Anonymous Hacker Explains His Attack On Boston Children's Hospital (huffingtonpost.com) 295
Okian Warrior writes: Martin Gottesfeld of Anonymous was arrested in connection with the Spring 2014 attacks on a number of healthcare and treatment facilities in the Boston area. The attacks were in response/defense of a patient there named Justina Pelletier. Gottesfeld now explains why he did what he did, in a statement provided to The Huffington Post. Here's an excerpt from his statement: [Why I Knocked Boston Children's Hospital Off The Internet] The answer is simpler than you might think: The defense of an innocent, learning disabled, 15-year-old girl. In the criminal complaint, she's called 'Patient A,' but to me, she has a name, Justina Pelletier. Boston Children's Hospital disagreed with her diagnosis. They said her symptoms were psychological. They made misleading statement on an affidavit, went to court, and had Justina's parents stripped of custody. They stopped her painkillers, leaving her in agony. They stopped her heart medication, leaving her tachycardic. They said she was a danger to herself, and locked her in a psych ward. They said her family was part of the problem, so they limited, monitored, and censored her contact with them..."
He went on to say... (Score:5, Informative)
I knew that BCH’s big donation day was coming up, and that most donors give online. I felt that to have sufficient influence to save Justina from grievous bodily harm and possible death, as well as dissuade BCH from continuing its well established pattern of such harmful “parentectomies,” I’d have to hit BCH where they appear to care the most, the pocket book and reputation. All other efforts to protect Justina weren’t succeeding and time was of the essence. Almost unbelievably, they kept their donation page on the same public network as the rest of their stuff. Rookie mistake. To take it down, I’d have to knock the whole hospital off the Internet.
I also knew from my career experience as a biotech professional that no patients should be harmed if Boston Children’s was knocked offline. There’s no such thing as an outage-proof network, so hospitals have to be able to function without the Internet. It’s required by federal law, and for accreditation. The only effects would be financial and on BCH’s reputation.",/i>
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you have to invoke a fallacious appeal to authority, you've already lost the argument. The fact that you're trying to make yourself sound like said authority only makes it worse.
Re:He went on to say... (Score:4, Informative)
Unless, of course, you really are an authority and you really do know.
Re: (Score:2)
A biotech professional is quite likely to know the laws and regulations surrounding hospital networks and required contingency plans in the event of network failure since they will likely be involved in equipment that is connected to the network and that must remain usable under the no network contingency.
Now, with what authority do you claim a person in his profession would not know any of that?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, of course, you really are an authority and you really do know.
Please explain how working in a tangentially related field means that he knows the actual state of BCH's infrastructure, and continuity/DR plans. Appealing to false authority is worse than merely appealing to authority, but the latter is still a fallacy. Your claim of being a knowledgeable person does not inherently substantiate your proposition, you need to provide direct, relevant facts.
here’s no such thing as an outage-proof network, so hospitals have to be able to function without the Internet. It’s required by federal law, and for accreditation.
If they claim to be a real hospital and are accredited as such, which they are, then having no internet really shouldn't be the end of the world. If they are relying on internet enabled devices as critical to peoples wellbeing, well then, maybe they shouldn't be in the health care business. Seriously, people like you, it's a wonder how we managed to anything pre internet.
The articles leave too much unanswered (Score:4, Interesting)
And how did she end up at Boston Children's Hospital instead of at Tufts where they originally diagnosed mitochondrial disease?
And did the medical team at Tufts consult with the team at BCH at any point? Or did they just wash their hands of the situation?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Going purely by the articles on this:
And how did she end up at Boston Children's Hospital instead of at Tufts where they originally diagnosed mitochondrial disease?
One of her doctors moved to BCH, so they went there thinking they could continue the already working treatment with a doctor already aware of the genetic disease. Instead they got a hack job, who in absence of any expertise, decided that an eating disorder can only be caused by mistreatment.
And did the medical team at Tufts consult with the team at BCH at any point?
There was just one meeting between BCH and a Tufts doctor and that was limited to a psychologist with no expertise on genetic diseases (BCH) and a specialist on genetic diseases (Tuft
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You've heard of the placebo effect, right?
Then why didn't the psychiatric care work then?
Re: (Score:2)
Being kept away from her parents which she had a psychological dependency (after being told that she's very sick for so long she believes it)?
I don't know anything about this case so the above is 100% speculation. That doesn't change the fact the above does happen, not often but still...
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it happens in the UK as well, where there is basically no profit to be had. So while it might look in the USA to be a greedy lets make money issue, the fact it happens elsewhere in the world under socialised health care suggests that the issue is personal related aka doctor, social worker etc. on power trips or something similar and nothing to do with money.
Try googling "Sally Clark" or "Trupti Patel" if you want to see how the medical profession can abuse it power and get off basically scott
Ring True (Score:3)
Something here does not ring true. The only information we have is from the parents and patient, because no one else is talking, due to the law suits. I refuse to draw any conclusions until we know the whole story.
You only ever hear one side of a medical story (Score:2)
If you want to help the family (Score:5, Informative)
Brave new world (Score:2)
In the past people would just have gone postal on their asses.
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Informative)
Do some research on the case. The hospital's opinion is at odds with a load of other independent medical experts with direct familiarity of the case. The state and the hospital overstepped their rightful authority in such an extreme example of overreach that it crosses well past the point of negligent misfeasance and frankly some people out to be in prison over it and the state and the hospital should be splitting the cost for real care for Justina for the rest of her life.
That said, I don't think that justifies attacking the hospital electronically or physically; just through legal channels. But the hospital and courts were complete and utter pieces of shit in this case.
Last resort (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I don't think that justifies attacking the hospital electronically or physically; just through legal channels. But the hospital and courts were complete and utter pieces of shit in this case.
It's an interesting situation.
We've long bemoaned our inability to hold people accountable for their actions. Example after example of big, politically well-connected entities seem to get off scott free, and we the people are powerless to do anything about it, nor can we force the government to action.
(HSBC directors not being charged [bbc.com], Wells Fargo directors not being charged [bloomberg.com], Oracle paying $95 million in services restitution for wasting $240 million [slashdot.org], and so on.)
Note that Justina's parents were issued a gag order that prevented them from talking about their problems, and it was only *after* her father broke the gag order that the situation received public attention.
Do we believe that the father should be prosecuted for breaking the gag order? He was justifiably concerned for his daughter's welfare. The hacker was also concerned, and wanted to send a message and perhaps prevent more abuse and tortures.
We all know very well that the democratic process is lost to us - as anyone who voted for Bernie Sanders [politico.com] found out.
How can we condemn the "last resort" actions of any individual trying to bring about just and proper changes?
Where do we draw the line?
Re: (Score:3)
You never draw the line alone, you always draw it with others. You talk and seek support, you reach out to activist groups like say 'Anonymous' (in light of gag orders, especially worthwhile as you can reach out to them anonymously ;) ). You try to get as many people as possible to draw that line and together you achieve change. Don't expect any scamming Uncle Tom to provide you with hope and change, it's just a lie, you have to be that hope and change and all the others who join make that hope and change a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How can we condemn the "last resort" actions of any individual trying to bring about just and proper changes?
Where do we draw the line?
Deciding to take action because you believe -- rightly or wrongly -- that there's an ongoing injustice that no one else is going to fix, is the recipe for terrorism, without regard to ideology.
A line needs to be drawn somewhere. I doubt that it's possible to create a society where no one ever gets screwed (even to death), but it would be far worse if we didn't try to draw a line and enforce it.
IMO.
Re:Last resort (Score:4, Informative)
Remember - they are only terrorists if the revolution fails, otherwise they're freedom fighters and heroes.
Re: (Score:2)
Gag orders are always unconstitutional. Yes. Always.
Re: (Score:2)
We all know very well that the democratic process is lost to us - as anyone who voted for Bernie Sanders [politico.com] found out.
I voted for Sanders, and I'm sorry, your citation doesn't support what you claim. If anything, I would argue that Sanders's success proves it is possible to achieve change democratically, even if it won't be as easy as some hoped. Success? Yes, he did far better than anyone imagined he would, and he forced Clinton to address a number of his and his supporters' policies and priorities. Did we get everything we wanted? Of course not, but that's not how the real world works. Politics is almost never about sudd
Re: (Score:2)
definition
terrorist (n): a person who, in order to get you to do what he wants, hurts others
situation
Attacks fully or partially caused:
Inability to route prescriptions electronically to pharmacies
Email downtime for departments where email supports critical processes
Inability to access remotely hosted electronic health records
conclusion
Wherever we see this dynamic, regardless of sympathetic motives, we can recognize a bad guy. Heroes don't do it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
when the 'right way' wont work, do it any fucking way you can.
"I learned from watching you, dad!"
(so to speak)
rules are for little people. so, the hacker decided it should follow the rulebook of some other class of personhood.
I understand. I know that our system is filled with broken-ness. and when you lose faith that the system can work, you go rogue.
I fully understand. it sucks that we have gotton to this, but we have.
Re: (Score:3)
Inability to route prescriptions electronically to pharmacies
OMG! Don't tell me someone had to call it in!
Email downtime for departments where email supports critical processes
You're telling me this place actually bets peoples lives on EMAIL? Perhaps they should stay shut down!
Inability to access remotely hosted electronic health records
AND they have no procedure to deal with a network issue? No alternate networks? Not even via cellphone?
The workarounds are there. They mean bringing in extra people and cost money, but they are there.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that they weren't actually unable to call in prescriptions, communicate between departments, or access patient records. It did cost them about $300K.
Note that he attacked the internet facing portions of their network. It's not like he was knocking out medical monitors or anything.
Re: (Score:2)
definition terrorist (n): a person who, in order to get you to do what he wants, hurts others
Umm, a terrorist is someone who uses terror to get what they want. Clue is in the name.
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of "terrorist" has been utterly destroyed by the political and media interests since 2001.
It has no meaning now.
All I do is replace the word with "crime" (and "criminal" as appropriate) when consuming news reports.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the most rudimentary investigation into this story reveals that the hospital didn't decided to take her from her parents, the state child protective services (equivalent) did. There are also some pretty strong correlations between her condition being strongly exacerbated by the presence of her mother (which is the basis by which she has been diagnosed with a psychosomatic disorder.)
I don't doubt that this poor girls is suffering from physical disorder(s), but it's a very complex situation and the hacke
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Informative)
It's pretty simple when you boil it down to its basic facts.
This isn't a complicated situation and we don't need Matlock to figure out what the fuck happened here. It's pretty plain and simple, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, certainly the parents are at fault here, as when their daughter was kidnapped by the state and held captive by the doctors, for some reason the refused to cooperate with the kidnappers, and even called them bad names!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is why we have clueless morons joining Anonymous, so that they can screw up a whole hospital without leaving their mother's basement. Sure he *thought* he was making a different, but he did not make any difference and he put other people in danger. Which is more fun than actually protesting, contributing funds for a lawsuit, writing an angry letter, and so forth. Sure, those actions might not cause any change, but neither did this action. No injustices were righted, no problems fixed, no angels
Re: (Score:2)
Well if the family member thought hacking into the hospital was a good way to deal with the problem. Perhaps there is a problem with that family and they are dangerious to the child.
It's a dispute between zebra specialists. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do some research on the case
I have. And this is what I concluded: this is a case of zebras vs. horses. That fully explains the motives of the actors in this case.
Medical students are famously taught that when it comes to diagnosis, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." In other words avoid making a diagnosis of a rare condition when a commonplace one will do.
There are obvious epistemological problems with this rule of thumb; one is that zebras do, in fact, exist, and in certain parts of the world are more common than horses. The second is that what is a "zebra" is dependent upon your clinical practice. For a clinical geneticist specializing in mitochondrial diseases Munchhausen-by-proxy is a zebra. For a doctor who specializes in detecting child abuse, a severe mitochondrial DNA mutation is a zebra.
Now consider a court that regularly deals with child abuse cases. Which specialist is the judge (who has his own epistemological biases) going to believe? The specialist in obscure genetic diseases, or the one who's been nailing abusers for years?
Dr. Newton, the Children's Hospital lead in this case, is admired by children's advocates in Massachusetts, and is described by some of them in one news story as "a highly respected physician who fearlessly speaks the truth as she sees it." And maybe that's the problem. Maybe playing the heroic role for too long is bad for your judgment, makes you see disagreement as unwillingness to listen.
What I am suggesting is that the error on the part of Children's Hospital here may have come out of the same mindset under which Anonymous operates, one suffused with the warm, affirming glow of self-righteousness. As I've grown older I have learned to recognize that feeling for what it is: a corrupting influence on judgment.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I don't think that justifies attacking the hospital electronically or physically; just through legal channels. But the hospital and courts were complete and utter pieces of shit in this case.
So the courts were utter pieces of shit, but you still think there is some "legal channel" available to attack them through? There really wasn't, which is why this guy is a hero for bringing attention to the malfeasance. Legal channels had already failed the child and her family, and left her at the mercy of these psychopathic bureaucrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You appeal from the courts to the court of public opinion.
Yes because everyone has the resources or wherewithal to make that happen.
Perhaps that's exactly what this fellow did, he utilized the skills he head to elevate the situation to greater awareness so that public opinion might bear.
You kidnap the child from the hospital, and let the hospital re-open the court battle.
I'm not sure if you forgot your sarcasm tag. Either way, kidnapping is usually a far less desirable action than hacking whatever the cause.
Re:Who knew? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Why talk to the collateral damage?
Re: (Score:2)
tell that to the on duty cop evey hospital has
In case anyone actually thinks this is true, it's not. Cops are not automatically stationed at hospitals (some, maybe), though most should have at least on-site contracted security.
Re: (Score:2)
Private hospitals. Now part of the 'nanny state'.
When people desperately believe there is one true villain responsible for all of life's ills like libertarians do - a believe that has never been true anywhere about anything because nothing has ever been that simple - they will see that villain everywhere, even where he is conspicuously NOT the guilty party.
Or is the "nanny state" you refer to the courts ? Who made the mistake of listening to medical professionals ? You seriously would prefer we get rid of t
Re: (Score:2)
Private hospitals. Now part of the 'nanny state'.
When people desperately believe there is one true villain responsible for all of life's ills like libertarians do - a believe that has never been true anywhere about anything because nothing has ever been that simple - they will see that villain everywhere, even where he is conspicuously NOT the guilty party.
Or is the "nanny state" you refer to the courts ? Who made the mistake of listening to medical professionals ? You seriously would prefer we get rid of the court system ?
Sure, let's go back to settling disputes with brawls. That worked so much better...
I'd rather have pistols at 20 paces, myself....
Re: (Score:2)
Private hospitals. Now part of the 'nanny state'.
Boston Children's Hospital may be "private" by your definition, but it's an entirely tax-exempt organization that receives millions of dollars in Federal funding every year. It's more like a public/private partnership. [childrenshospital.org]
So, yea, part of the 'nanny state'.
Re: (Score:2)
Duels with swords are way more manly.
Re: Who knew? (Score:2)
Churches are tax exempt as well. That does not make them public. All non profts are tax exempt. And there is not a single private corporation in the USA who does not get a lot of federal and state funding. If thats the definition you choose then the USA has no private sector and has been a particularly inefficient variety of full blown communism for at least 2 centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
And there is not a single private corporation in the USA who does not get a lot of federal and state funding.
WUT?? LOL!
Re: (Score:2)
You appeal from the courts to the court of public opinion.
Yes because everyone has the resources or wherewithal to make that happen.
Anyone can write a blog or post a Youtube video, and then send the link to some friends. After that, if the meme fails to spread, then you likely didn't explain your point very well, or you didn't have much of a point to make.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can write a blog or post a Youtube video, and then send the link to some friends. After that, if the meme fails to spread, then you likely didn't explain your point very well, or you didn't have much of a point to make.
Not everyone has mastered the art of making a persuasive argument, even if they are on the morally-correct side of the debate. He used the tools he had at his disposal. (Note that this is not meant as support of the appropriateness of the methods used).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because everyone has the resources or wherewithal to make that happen.
What, there are people out there who don't have a phone? You can get a cheap mobile plan prepaid for under $20 a month, on a sub-$100 smartphone. Based on the circumstances described, the parents were capable of calls or emails to the local news stations.
kidnapping is usually a far less desirable action than hacking whatever the cause.
You can't kidnap your own child. If there was sarcasm, it was in the use of "kidnapping" to refer to a rescue, but you obviously can't even consider it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't kidnap your own child. If there was sarcasm, it was in the use of "kidnapping" to refer to a rescue, but you obviously can't even consider it.
If we're talking legally, then you can kidnap your own child if you've had custody taken away from you. If we're talking ethically it's a bit more debatable in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
But can a private hospital legally take custody away from a parent? If anything, the hospital is negligent by not further exploring options.
Well, they did it. All it took was a overzealous state bureaucracy and a compliant court system.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the state (a judge) can reassign custody to the hospital based on evidence the hospital provides, which I think is what happened here.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't kidnap your own child. If there was sarcasm, it was in the use of "kidnapping" to refer to a rescue, but you obviously can't even consider it.
Uhhhh....In many states you can, especially in contested custody cases. See folks thrown in jail all the time taking their own children from grandparents (who have been granted legal custody), or ex-spouses without their permission....
Re: (Score:3)
That was specifically banned though. They weren't allowed to speak about it.
Then how did Martin learn about it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: independent medical experts (Score:5, Informative)
The medical experts that sided with the family included the girls primary physician at Tufts Medical Center who knew her well and was treating her successfully, as well as many other MD experts in the same field who were unpaid and who reviewed and agreed with his diagnosis.
They were MDs, not homeopaths.
The state sided initially with the hospital and thus they are as criminally liable for her injury, deprivation of her meds for mitochondrial disease, 16 months of physical and psychological torture, as well as treating the parents like they had abused their daughter. She went in with the flu, but was otherwise functional, with videos just prior of her skating and hanging out with friends.
The quacks at the hospital locked her in a psych ward for 16 months. After 16 months without meds the hospital had nearly killed her, which is why they finally returned custody to the parents, because if she had died someone would have been facing manslaughter at least if not 2nd degree murder. When she was finally released she could not stand, sit or walk on her own and had other severe symptoms of the untreated mitochondrial disease. She has also had to have multiple surgeries to correct some of the damage.
Since your google is broken, here are some links. I know it sounds like Stalinist Russia, but this actually happened in the US a couple of years ago...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/me... [bostonglobe.com]
http://www.theblaze.com/storie... [theblaze.com]
If you have kids and didn't know about this story, you need to wake up and pay attention to the people and politicians who are trying to take away your rights as a citizen and as a parent. It is some scary shit.
BCH psch = T4 program (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You guys are all a bunch of wakos. Seriously.
What could possibly motivate a hospital staff to open themselves up to negligence lawsuits just so that they could ... what? Torture a patient for jollies? Or something?
Before you draw conclusions that fit your tinfoil hat world view, please just spend even the tiniest moment trying to reason out why any group of people would behave in a way that defies logic, before concluding that this is what they must have done.
A single person can do batshit crazy stuff, y
Re: BCH psch = T4 program (Score:4, Insightful)
Because doctors are heavenly beings and not human, as we all know. All it takes is one idiot on a moral crusade, confirmation bias among a group of doctors (very common), failure to admit mistakes (again very common) and finally recognising mistakes but covering them up. In fact, they're probably guilty of the same thing you are; failing to recognise they are themselves just as fallible.
Re:BCH psch = T4 program (Score:5, Insightful)
Power, for example. Or someone makes a decision and everyone else just supports it without chechking themselves, since, you know, the person that originally made the decision is a highly qualified professional.
A single person can do batshit crazy stuff, yes. But a group of professionals working in a hospital? Nope. Not going to happen.
It's called esprit de corps. You don't doubt your other fellow professionals, you doubt the stupid patient, since the latter didn't go to university with you and/or isn't in your fraternity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Happens all the time when a team member makes a mistake. And I say "team" because often it's not the organisation as a whole that gets involved in covering up mistakes, it's not policy; it's just individual teams with people in other departments playing ball. They close ranks, have each others backs, and go out of their way to ensure they will not have to admit they made a mistake. Sometimes they go to extreme lengths: police plant evidence in a case they bollocksed up, people at city hall drive a businessman to financial ruin because they issued him with a zoning permit when they shouldn't have. And don't get me started on what passes for child protective services over here. There have been several cases where they made a mistake, and instead of admitting it they doubled down on smearing the parents, with several "professionals" colluding in this deception, including MDs. It's not even confirmation bias, they have knowingly kept children away from their parents in order to not have to own up to an earlier mistake in the case.
Sources please.
I mean, you're probably right, but I'd like to feel some outrage.
Re: (Score:3)
A single person can do batshit crazy stuff, yes. But a group of professionals working in a hospital? Nope. Not going to happen. There may be some bending of rules, some I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you'll-scratch-mine situations, but a group of doctors intentionally trying to injure a child? That doesn't happen. Period.
Do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.
Re:BCH psch = T4 program (Score:5, Insightful)
But a group of professionals working in a hospital? Nope. Not going to happen. There may be some bending of rules, some I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you'll-scratch-mine situations, but a group of doctors intentionally trying to injure a child? That doesn't happen. Period.
I think I can answer this with a C. S. Lewis quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
It doesn't exactly describe this situation, but I think it fits.
Facts
- A qualified pediatrician at Tuft's was treating the child and managing her symptoms on an outpatient basis.
- The pediatrician referred the family to a gastroenterologist at BCH.
- For some reason that BCH has yet to outline in anything I've read, BCH defied the pediatrician and family's wishes, and instead of allowing the gastroenterologist to evaluate the child, they had a psychiatrist take on the case.
- The psychiatrist had a golden hammer, so he treated the problem like the nail he was familiar with and said that it's all in her head.
- The patient has been deteriorating under BCH's care.
- The patient is recovering now that she's been released from BCH and resumed treatment under the pediatrician's diagnosis.
Tell me which diagnosis is likely correct: the psyciatrist's or the pediatrician's? Which course of treatment was more successful?
This may shock you, but not all doctors believe in the Hippocratic Oath.
Think it over. What's more likely? Human pettiness and greed motivating BCH to take over care for the patient under the pretense that she only needs to be isolated from her family and given room and board so they can soak up medicare reimbursement to the tune of $1,000 per day (they invoiced twice as much)? Or the pediatrician being a quack?
If a doctor told you to jump off a cliff, would you? If a "doctor" (a psychiatrist) you didn't even ask to see said that your child needed to be shoved off a cliff for her own good, and if the psychiatrist's facility refused to let the original doctor defend his diagnosis, would you let him?
Re: (Score:2)
A single person can do batshit crazy stuff, yes. But a group of professionals working in a hospital? Nope. Not going to happen. There may be some bending of rules, some I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you'll-scratch-mine situations, but a group of doctors intentionally trying to injure a child? That doesn't happen. Period.
Are you purposely ignoring the history of medical experimentation on human beings that has taken place around the world on people? Unit 731, Nazi Doctors at Auschwitz, CIA MKULTRA doctors being the most extreme and obvious cases.
Re:BCH psch = T4 program (Score:4, Insightful)
You guys are all a bunch of wakos. Seriously.
What could possibly motivate a hospital staff to open themselves up to negligence lawsuits just so that they could ... what? Torture a patient for jollies? Or something?
Before you draw conclusions that fit your tinfoil hat world view, please just spend even the tiniest moment trying to reason out why any group of people would behave in a way that defies logic, before concluding that this is what they must have done.
A single person can do batshit crazy stuff, yes. But a group of professionals working in a hospital? Nope. Not going to happen. There may be some bending of rules, some I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you'll-scratch-mine situations, but a group of doctors intentionally trying to injure a child? That doesn't happen. Period.
There has to be a liability issue here that we aren't seeing. Liability is the primary motivator of hospitals and medical professionals in the USA, that is to say avoidance of liability.
The hospital was likely worried that if they didn't do what they did they would be opened up for some lawsuit that their malpractice insurance wouldn't cover.
