Ten rights violations that will not be tolerated


Justina Pelletier had a right to a surrogate decision-maker the instant BCH felt parental authority should be overridden. She was flagrantly denied that right for two months, while BCH made her medical decisions without consulting DCF.


The Court challenges the safety of the parents’ decisions on the basis of their disagreement with doctors at BCH, but also on the basis of failing to disagree with doctors at Tufts. That is a contradictory standard no parent could ever meet.


The Court has no right to choose between conflicting medical opinions on behalf of a child until there’s evidence of parents’ unsafe decision making – but without choosing which opinion is right there is no such evidence.


According to the ACLU, when the ability to consent to treatment is established, so is the ability to refuse consent. Linda Pelletier’s ability to consent was established when BCH doctors asked for her signature on their new care plan on February 13 – then it was challenged solely on the basis of refusal to consent.


The Pelletiers’ inclination to resist withdrawing their daughter’s standing medical treatments was a natural and appropriate product of good instinct about their obligation to provide necessary medical care.


The evidence the Pelletiers received from BCH about their daughter’s diagnosis of somatoform disorder was not sufficient to overturn any good parent’s instinct to continue to provide their child with established necessary medical care.


In insisting their daughter should be treated according to her established care plan, the Pelletiers abided by legal requirements and precedents set for parental decision-making, all of which obligate parents not to refuse necessary medical care.


Even if the Pelletiers are guilty of child abuse they have a right to a detailed explanation of the basis on which their right to make medical decisions for their child has been eliminated by the Court.


Even if the Pelletiers are guilty of medical child abuse the Court has an obligation to prepare and present an explanation for accepting the continued demand of Boston Children’s Hospital to treat Justina Pelletier in a locked inpatient psychiatric facility rather than in an outpatient setting.


Bader 5’s aggressive behavior modification for somatoform children is an atrocity because the somatoform diagnosis can never be certain, and emotional damage results when children are punished for real medical symptoms. With a somatoform diagnosis in dispute, it is unconscionable to place Justina in any facility that takes that approach.

The Coalition for Diagnostic Rights eradicating the practice of denial of care www.diagnosticrights.org
see a full explanation of how each of these tights has been vloktt: http://www.dlagnostIcrights.org