but that doesn't mean it presents a balanced picture.

    1) Ms. Beltran volunteered herself for prenatal care at a local health clinic.
    2) Ms. Beltran volunteered information concerning her past drug use.
    Because Suboxone is the same class of drug as Percocet, the drug use was not past.

    - Ms. Beltran stated to her attending physician that she was no longer using the addictive painkiller, Percocet.
    - Ms. Beltran took measures to wean herself off Percocet by taking Suboxone, a drug known to treat Percocet dependency.
    Both are opioids, and people abuse both.

    Ms. Beltran exercised her right to refuse treatment, specifically, that she resume taking Suboxone, as recommended by non-medical personnel (i.e., a medical assistant and social worker, not a doctor or a nurse practitioner) for her health, as well as the health of her unborn child.
    If she were indeed sober from all opioids and medical professionals were encouraging her to resume taking opioids, I would consider that malpractice, and I would concede my arguments in this thread as it concerns this particular case. I would not change my stance about substance abuse treatment commitments for pregnant women though.

    I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that this case is a clear example of "government over-reach and intrusion into someone's private life". I worry more about this type of invasion of privacy and "taking away our liberties" than the subsequent surrendering of economy liberty the health care reform law may bring due to one's irresponsibility to insure themselves. If anything, this is what American's should really be worried about.
    If her UDS were clean (of ANY opiate) and she was committed to treatment despite clean UDS, then you'd be right, it's over-reaching. Suspensions of civil liberties cannot be justified without due process, meaning actual evidence, probable cause, and so forth. It would be the same as committing someone to a psychiatric unit who you interviewed and asked if they were suicidal and they said "no" and you said "well I don't believe you, so there!" The judge granting commitments has a duty to demand the sufficient evidence be presented before ordering the commitments.

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •