Medical Power Over The Innocent

[snowwhitefox]

Medical power over the innocent-Part 1

The following story is too long to tell in one sitting. It will take at least 2 and possibly 3 posts to get through it all and for those of you who are as appalled by this tale as I am, I would like to urge you to forward this on to everyone you feel would be interested. We are currently working with several government departments including the Ombudsman’s office, the Health Complaints Commission, Family Services and more to not only support the family involved in this case but to try and ensure that these sorts of events become a thing of the past. Please tune in tomorrow for Part 2 and if you yourself are planning a home birth, be sure to line up a strong support person should you require a transfer to hospital. In Australia, it seems, it is legal to have a baby but not necessarily to have the birth that you choose. Please note – all names have been changed as has the location to protect this family.

The birth of a healthy baby is supposed to be the most wonderful time in a family’s life. And so it was with Sara Marie Smith. Her 9-year old daughter, Crystal was with her when her new baby, another girl, was born after a 1½ hour labour.

Being more than 2 hours out of town and living in the bush, Sara was not able to make it to hospital for the birth, but everything went perfectly and after cutting the cord and checking bubs over, the 3 of them fell asleep gazing at the stars and revelling in their closeness as a family and the miracle of this new life that had joined them so quickly and easily.

By the next morning however, Sara was still unable to deliver the placenta and realised that there might be a problem.

She called an ambulance to take her to Hospital where, with the help of staff, she delivered the placenta and needed blood transfusions due to her loss of blood.

The nursing staff were wonderful, but the paediatrician and the other doctors were quite stern with Sara. They could not understand why she birthed outside of the hospital system and when she explained that her baby was born too quickly to come in to birth, they stated that they felt what she had done was not responsible.

They checked the baby and told Sara that her daughter was running a slight fever (38°C) so the drew blood and told Sara that they wanted to put her daughter onto a 5-day course of intravenous antibiotics.

Sara did not approve of this. She does not use any pharmaceutical products unless she feels they are necessary and she asked if the doctors would agree to wait until the results of the blood test came back to see if her daughter, who was feeding well, was very settled and had lots of wet nappies, had any infection and if she did, what bacteria was causing it so the antibiotic could be targeted to treat the correct illness.

The doctors instantly became angry. Here was a mother who delivered outside of the hospital system and now, she was questioning their treatments.

Instead of listening to the mother and treating her suggestion with respect or alternatively, explaining why her idea was not a good one, they simply told Sara that they were going to section her under the Mental Health Act and they were taking custody of her baby. She could agree or not agree with the treatment – this baby was going to get antibiotics whatever she said.

Sara was weak from loss of blood and was unable to do very much at this time. In addition, she was completely alone without any support or friends in the area.

As soon as they doctors told her that she and her baby was being sectioned (it has since emerged that it is not possible to section a baby and Sara was never sectioned at this point – the staff lied to her), they removed this fully breastfed baby from her side and put her in the special care nursery.

Sara desperately wanted to ensure that no formula would be given to her daughter and that no dummies would be used since this would interfere with successful breastfeeding.

Yet every time she went to the nursery to feed (the doctors said that staff would come to her when the baby was hungry, but hours passed and nobody did, so even though she was still weak, she made her way to the nursery) the baby would be asleep so she knew that they were feeding her formula against her wishes.

About 24 hours after admission, the doctors told Sara that they were going to perform a lumbar puncture on her baby. The baby was still settled, had no temperature, rash or other signs of neurological problems. Sara begged to know why this was being done but the doctors simply said that they felt it was necessary and Sara could either come with them to feed the baby after the procedure to calm her down or she could stay in her room. Either way, the lumbar puncture would be done.

According to the Royal Children’s Hospital of Melbourne:

Informed verbal consent should be obtained. This should include a discussion of the benefits of the procedure in terms of possible diagnoses and potential complications. Complications of LP may include:

• Failure to obtain a specimen / need to repeat LP/ Traumatic tap (common)
• Post-dural puncture headache (fairly common) – up to 5-15%
• Transient/persistent paresthesiae/numbness (very uncommon)
• Respiratory arrest from positioning (rare)
• Spinal haematoma or abscess (very rare)
• Tonsillar herniation (extremely rare in the absence of contraindications above)

The LP Parent Information Sheet may be useful in talking to parents about the procedure.

This is neither a safe nor a benign procedure and should only be performed if the benefit outweighs the potential risk. Sara did not feel that in this case, those conditions were met and the fact that the procedure was done without her consent and against her wishes was a sign to her that neither her safety nor her daughter’s was of paramount importance to the hospital medical staff.

Of course, Sara agreed to be with her baby though she was devastated at the torture her child would have to endure for nothing.

Both the lumbar puncture and the blood tests came back clear of any infection so the procedure and the antibiotics were completely unnecessary, as Sara had suspected.

After 2 days of only occasionally breastfeeds, Sara went to the nursery with one of the sympathetic nursing staff. As soon as they entered the room, they saw the baby lying in her cot with a dummy in her mouth.

The nurse went ballistic and demanded to know why they had given the baby a dummy against the wishes of the mother. “She was crying”, said the nursery attendant, “what did you expect me to do?”

At that point, the nurse insisted that Sara be allowed to bring her baby back to her room and feed her there.

Reluctantly, the doctor agreed. They also agreed that the baby would get one more dose of antibiotics at midnight that night and then, she would not need any more

This was great news, but it came with a price.

The doctors informed Sara that when the antibiotics were finished, they were going to give the baby a Hep B vaccine. Sara is not Hep B positive and Hep B vaccination, like all other childhood vaccines, is not compulsory in Australia.

Sara refused the shot and said that she did not want her daughter to be vaccinated – she is a conscientious objector.

Again, the doctors said that since Sara had been sectioned, she had no choice. Aside from that, it was routine at this Hospital to give all babies a Hep B vaccine and this baby would get one too.

Sara felt that the hospital was spinning out of control when it came to their treatment of both her daughter and herself. She felt that both of them were victims of institutional abuse and that if she did not get some help, either she or her daughter might never recover from this ‘treatment’.

This is when Sara contacted me.

I have known Sara for over 9 years – since her first daughter, Crystal, was born.

Sara is an extremely intelligent and caring person. She is a devoted mother and amazingly good with bush-craft. Her lifestyle choices would not suit everyone, but Sara loves living out in the bush, far from cities and amongst small communities where she is well known and respected.

Though her baby’s birth may have been unusual, the fact that the doctors took this as a sign of insanity and that the hospital used this as an excuse to remove her rights as a mother make one wonder why so many children are left in abusive situations whilst Sara’s family is abused by the system that is supposed to protect them.

Sara wanted to get out of the hospital. Her baby was well. She was well.

She was frightened by the way in which she was being treated. She told me that a Family Services officer had been called in and that this woman had been extremely abusive towards her.

In addition, the gynecologist they had assigned to her treated Sara as if she were not just crazy but stupid. Family Service, the gynecologist and the paediatrician all wanted to do a psychiatric evaluation of her and she had just fed the baby and put her in the cot so she could go to the toilet when they all barged into her room without knocking.

The gynecologist called out to Sara, “You need to come with us.”

Sara said she was on the toilet and asked if they could please wait a minute.

The woman yelled so the whole corridor heard her, “No, you need to come now! You’re sectioned! You’re sectioned!”

Sara told me that one of the nurses there was trembling because she was so upset by the way in which Sara was being treated.

She was trapped in a system that was treating her like a criminal and was doing things to her daughter that she felt were harmful.

Since I was not nearby, I contacted a couple of our members in this area that I have known for over 15 years. This couple has 5 home-birthed children and are very well-respected members of the community.

I asked if they would go to the hospital to visit with Sara and see if there was anything they could do to help her.

They went and called from the hospital to say that Sara and the girls were healthy and gorgeous and that the nursing staff were being wonderful to her.

All was not rosy, however. One of the nurses revealed that the next day, the doctors had planned a secret meeting where they were going to meet with Family Services with the aim of removing the baby from Sara’s custody. It seems that some doctors really don’t like people who ask questions or disagree with them.

Sara felt that she needed to get out of the hospital and fast!

She sent Crystal down to the car and took what she could carry – leaving the rest behind – and put her baby into a carry bag and took her out of the hospital. I challenge any caring parent to do differently if they felt that their own baby was at risk.

Once downstairs, she left and went to stay with friends. For the first time in 5 days, she was able to sleep well, eat good food, not be filled with fear and just relax. She woke refreshed the next morning.

Worried that she had left all of her money and clothes in her car when she was picked up by the ambulance, Sara left early the next morning to go back to where she had left the car to get her things

She took the AVN members who had visited her in hospital with her to help and they just planned on getting her stuff and going back home where Sara could rest up and regain her strength.

Unfortunately, the hospital had alerted the police to the fact that Sara had left the hospital – telling them that the baby had been in the special care nursery which was not true and that she needed urgent medical care which also was not true.

In addition, they had released Sara’s name to the media, the description of her older daughter and also their car and license plate number – all of which, from what I have been led to believe, are illegal to do when a minor child is involved.

When Sara got to the car, the police were there waiting for her. We are currently investigating the legality of this move since Sarah had not done anything against the law in leaving the hospital since she was NOT sectioned and her daughter was NOT under orders as a Ward of the State

Distressed, Sara called and asked me to speak with the police officer.

The Senior Constable was a lovely man in a difficult position. He had been instructed by Family Service to bring Sara and the baby back to the hospital to be examined by the paediatrician there.

I explained that Sara did not want to go to the hospital and that she had been very badly treated there. There was a nurse at the caravan park (which is where Sara was) and the nurse examined the baby and declared that she was perfectly healthy.

I asked the police officer if that would be good enough to appease Family Services.

He said he would need to contact his superiors for advice on that so we agreed to speak again in 15 minutes.

While he was making his call, I phoned Legal Aid and spoke with a solicitor to get advice for Sara. The solicitor then spoke with Sara herself and told her that she did not have to go with the police if they wanted to take her back to the hospital but if there was some other option that could be agreed upon, that she would be best off cooperating.

In 15 minutes, the officer spoke with me and said that he had been told that if Sara would go to a nearby clinic (approximately ½ way to the city) to be examined by the sister there, and if the sister said that she and the baby were healthy, then that would be enough to satisfy Family Services and she could then make an appointment at her leisure to see her own doctor as a follow-up. Family Services and the police would be satisfied with that.

Sara told me she felt this was a trap. I trusted the police officer and told her that she should do what the lawyer had suggested and just cooperate. Once the exam was done, she could go home and forget about all of this. After all, the important thing was to show that she had taken care of her daughter and the nurse would be able to confirm this.

Reluctantly, she agreed to go. We should have listened to her instincts.

When she got to the clinic, there were 2 Family services officers there – the woman from the hospital who had treated her so abominably – and another woman from another town about 300kms away from the city where the hospital was located.

Sara and the baby were examined by the nurse and were both declared – for the second time in a couple of hours – to be in perfect health.

This was not enough for Family Services though. They told Sara that they wanted to interview her 9-year old daughter Crystal – alone.

Sara would not approve of this and called me.

I asked if I could speak with the Family Sercies officer and the woman from the smaller town came to the phone.

I said that Sara would be fine for them to speak with Crystal, but that she wanted to have an advocate there with her which was her right.

The officer refused.

I then asked what the next step would be and I was told that they were taking the baby back to the Hospital.

I asked why that was the case when the nurse had said that the baby was healthy and the woman responded that they were taking custody of the child.

I asked what reason they had for taking custody of this baby and she said that it was because Sara had left hospital without permission.

