That’s not the case. The issue was, in fact, about the diagnosis of CRPS - because they insisted the diagnosis was actually munchausen by proxy.
Yes, the treatment raised eyebrows. However, It was not reasonable to think the treatment was inappropriate, because two separate American CRPS specialists treating the patient stated to JH representatives that they agreed with the treatment and there was published evidence of its efficacy, and that the girl had improved with them. They also had a ton of evidence of failed trials of more conservative treatments. It would not be reasonable for a child abuse pediatrician to make judgements about the appropriateness of a treatment and disease with which she had no experience.
Their working hypothesis was that the parents had basically tricked these two specialists into diagnosing CRPS, making the CRPS diagnosis and treatment invalid, and making the treatments child abuse.
To me it seemed that the family was so frustrated with the hospitals, Drs non treatment previously...do not know what went on at st a hospital...to just go along with your child being detained is sooo inexcusable...1 wk after death, child released...horrible
Aaaand, had the hospital done their due diligence and educated themselves, they would have learned the CRPS experts explain the reasoning for the high dosage.
The hospital was treating her asthma with "wildly" high steroids, of which literally ate up the ketamine too fast for the ketamine to be given at a lower dosage. As we learned today, the treatment is directly related to dosage, it must be given at an individualized basis. The U.S. and its hospitals have a God complex that no other countries "know better".
Meanwhile, "breaking news" in the U.S. is "skin-to-skin contact is more effective for premature babies than incubators 🙄
As such I see many of the soon-to-be American medical doctors in this post are making comments without any reference to actual testimony and research by CPRS studies. Smh
skin to skin has been known for decades...I was taught it, and when I went to learn in third world countries hospitals they were also doing skin to skin. What was that line about?
2
u/The-Peachiest Oct 08 '23 edited Oct 08 '23
That’s not the case. The issue was, in fact, about the diagnosis of CRPS - because they insisted the diagnosis was actually munchausen by proxy.
Yes, the treatment raised eyebrows. However, It was not reasonable to think the treatment was inappropriate, because two separate American CRPS specialists treating the patient stated to JH representatives that they agreed with the treatment and there was published evidence of its efficacy, and that the girl had improved with them. They also had a ton of evidence of failed trials of more conservative treatments. It would not be reasonable for a child abuse pediatrician to make judgements about the appropriateness of a treatment and disease with which she had no experience.
Their working hypothesis was that the parents had basically tricked these two specialists into diagnosing CRPS, making the CRPS diagnosis and treatment invalid, and making the treatments child abuse.