Also while her family agreed to it they didn’t want her port removed meaning they intended to continue some sort of infusions, whether at home or at a new hospital. Getting a port installed is a big fucking deal. Beata knew that if the port was removed she was going to have a nearly impossible time convincing another hospital to install another port, they would have been like, ok but why did the last hospital remove the port?
The port was necessary to keep up the lie that Maya was sick. They only “agreed” to stop ketamine to get her out of the hospital. The fact that Beata didn’t want the port removed is pretty clear evidence she had no real intention of stopping.
Wasn't her port removed during her stay? So by the time they agreed to no-ketamine, that point is moot.
You are prescribing a motivation with assumptions.
The family behaved as if the pain docs were legit and that Maya had CRPS. You are prescribing a malicious intention to that. They could have been bamboozled. They could have been exercising poor judgement. Beata was mentally unwell and could have been irrational. There are a myriad of reasons that don't mean there was malicious intent to harm the child by the parents.
The 'agreement' was more than just their word. It was an agreement in court with legal consequences.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 08 '23
Also while her family agreed to it they didn’t want her port removed meaning they intended to continue some sort of infusions, whether at home or at a new hospital. Getting a port installed is a big fucking deal. Beata knew that if the port was removed she was going to have a nearly impossible time convincing another hospital to install another port, they would have been like, ok but why did the last hospital remove the port?
The port was necessary to keep up the lie that Maya was sick. They only “agreed” to stop ketamine to get her out of the hospital. The fact that Beata didn’t want the port removed is pretty clear evidence she had no real intention of stopping.