I then asked if Sara had been a prisoner in the hospital and I was told that she was not but that she had not been discharged nor had the baby.

I asked if Sara had been sectioned whilst she was in hospital and the woman replied that she had not. I said, “Then the hospital lied to her because they said that she had been sectioned.”

The woman replied that she would not comment on that but she confirmed that Sara had not been sectioned.

I again asked why they were taking custody of the baby and the woman said that it was because they had fears for her health.

Why, I asked, when she was perfectly healthy?

At this point the woman said that she was going to terminate the conversation and she hung up on me.

About ½ an hour later, I received another call from Sara. The police officers were being ordered by the Family Services officers to take the baby and go to the Hospital.

We had a relayed conversation trying to negotiate for more time since Sara was breastfeeding the baby and they were rushing her and talking over her and not allowing her to ask questions.

Keep in mind that this baby was just 5 – 6 days old at this time and this mother had just recovered from a serious loss of blood. How many of us would have had the strength to withstand this sort of abusive treatment?

In the negotiations, I asked Sara to ask if she would be allowed to ride in the car with the Family Services workers who were taking custody of this baby while my friend drove Crystal in the other car to the hospital.

The officer said that Sara could come with them.

Sara then asked if the baby needed a feed if they would stop the car to allow her to feed her baby and the officer said no.

The workers at this point said that we had talked long enough and they instructed the police officer to take the phone away from Sara and to hang up which they did.

The rest of this story is from my friend who witnessed it.

Crystal, my friend and Sara went outside to the cars. Sara asked my friend to get her a bottle of water (for herself) and some baby clothes and cloth nappies from her car so that she would have some things to bring to hospital with her.

She then got into the back seat of the car with her baby and was starting to put her into the car seat.

One of the Family Services officers said to the police officer, “We have waited long enough. She is just delaying. Take the baby away from her [meaning Sara], get her out of the car and if she won’t get out, arrest her.”

My friend said that the officer obviously did not want to do this and looked extremely unhappy about these orders.

They took the baby from Sara who started to cry. Crystal then started to cry and then to scream when she saw her baby sister being removed and then, the baby started to cry.

Sara was forcibly removed from the car and the Family Services officers drove off.

Sara and Crystal ran to their own car leaving the money and the clothes with my friend – and raced after the Family Services officers. It is a wonder they did not have an accident.

[snowwhitefox]

Medical Power Over the Innocent Part 2

Yesterday, we left off with Sara and her daughter, Crystal, chasing after the Family Service workers who had taken custody of Sara’s baby to bring it back to hospital.

My friend who had been witness to this entire episode was so upset she was not able to drive for ½ an hour or more. She was sure that when she was able to drive back to the hospital, she would see Sara’s car crashed by the side of the road but luckily, Sara kept her head enough to get back safely.

When she arrived at the hospital, she was told that her baby was upstairs in the ward with 7 other babies and that she could stay there for the night but her other daughter, Crystal, couldn’t and if she couldn’t find somewhere for Crystal to stay, she would be put into foster care.

Luckily, one of the sympathetic nursing staff agreed to take Crystal home with her while this is going on.

The doctor examined the baby and said that she needed to be back on IV antibiotics. This was despite the fact that she had no temperature nor any signs of illness.

When I spoke with Sara, she said that they tried 5 times to get the cannula into the baby’s hand but were unable to insert it so they had to give her a short break and try again. In all, it took 7 attempts before the cannula was able to be inserted and the antibiotics started.

The baby was screaming and screaming from the pain of all those needle sticks and one has to wonder about the risk of infection just from having all those needles shoved into her arm.

Again, there is no evidence of an infection, but the doctors said the IV antibiotics were simply a ‘precautionary’ measure.

The choice of antibiotics seemed interesting. Both times baby was given antibiotics, it was not just one but two. And not your normal, average, run of the mill antibiotics. She was given two very powerful drugs – Vancomycin and Gentamicin.

Vancomycin’s prescribing information states:

To reduce the development of drug-resistant bacteria and maintain the effectiveness of vancomycin and other antibacterial drugs, vancomycin should be used only to treat or prevent infections that are proven or strongly suspected to be caused by bacteria.

In addition, Vancomycin is generally reserved for treating hospital-borne infections and yet, this baby was given this drug as soon as her mother was brought in the first time when she had never been in a hospital.

Below is the list of known side-effects from Vancomycin – as you will see, this is not a benign drug – it has very serious side effects associated with it which is why Sara was concerned about discovering whether antibiotics were necessary before subjecting her daughter to them:

Nephrotoxicity ^{02}{04}(change in frequency of urination or amount of urine; difficulty in breathing; drowsiness; increased thirst; loss of appetite; nausea or vomiting; weakness)

neutropenia ^{02}(chills; coughing; difficulty in breathing; fever; sore throat)—usually reversible

“red man syndrome” ^{02}{04}(chills or fever; fainting; fast heartbeat; hives; hypotension; itching of skin; nausea or vomiting; rash or redness of the face, base of neck, upper body, back, and arms)—may result from histamine release due to rapid infusion

Incidence rare

Chemical peritonitis ^{28}{34}(abdominal pain and cramps; abdominal tenderness)—in patients receiving high doses by intraperitoneal administration

linear IgA bullous dermatosis ^{{21}{22}{23}{24}}(large blisters on arms, legs, hands, feet, or upper body)

ototoxicity ^{02}{11}(loss of hearing; ringing or buzzing or a feeling of fullness in the ears)

pseudomembranous colitis ^{02}{04}(abdominal or stomach cramps and pain, severe; abdominal tenderness; diarrhea, watery and severe, which may also be bloody; fever)

thrombocytopenia ^{02}{04}(abnormal bleeding or bruising)

Those indicating possible ototoxicity, nephrotoxicity, or pseudomembranous colitis and the need for medical attention if they occur or progress after medication is discontinued

Abdominal or stomach cramps and pain, severe

abdominal tenderness

change in frequency of urination or amount of urine

diarrhea, watery and severe, which may also be bloody

difficulty in breathing

drowsiness

fever

increased thirst

loss of appetite

loss of hearing

nausea or vomiting

ringing or buzzing or a feeling of fullness in the ears

weakness

The other antibiotic administered was Gentamicin. This drug, like Vancomycin, is generally reserved for treating hospital-borne infections rather than the run-of-the mill bacterial infections. Gentamicin can persist in the gut for a very long time and the side effects, which are significant, may appear shortly after use or months down the track. Below is a list of these side effects. Please note that the most common side effects are also very serious.