A lot of the crazy stuff that goes on in the USA is motivated by exactly this kind of thing. Like the diaper changing routine in daycare centers which involves sterilizing the table beforehand, washing the hands and putting rubber gloves on before starting, washing the hands and changing to a new pair of rubber gloves after removing the diaper, washing the hands after putting the new diaper on and sterilizing the table again. its more extreme than a CDC infectious disease lock down. Because liability.
EGOS (Score:3)
Egos, and it is quite common. More common than you would believe. And this is from nurses and doctors I know.
Re: (Score:2)
EDUCATE YOURSELF (Score:5, Informative)
This case occurred about 2 years ago. Their medical experts were not "alternative". In fact, their main physician was the department head of metabolic medicine at Tufts University. So far far from it.
Like "fibromyalgia", which many doctors felt was a non-existent disease. (Which has now been disproven as the cause of many fibro cases has been identified.) The doctor at Boston Children's Hospital did not believe "mitochondria" disease to be real. So he determined that it was all psycho-somatic, that her illness was just in her head. When Justina was brought to the hospital, the mother insisted that she needed a feeding tube. The doctors objected to this, used it in court to argue that the mother was pushing false illness and unnecessary treatments upon her daughter. Oh, they failed to mention that the very next day they had to give Justina a feeding tube.
This became a big toodoo... and the truth is, the state of Mass and Boston Children's Hospital uber fucked up. The issue was, that once they did, they committed fiercely to remaining in their position instead of admitting fault for fear of lawsuits. They essentially moved Justina to a psychological ward, ceased medical treatment, and her health condition plunged.
Also of note, this is NOT the first incident like this on the part of Boston Children's Hospital. They did a similar thing to another parent. The difference was she used to work for Child Protective Services. So they did not substantiate the charges. That parent in fact loss a child because of BCH's actions. A second child developed the same genetic mitochondria disease. And has since done significantly better after have been removed from BCH care and received treatment from the same far more knowledgeable expert at Tufts that was treating Justina.
In other words, BCH is hurting and even killing children by their actions. The sum of it being that egotistical doctors harming children because of their egos.
Re: (Score:2)
Most large combined houses like that are hot-spots for sexual abuse, often from the other children. In a large family the taboo and social pressures against incest suppress such activities. But in foster homes that beneficial affect is significantly removed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>, I don't agree attacking them electronically to possibly put other innocent lives at risk was the answer
Had that been the case - it would not get much sympathy, but it wasn't. The hospital does not need internet to keep patients alive, in fact under federal law a hospital cannot even get accredited unless all their patient care facilities are fully capable of functioning without internet. Knocking out their internet would not put anybody at risk whatsoever and the hacker knew this.
All it DID do was kno
Re: (Score:2)
Knocking out their internet would not put anybody at risk whatsoever and the hacker knew this.
In this case it might not have, but in other places it could. For example, many hospitals don't hire Radiologists, but instead contract out to private groups. They will very often read the images remotely part or full-time, and if the hospital's Internet access is down, the images cannot be read. Emergency situations can often require radiological services.
Re: Who knew? (Score:2)
That would be illegal without some sort of non internet dependent backup.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they can call a radiologist to come on-site or transfer them to another hospital, but both of those delay patient care.
Re: (Score:2)
The parents have found a single doctor who said it might be mitochondrial problems, but after all this time it has still not been established. The parents refuse to get a proper muscle biopsy done, something that could clarify if that is the actual cause.
The hospital had full custody of her and provided any treatment they saw fit for 16 months. Why didn't they do a "proper muscle biopsy"? Oh, right, because one of their "experts" diagnosed it as psychological, so there was no need to check for anything else. Even while her health was getting worse and worse the whole time.
Aside from that, a muscle biopsy (typically multiple are required, and they are painful) will not necessarily produce a definitive answer.
Wrong... (Score:2)
It is not a single doctor. It is the head of the metabolic department at Tufts University Medical Center. Oh, guess what....this isn't the first incident of this situation at Boston Children's Hospital. The last incident, led to the death of a child. Who's sibling also has the same problem but has done extremely well under the Tuft medical teams care.
Re: Who knew? (Score:4, Informative)
I also read about the involvement of a Christian organization on the parents' side, which gave me pause.