General

The most frequently reported adverse effects associated with gentamicin therapy are ototoxicity (loss of hearing) and nephrotoxicity (kidney damage). These forms of toxicity occur more frequently in patients who experience prolonged exposure to serum gentamicin trough concentrations of greater than 2 mcg/mL. Patients with renal insufficiency are at an increased risk of developing toxicity.

Renal

Renal side effects associated with gentamicin use have included nephrotoxicity. The overall incidence of aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity is 2% to 10%. Gentamicin nephrotoxicity occurs in two forms: acute renal failure (ARF), and a more gradual, transient, and reversible azotemia. Fanconi syndrome and Bartter-like syndrome have been reported.

Acute renal failure due to gentamicin is usually nonoliguric with an average rise in serum creatinine of 1 to 3 mg/dL. Renal function generally returns to baseline in 7 to 14 days. Rarely, gentamicin produces renal tubular acidosis and renal potassium and magnesium wasting. There is no relationship between acute renal failure and the daily dose of gentamicin, however, an increased incidence has been associated with a serum trough gentamicin concentration greater than 2 mcg/mL. It has been suggested that there is a correlation between the higher peak concentrations associated with once-daily dosing and a higher incidence of nephrotoxicity. Other predisposing factors include advanced age, preexisting renal insufficiency, dehydration, and  concomitant use of other potentially nephrotoxic drugs.

Nervous system

The onset of ototoxicity may be asymptomatic or may manifest as dizziness, vertigo, ataxia, tinnitus, and roaring in the ears. High tone hearing loss is often an early symptom of auditory toxicity. It has been suggested that once-daily dosing of gentamicin is associated with a higher incidence of ototoxicity.

Other side effects possibly related to gentamicin have included lethargy, confusion, depression, headache, pseudotumor cerebri, and acute organic brain syndrome.

Nervous system side effects have included ototoxicity, which generally presents as loss of vestibular function secondary to hair cell damage, but may also be auditory. Ototoxicity is closely related to the development of renal impairment, and may be irreversible. Peripheral neuropathy or encephalopathy with numbness, skin tingling, muscle twitching, seizures, and myasthenia gravis-like syndrome have also been reported.

Intraventricular and intrathecal administration of gentamicin has rarely been associated with aseptic meningitis, transient hearing loss, and seizures. Neuromuscular side effects including ataxia, paresis and incontinence have been reported after large intrathecal doses (40 mg to 160 mg) of preservative-containing gentamicin. Concurrent administration of parenteral and intrathecal gentamicin has been associated with eighth nerve dysfunction, fever, convulsions, leg cramps, and increases in cerebrospinal fluid protein.

Musculoskeletal

Musculoskeletal side effects have rarely included neuromuscular blockade, which occurs most commonly in patients who are predisposed including patients with myasthenia gravis, hypocalcemia, and those receiving a concomitant neuromuscular blocking agent. Tetany and muscle weakness may be associated with gentamicin-induced hypomagnesemia, hypocalcemia, and hypokalemia. Joint pain has also been reported.

Respiratory

Respiratory side effects have included case reports of respiratory depression and respiratory arrest. Gentamicin has also been possibly associated with pulmonary fibrosis.

Hypersensitivity

Hypersensitivity reactions possibly associated with gentamicin have included anaphylactoid reactions and laryngeal edema. Suspected allergic reactions against gentamicin with sodium metabisulfite preservative have been reported.

Local

Local reactions have occasionally included pain at the injection site, and rarely subcutaneous atrophy or fat necrosis at the injection site. Reactions associated with intrathecal injections have included arachnoiditis and burning at the injection site.

Dermatologic

Dermatologic side effects possibly associated with gentamicin have included rash, itching, urticaria, generalized burning, and alopecia.

Hematologic

Hematologic side effects possibly related to gentamicin use have included anemia, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, transient agranulocytosis, eosinophilia, increased and decreased reticulocyte counts, thrombocytopenia, immunologic thrombocytopenia, and purpura.

Hepatic

Hepatic side effects possibly related to gentamicin use have included transient hepatomegaly, and increases in serum transaminase, serum LDH, and bilirubin.

Cardiovascular

Cardiovascular side effects possibly related to gentamicin have included hypotension and hypertension.

Gastrointestinal

Gastrointestinal side effects possibly related to gentamicin have included nausea, vomiting, weight loss, decreased appetite, increased salivation, and stomatitis.

Ocular

Ocular side effects have included case reports of retinal ischemia resulting in loss of visual acuity after inadvertent intraocular injection of massive doses of gentamicin.

Other

Other side effects possibly related to gentamicin have included transient splenomegaly and fever.

Other

Pyrogenic reactions with symptoms of shaking, chills, fever, rigors, tachycardia, and/or hypotension have been reported with intravenous gentamicin. These reactions generally occurred within 3 hours of administration and were believed to be due to once-daily gentamicin doses delivering sufficient endotoxin over one hour to be pyrogenic.

No right to question

For some reason, despite these known side effects, Sara was considered to be mad to worry about her daughter receiving these drugs.

The day after being readmitted to hospital, a hearing was held more than 300kms away – too far for Sara to attend to defend herself nor was she able to arrange for a lawyer to represent her on such short notice. Even the Family Services representative wasn’t there – the information was faxed to the Judge who, based on what was written and without access to the other side of the story, issued a 14-day order for Sara’s baby to be made a ward of the state. Sara was told that she would no longer be able to be with her baby or to hold her because she was considered to be a threat to her child.

The only way in which she would be allowed to see her child was if she became a voluntary psychiatric patient. She agreed to this because she knew that she needed to be with her child. She was told that she would be moved to a closed psychiatric ward where she would have no contact with the outside world; she would not be allowed phone calls nor would she be able to receive visitors. She was not even allowed outside the doors of the hospital.

She was informed that she could express milk to feed her baby but she would not be able to hold her or to spend any time with her. There was also no guarantee that the expressed breast milk would be used for her child – it all depended on whether staff had enough time to bring the milk to her or not.

Think about this. Imagine if this were your child. How would you handle it? And any one of us could be in this position. All it takes is doing things slightly differently and asking questions of the medical staff.

My friend visited with Sara every night to bring her organic food, lend her a mobile phone so she could speak with people outside of the hospital and just to cheer her up. Below is a report he made on the Sunday, 3 days after Sara was ‘recaptured’. He covered his experience of being with Sara when the police caught up with her and her situation in the hospital:

Some more bits from my angle. I was not intending to to be away from work all day when I drove Sara to her car on Thursday, so I was a bit impatient with all the goings on. As far as I could see, once the police were there, they were going to stay all day if necessary though I got the impression that they had the power to section Sara at any time and cart her off. In all, the police were great. The problem was that at the clinic there were another 4 police waiting there with their own separate orders. The first police crew still hung around for another hour or so once we got there.

So there were about 6 Police for around 2 hours. Quite a costly exercise. In the meantime, resources would have been stretched for about 200Km in every direction for this ‘very dangerous’ person who was not under arrest. It was amazing. I don’t like driving with the radio on which was a pity because I would have turned around long before we reached Sara’s car and this ridiculous situation would not have arisen. Apparently, the radio was telling everyone that the baby was seriously ill and certain transmissions used the word “escaped” from Hospital. I Know the police were expecting to find a baby near death. That was soon put to rest when they saw her. The staff at the Caravan Park where Sara’s car had been left were also wonderful and supportive of Sara and her girls. They also agreed that the baby looked fine.

A free spirit, when found, must be dealt with severely and held up as an example for the rest of the community. The media were all singing the same tune. As I said before, I do not listen to the radio but I will have to start soon. That message about the “escape” and the “baby in danger” was still being played at about 5pm. Police had the baby and mother under their observation/control from about 9AM. This can only be a public relations propaganda exercise to abuse taxpayer funds keeping that false statement on air beyond operational necessity. If it was not an oversight, then the effect of the unflattering message could demonise the victim so that if other incidents arose with this case in the future, the public would be numbed, or even hostile to the victim. It would also entrench in the idle mind, a notion that it is illegal to walk out of hospital.

In casual conversation with one of the Family Services officers, I mentioned the right of the victim (Sara) to refuse treatment. The officer responded abruptly “Yes, but not for the baby”. I found that statement quite profound. Do the new intervention laws state this? Note that at this point, the intervention law had not been used. From my experience and the text available, Sara had not been sectioned under the Mental Health Act even at that point. I used to believe that the mother also had the right to refuse treatment for her baby. Especially one who was being medicated without any sign of the ailment for which that medication was indicated. What hope have we all got if this is the view of Family Services officers who appear to enjoy mega power?

Not one Law was broken. Not one arrest or even mention of such for myself. The pseudo law of not bowing to the medical establishment will only get stronger if we stay silent.

Pressure brought to bear

With the incredibly prompt intervention of the Ombudsman who got the ball rolling within hours of being informed of this situation by myself, Sara was given permission to stay with her child as long as her [Sara’s] condition did not deteriorate (they were referring to her supposed mental condition). This was on a Friday and she knew that there was nothing that could be done until Monday when she was hoping to find a legal representative to appeal the custodial orders on her child.

Once the Ombudsman became involved, the hospital quickly did some of the things that they should have done initially like allowing a Community Visitor to see Sara and to witness her assessment by psychiatric staff; tell her of her rights as a patient; inform her that she was allowed to use the phone and receive visitors, etc. All of these were denied to her previously.

Sara spent her first 2 nights back in hospital in a ward with 8 children – her baby was one of them. She was sleeping on a cot next to her daughter’s bed and was not allowed to leave the room for any reason. There was a guard at the door of this room at all times, watching to make sure she did not try to leave. She told me that when she goes to the toilet, the guard pounds on the door every 30 seconds to make sure she is still there. This is torture – plain and simple.

There was a secret staff meeting which a sympathetic nurse told Sara about. At this meeting, the psychiatric staff and Family Services officers discussed Sara’s refusal to allow the Hep B vaccine and how this reflected on her mental state. It seems that they felt that anyone who refused vaccination was obviously mentally imbalanced.

This is the state of the law in Australia today – and who is protected by these sorts of draconian measures?

Not the mother – she was caring for her baby in a loving and caring way. Not the older sister – she has been incredibly traumatised by this whole episode. Certainly not the baby who has been medically assaulted, ripped from her mother’s arms and is now looking at spending 14 days (at the least) with a total stranger.

Today, Sara and her family are the victims – tomorrow, it could be you or someone you love.

[ashleyrenee24]

BUMP!

[snowwhitefox]

Medical Power Over the Innocent – Part 3

I was hoping that the third instalment of this story would be the last one and that at this point, I could tell you that the entire situation was over and Sara and her girls were safely past this stage of their lives. Unfortunately, things are rarely as simple as we want them to be or think they will be.

Sara was in an open ward with no privacy and without being able to even go up the hall without a guard to accompany her.