Well then you're dumb.
The family are devout Catholics. The Catholic teaching on refusing necessary medical care is that it is tantamount to suicide, a sin that gets you sent to Hell.
While the girl was in the hospital, the hospital authorities were preventing her from going to Mass with the hospital's chaplain.
The family reached out to Christian groups because they didn't have enough money to sue to get their daughter back. And because it is in fact BS, the (perhaps right-wing) Christian groups agreed to help. And then, years later, because it was BS, the (perhaps left-wing) Huffington Post reports sympathetically on the hacker.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmm... House is usually right. Unless someone has taken his pills away again.
Re: (Score:3)
BCH refused to do so with another child. When after months of fighting and attempting to seize custody. They finally relented. Conducted the biopsy, which revealed....strong possibilities of mitochondrial disease.
So this isn't even BCH's first foray in killing kids because of egos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And how did this help Justina? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you know she even existed yesterday?
Re: (Score:3)
Did you know she even existed yesterday?
No, but his actions didn't bring me any closer to knowing the unbiased facts about her case. Knowing about her only means I know about yet another unresolved problem.
The only thing publicizing his statement did was ensure that lots of underinformed+unqualified people now hold a strong opinion on it. Depending on the facts, that could hurt her more than it helps her.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, but knowing about her is an absolute prerequisite to any further digging you might (or might not) be inclined to do. There are a lot of people who now know about her. Some will actually get curious and dig deeper. Some of those will apply political pressure for reforms.
Re: (Score:2)
He could have announced his reasons. He waited until long after he was arrested though. Sort of pointless unless someone knows the reason.
Re:And how did this help Justina? (Score:4, Insightful)
OH LOOK! He DID [youtube.com]! For obvious reasons, we didn't know it was him until after the arrest.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. AFAIK from /. (which would mean comment section - doubt there would be a story about it).
It didn't, but you see... (Score:3)
Justina wasn't the first BCH did this too. Actions toward a prior one cost a mother the life of her child. This isn't to avenge, so much as to raises awareness and inhibit future transgressions against children and their families.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
decided to kill my little sister because my parents were well-known socialists, I will now never side with the doctors against a child. The CONservative rulers of Seattle hate us and want us to die. That is why I still have dial-up at home. My parents have it a little better since they're allowed ISDN. Again, our rulers hate us which is why they created the Director's Rules.
So why live there?
Re: (Score:2)
He denied access to important medical information to hundreds of sick children and their parents.
You mean all the information that was still there and accessible in other ways? Phone, fax or print and deliver etc. I don't know for sure but I'm pretty sure parents can't just log on and check their kids medical records from home so that's not a thing. Other than some inconvenience and drawing attention to a horrible thing happening why is it such a massive deal? Can you just not imagine not being constantly connected? Are you the type of person who would go fetal if they can't get online?
Medical Records Access (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who thinks he knows more than specialist medics. Seem to be self-evident example of wiki/Munchausen_syndrome_by_proxy
Which medical experts? The medical experts who took the kid of medicine she was responding too, locked her in psyche and watched a massive decline, gagged the parents from speaking about it, removed from their care and then returned when the kid was all but on death's door. Those medical experts? Or the original one that seemed to be doing a decent job.
STFU and go read this case (Score:3)
What this was, was a psychologist who interfered in medical treatment of a present diagnosis. Ceased medical case, while patient's condition rapidly deteriorated. And who's objection to parent for giving advice, in fact, said hospital had to within 24 hours do exactly what the parent had stated was necessary based on numerous prior medical experiences.
No, had this been my child. There would of been a lot of dead doctors....
Re:is she really a mito kid? (Score:4, Informative)
Can anyone provide any evidence that this girl actually has a mitochondrial disorder? I take care of a lot of very complex mito kiddos, and the really sick ones are attached to drips 24 hours a day.
Well... there's the evidence that while being treated for it she was doing okay (could walk, skate, talk, etc.), but when that treatment was removed and denied, she deteriorated to the point that she was in a wheelchair and had trouble talking, then when treatment for mito resumed, she improved significantly.
So, there's that.