On Friday morning, thanks to the intercession of the Ombudsman’s office, Sara was visited by a representative of the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) regarding her complaint about the hospital treatment. This official spent 3 hours with Sara and with hospital staff.

As a result of this visit, Sara was moved to a private room where, despite the fact that she had a guard (they called this person something else – I can’t recall – but guarding Sara was their job) outside her door 24/7, she at least had some privacy and quiet.

It appeared at this time that the hospital’s main concern was with the baby’s weight gain.

As noted earlier, the baby was born outside of the hospital system and only came to hospital because her mother was sick. Below is a list of weights for this baby from the time of admission.

Friday                    27/8             Born    not weighed

Saturday                28/8               3680g

Sunday                    29/8               3930g

Mon                       30/8               3940g (day Sara first contacted me)

Tues                        31/8               not weighed

Wed                        01/9    3960   (night Sara left hospital)

Thurs                        02/9               3890

Friday                     03/9             3930

Monday                  06/9               3910 (Medical treatment)

Wednesday baby must weigh at least 3950.

In general, it is considered that fully breastfed babies lose more weight in their first days then those who are fed artificial breast milk (ABM). It is considered normal for a breastfed baby to lose between 7 and 10 percent of their birth weight and to take between 2 and 3 weeks to regain it. In other words, it is within the range of expectations for a fully breastfed baby not to regain their birth weight for up to 3 weeks. This would not be a cause for concern in most cases.

As shown above however, Sara’s baby has not only regained her weight, she has been growing quite well with some normal fluctuations in weight which could be accounted for by differences in scales, whether or not she has emptied her bladder just before being weighed and how long since her last feed at the time of weighing.

Despite this growth which would normally be considered to be excellent, the paediatricians in the hospital said that Sara’s baby was at risk because she was not gaining weight quickly enough.

A hospital Lactation Consultant (LC) was brought in and a judgement was made that Sara was not producing enough breast milk and that her production needed to be enhanced. The plan (reproduced below) called for Sara to feed every 3 hours and to express after each feed so that a top-up of at least 30mL could be obtained which could then be given to baby after feeds since her weight gain meant (according to the hospital) that she was at risk of not growing well on mother’s breast feeds alone.

Just a personal anecdote here. I have 4 children – all of whom were breastfed for between 9 months (my first) and 3 ½ years (my youngest). Feeding did not come easy for me and I had problems after each birth. It generally took 2 months before feeding was properly established and became ‘easy’.  During this time, I would have mastitis a couple of times during what I called times of ‘feast or famine’ – too much milk or not quite enough. It took me that long to establish my supply and from my days as a Nursing Mothers’ Community Educator, I found that this was not at all unusual. In addition, each baby grew at a completely different rate. My first child was lucky to gain 50g a week – my second was gaining 500g a week – same mother, different children.

For one of my children, I had to express for 7 months straight because I was diagnosed with thrush which, despite fissure after fissure every time I tried to get baby back onto the breast, was finally swabbed and found to be golden staph, not thrush. It was determined that I would most likely have gotten this from my baby in hospital – probably because the nurses gave my baby a dummy one night even though I had a written plan saying no dummies. They say they did this because they wanted to let me sleep!

In any case, I had a baby that fed every 2 hours day and night for the first 6 months of her life and it was hell having to pump and get enough milk to keep her happy. I called myself the Queen of the Medela (a brand of breast pump) and would try and meditate and relax before pumping because any stress would mean no or low milk supply.

The reason I tell you this is to let you know how amazing Sara is. Sara was in the most stressful situation you could possibly imagine. Not only was she in hospital against her wishes, her baby had been made a Ward of the State and she was under the constant threat that if she didn’t ‘produce’ enough milk, her baby would be force-fed formula – something that her research has shown could cause health problems.

Despite this, she was able to feed her baby every 3 hours and express 50mL or more after feeds which was then used for top-ups.

But this was not good enough. Sara was told that she needed to take a drug called Domperidone. I had never heard of this so Sara asked me to look it up and speak with the (LC) about it.

My first search for the drug turned up the following information which I then related to the LC.

Lactation

The hormone prolactin stimulates lactation in humans, and its release is inhibited by the dopamine secreted by the hypothalamus. Domperidone, by acting as an anti-dopaminergic, results in increased prolactin secretion, and thus promotes lactation.

Since, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), domperidone is not approved for enhanced lactation in any country,[6] it is sometimes self-prescribed from original research or prescribed “off-label” for this use in countries around the world.[7]

Controversy

Janssen Pharmaceutical has brought domperidone before the FDA several times in the last two decades, with the most recent effort in the 1990s. Numerous U.S. clinical drug trials have demonstrated its safety and efficacy in dealing with gastroparesis symptoms, but the FDA turned down Janssen’s application for domperidone, even though the FDA’s division of gastrointestinal drugs had approved domperidone.[8]

In June 2004, the United States’ main regulation agency, the FDA, issued a letter warning women not to take domperidone, citing unknown risks to parents and infants, and warned pharmacies that domestic sale was illegal, and that import shipments from other countries would be searched and seized. Domperidone is excreted in breast milk, and no studies on its effects on breastfeeding infants have been reported in the literature. Individual incidents of problems with the drug include cardiac arrest and arrhythmia, complications with other medications, as well as complications with improper intravenous use[7]. A recent paper suggests there may be increased risk of seizures to neonates of mothers taking oral domperidone[9].

Some doctors and pharmacists do not fully accept the FDA’s reasoning and still favor domperidone’s use in increasing milk supply. Such doctors and pharmacists claim the drug is safe in the doses given for this purpose but have no evidential data or studies to base their claim.[10] The American Academy of Pediatrics considers domperidone “usually compatible with breastfeeding”.[11]

There is a new controversy in Britain regarding lethal levels of sodium found in children who are administered this drug. It is now subject to a medical review following a number of criminal trials where parents were charged with child abuse by salt poisoning based on hypernatremia in the affected children.[12] Recent studies also cite increased QT intervals in neonates taking Domperidone. [13].

In other words, Domperidone was banned in the US in 2004 because it was deemed to be simply too dangerous to use in anyone – especially in breastfeeding women. It was considered so dangerous that the FDA – an organisation that is not particularly known for their strong stance against drug companies – stated that they would seize and destroy any shipments of Domperidone that came into the US from overseas!

The LC had never heard any of this and said that it was a routine drug given at the hospital for any woman who had problems producing enough breastmilk.

Aside from the fact that Sara did not seem to fall into that category, the hospital was telling her that she had to take this drug against her wishes or have her baby formula fed. This did not sit well with her.

Luckily, the Ombudsman had contacted the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) on Sara’s behalf and a representative came to the hospital and spent 3 hours with Sara going over her treatment, her concerns about her baby and the lactation plan. The representative stated that Sara had the right to know about all of the available treatment options for increasing milk supply – drug and non drug – and that she would not be forced to take a drug she did not want to take despite the hospital’s saying she had to.

Sara started on fennel, fenugreek and raspberry leaf tea and was drinking large quantities of this to keep her milk supply up.

In the meantime, I was able to do some more research into Domperidone using MIMS – the Australian publication that provides health professionals with prescribing details on all currently-licensed drugs (and non-drugs – many natural remedies are also listed in MIMS).

Some of you may recall that the AVN used to have the package inserts for Australian vaccines on our website but that we were asked to remove them because they are under copyright with MIMS. So now, we link to the NZ Ministry of Health website where this information is freely available.

Because of these restrictions, I can’t put the entire Domperidone package insert here, but I can share relevant sections with you and I think you will agree that it is curious to say the least, that this hospital (and perhaps others in Australia as well) would be using this dangerous drug in women who had just given birth and who, for some reason, were deemed not to be producing enough milk. (Please note – in Australia, Domperidone is also called Motilium)

MIMS Abbreviated Prescribing Information

Domperidone

Janssen-Cilag

Section: 3(h) Antiemetics, antinauseants – Central Nervous System

Product Images: Motilium 10 mg

Use in pregnancy: B2

Permitted in sport

Use: Dopamine antagonist with antiemetic properties. Short-term (less than or equal to 6 mths) treatment of symptoms assoc with idiopathic, diabetic gastroparesis; intractable nausea, vomiting from any cause in adults

Contraindications: Prolactin releasing pituitary tumour; concomitant oral ketoconazole, erythromycin, other potent CYP3A4 inhibitors which prolong QTc interval eg fluconazole, voriconazole, clarithromycin, amiodarone, telithromycin; where GI motility stimulation may be dangerous eg GI haemorrhage, mechanical obstruction, perforation

Precautions: Breast cancer history; renal (serum creatinine > 0.6 mmol/L), hepatic impairment; long-term use (> 6 mths); QTc prolongation risk factors eg hypokalaemia, severe hypomagnesaemia, structural heart disease, genetic predisposition; lactose intolerance, galactosaemia, glucose/ galactose malabsorption (lactose content); pregnancy, lactation

Adverse Reactions: Dry mouth, headache; incr prolactin level; endocrine disturbance (eg galactorrhoea, amenorrhoea, gynaecomastia (rare); impotence); extrapyramidal reaction (rare); QTc prolongation, convulsion (very rare); others, see full PI

…Use in pregnancy. (Category B2)

Small amounts of Motilium have been found in rat fetal tissues. Reproduction studies were performed in rats with daily doses of Motilium up to 160 mg/kg orally and 40 mg/kg intravenously and in rabbits with daily doses up to 40 mg/kg orally and 1.25 mg/kg intravenously. There was no evidence of drug related dysmorphogenesis. There are, however, no adequate and well controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal studies are not always predictive of human response and there are limited postmarketing data on the use of domperidone in pregnant women, this drug should be used during pregnancy only if clearly needed.

Use in lactation. The drug is excreted in breast milk of lactating rats (mostly as metabolites: peak concentration of 40 and 800 nanogram/mL after oral and intravenous administration of 2.5 mg/kg respectively). This probably also occurs in humans. It is not known whether this is harmful to the newborn infant. Therefore, breastfeeding is not recommended for mothers who are taking Motilium. (emphasis added)

To cut through the medical-ese, Domperidone is licensed in Australia though it was banned by the FDA in the United States and in other countries around the world. Even though it is licensed here, it is not licensed for use in breastfeeding women. In fact, it is not recommended for breastfeeding women because it is linked with a very large number of serious and potentially fatal side effects in both the mothers and the babies.

Over the last few days since I started posting Sara’s story on the AVN’s blog, I have gotten a lot of flack from members of SAVN. Who am I to question what a doctor has done? What qualifications do I have to ask about these things? And why did the mother not just do what the doctors have told her to do? Why does she feel that she has the expertise to make these sorts of choices when the doctors, with all their years of training, believe that what they are doing is for the best?

The Ombudsman and the HCCC both stated that they can investigate the way in which Sara was treated but when it comes to her baby and any medical issues, there is nothing they can do. It seems that there is nobody who can oversee the treatment meted out by the medical community. And that is not right.

As you can see from the one example above, here is the medical community prescribing a drug that is known to be dangerous for mothers and babies and which is not licensed in Australia for this purpose (called off-label prescribing). Bad enough they are doing this – but the LC admitted to me that she had not seen this information before and did not really show any concern when informed of these issues. One has to wonder what they are basing their decisions on if they have not even read the manufacturer’s information for the drugs they are handing out. And if Sara had not asked questions about this – as most mothers seem to not ask questions – and she or her child had suffered a heart attack, stroke or seizures – what are the chances that the reaction would have been traced back to the drug or reported?

In addition, looking at the child’s weight gain and showing it to several health professionals both here in Australia and overseas, it appears that based on weight alone (of course, these doctors could not examine the baby so that is all they had to go on), there was no apparent reason to be concerned about the baby’s nutritional status.

I did put out a call for paediatricians to share with me any information about IV antibiotics leading to malabsorption or leaky gut, causing slow weight gain or weight loss.

Below is an email from a toxicologist and pathologist from the US.

Dear Meryl:

The antibiotics given can cause kidney damage, bone marrow damage, vitamin K deficiency and bleeding, and diarrhoea. They need to do a blood analysis to check for kidney functions, anemia and bleeding disorders. The baby can lose weight due to kidney damage, gastroenteritis, diarrhoea, and anemia and these can be caused by the antibiotics. Hepatitis B vaccines can cause gastric acid reflex and restriction of growth. I explained these medical problems in several articles published in Medical Veritas and posted on toxi-health.com.

Sincerely,

Another health professional sent me the following:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20639777

Meryl.

There is a lot of information on antibiotics causing gut problems in infants. I am not a pediatrician but an adult internist/nephrologist.  But I found the above article.  Disturbance of the bowel flora is a known cause of leaky gut and malabsorpiton.  And of course that would lead to rapid weight loss in an infant.  Hope this helps.

So, if this baby’s weight gain was slow (and it doesn’t appear to have been) or inconsistent, it could very well be as a result of the IV antibiotics that she was given against her mother’s wishes.

And if this is the case, the mother’s milk was not insufficient or ‘inadequate’ in any way. Yet Sara was blamed for this and was made to feel deficient as a result.

The mother-baby breastfeeding relationship and bond is incredibly strong – yet incredibly fragile too. It doesn’t take much to put chinks in this wall a mother builds around her baby and herself. The hospital in this case appeared to be doing everything they possibly could to spoil this relationship.

Sara was told that her baby would be woken up every hour at night to be ‘observed’. This meant that Sara was also woken up every hour at night.

The top-up milk was being cup-fed to the baby by nursing staff who were not experienced with this sort of feeding and Sara said that they were rushing so much that the baby was choking and screaming through the whole feed.

There is so much more that I could share with you, but at this point, I will leave this story here.

Sara and baby are now out of hospital but still under observation. Sara is required to present her baby for weighing on Friday this week at the hospital. If baby has gained 150g (an almost impossibly tall order in only 4 days), they are free to go. If less then that, the baby will be re-admitted for ‘checking’. If less than 120g, the baby will be readmitted and fed formula through a nasopharyngeal tube (a tube that goes in through the baby’s nose).

They have set Sara a virtually impossible task and she is not sure of what to do. Since leaving hospital, Sara has visited with a very experienced paediatrician who was not told about this baby’s background but was just shown the chart of weight gain. He was asked if he would be concerned if a baby he was caring for showed this pattern of weight gain and loss and he said that this was well within the normal range and he would not be worried.

One has to wonder why Sara and her baby have had to go through this torture (her words) at the hands of the very people who should be caring for them and respecting their wishes whenever and wherever possible.

I will try to update this information next week if I am able to but if I don’t, I hope you will understand.

Many of you have asked what you can do to help Sara. At this point, there is probably very little that can be done. But there may come a time in the very near future when Sara and her lawyer may start to discuss legal action and if this won’t be covered by Legal Aid, it may be necessary to consider raising funds for this action that will (hopefully) lead to a change of policy for the entire State where this occurred. If so, I will let you know and hopefully, we can assist with that. It will be to everyone’s benefit if this case is won.

In closing, I would like it understood that this story is in no way meant to be an attack on Western Medicine. Hospitals are necessary and doctors do good work.

The issue is when doctors feel that their medical opinion must take primacy over the parents’ decision-making process. That is not the role of medicine. Doctors make mistakes. Things which are accepted as medical fact one day are overturned as fallacious the next.

When it comes to the health of a child, the parents must always have the right to decide what is best after open and transparent discussion with the health practitioners of their choice. After all, it is always going to be the parent who will be dealing with the day-to-day care of their children and parents who care the most about that child’s health, happiness and future.

While there are some unfortunate families where children suffer at the hands of abusive and neglectful parents, this is the exception rather then the rule. Doctors and Family Services organisations across Australia need to realise this and to treat parents with the respect they deserve as the guardians of their precious and beloved children.

[TNmom2three]

It's 4:30 in the morning. I need a summmary. No more then 10 lines.

[lifetimelove]

I know of some similar stories in the us. Despicable.

[JTSMOM495]

lol yep, same here! Except its only 2:30 here. But that is still WAYYY too much to read, even if it wasnt this late lol.

Quoting TNmom2three:

It's 4:30 in the morning. I need a summmary. No more then 10 lines.

[tasukete]

This "Medical Power Over The Innocent" is from the following site:

http://avn.org.au/

I normally wouldn't think of using Wikipedia as a link but I'm needing sleep and a quick reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Vaccination_Network

Here's a another link:  http://www.stopantivaxnetwork.com/

 

[PNutsMomma]

I had nurses calling me every other hour asking me if my daughter had eaten yet after she was born.  And when I told them she was asleep and when she wakes up to eat I will feed her they told me I needed to wake her up THAT MINUTE and force her to eat.  She was healthy, weighed 6.6 lbs at birth and was gaining in the hospital.  They don't usually do that. But they basically treated me like I was an idiot that had no idea how to take care of a child.  I finally had to yell at them. I was like look, I have a child.  I have taken care of many babies, now stop calling my room and waking my daughter and me up.  It stopped after that.  And she was 21lbs at her 9 month visit.

[romanceparty4u]

People think it's far fetched and couldn't happen in America.

Wait until the "new healthcare system" is in full swing. You ain't seen nothin yet.

[armywifenmom09]

Poor woman.

Makes me realize how blessed I am to have a Dr who listens to me about my kids. He always says no one knows a child like their mother.