Hey pickle! try again
Beldin the Sorcerer
have something to do with the image copied in one of the cites, so I'll try
again.
From any number of different hospitals in multiple states.
As I suspected, it's the law that you can't put your kid in the car without
a car seat.
Hospitals covering their asses so they aren't accessories or liable in a
lawsuit is par for the course. And it sure as hell isn't kidnapping.
One of the first items we purchased for my daughter was a car seat. We
installed it in our car before I was even close to giving birth. Why? I knew
that when we left the hospital with our newborn, a car seat would have to be
installed in our car. First of all, it's the safest way for an infant or
young child to travel -- in my opinion it's the only safe way. Second, it's
the law. When traveling in a motor vehicle on Long Island, all children
under the age of four must be restrained in a child safety seat. This is
stated in New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, Section 1229-c, which
says:
"No person shall operate a motor vehicle in this state unless all back seat
passengers of such vehicle under the age of four are restrained in a
specially designed seat which meets the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards set forth in 49 C.F.R. 571.213 and which is either permanently
affixed or is affixed to such vehicle by a safety belt..."
SAMPLE DISCHARGE POLICY
Newborn and Pediatric Discharges in Child Restraints Meeting FMVSS 213
PHILOSOPHY
The leading cause of death and injury in children is automobile crashes.
Child restraints that meet FMVSS 213 are
approximately 71% effective in reducing death and injury in infants and
young children. Newborns are at increased
risk for death if allowed to ride on an adult's lap. Pennsylvania law
requires all children under age 8 to ride in an
appropriate child restraint system that meets FMVSS 213. Hospitals are
required to inform parents of the law and
direct them to a loan program if they cannot afford a child restraint.
Children age 12 and under are generally safer in
the BACK SEAT. When a passenger side airbag is present, rear-facing infants
under age 1 and 20 pounds MUST
ride in the BACK SEAT. Forward-facing children over that age should ride in
the BACK SEAT unless children
occupy all seating positions in the rear. Parents may need repeated
encouragement to follow these guidelines.
POLICY
To comply with PA state law, parents of all infants and children under age 8
discharged from the nursery and
pediatrics shall be informed of PA state law. If unable to afford a
restraint that meets FMVSS 213 they will be
directed to the nearest child restraint loan program.
Car Seat Information
Louisiana law requires that you buckle up your children in proper car seats.
Woman's Hospital holds educational events on car seat safety throughout the
year. For information on those events, call Resources for Women at 924-8444.
Baby Safety When Leaving the Hospital
a.. For your safety and comfort, you and your baby will be escorted to
your car upon discharge.
b.. Massachusetts state law requires car seat restraints for all children
under 12 years old. Newborns should ride in a semi-reclined, rear-facing
infant car seat. It is important that your car seat is the correct size for
your baby's weight. We recommend that parents purchase a new car seat for
their baby. However, if an older model is used, be sure that it is not more
than five years old as older seats may not be as structurally safe as newer
seats. Be sure to read the instructions and know how to use your car seat.
It must be anchored to the vehicle with a seat belt, and the harness must be
fastened.
Call 1-866-SEAT-CHECK for the location nearest you where you can have your
car seat checked for safe and correct placement in your car. For newborn
babies, a rolled-up receiving blanket or towel placed on either side of the
baby and between the legs underneath the crotch strap will give additional
support. Always put the infant car seat in the center of the back seat, and
away from airbags. If your baby was born weighing less than 5 pounds 8
ounces, or has not reached 37 weeks gestational age at birth, your baby will
be tested in his or her car seat before discharge.
Household infant carriers are not designed to protect an infant in a car,
even if a seat belt is placed around them. Remember, it is unsafe and
illegal to ride with the baby in your arms.
It is the law in Massachusetts to use the car seat every time your child
is in the car and use your own seat belt for protection. Automobile
accidents are the number one preventable cause of injury to children.
Bob T.
wrote:
<snip>
> One of the first items we purchased for my daughter was a car seat. We
> installed it in our car before I was even close to giving birth.
You're a woman? I never would have guessed.
- Bob T.
da pickle
>I posted this over the weekend but it didn't show up. I suspect it might
>have something to do with the image copied in one of the cites, so I'll try
>again.
>
> From any number of different hospitals in multiple states.
>
> As I suspected, it's the law that you can't put your kid in the car
> without
> a car seat.
Didn't your mother teach you the difference between "can" and "should" not?
If course you *can* put your kid in the care without a car seat. You will
be in violation of a law, but they cannot confiscate your kid if you violate
the law. The law does not "prevent" you from violating it.
I am tempted to throw in a "you're an idiot" but that would be childish.
<snip the rest of the material that does not support the conclusion>
da pickle
<snip>
> One of the first items we purchased for my daughter was a car seat. We
> installed it in our car before I was even close to giving birth.
================
You're a woman? I never would have guessed.
================
What sort of slip is this?
Bob T.
Well, if he's a woman it's much more likely that his slip is
showing... but I suspect he was just expressing solidarity with his
wife, who actually was close to giving birth at the time.
- Bob T.
da pickle
> <snip>> One of the first items we purchased for my daughter was a car
> seat. We
> > installed it in our car before I was even close to giving birth.
>
> ================
> You're a woman? I never would have guessed.
> ================
>
> What sort of slip is this?
====================
Well, if he's a woman it's much more likely that his slip is
showing... but I suspect he was just expressing solidarity with his
wife, who actually was close to giving birth at the time.
====================
I suspect so.
JerseyRudy
We'll try one more time, and then if it still is not sinking in then we will
have to just chalk it up to brain-lock:
if you choose to give birth in a hospital, then the first thing that you will be
asked to do is agree in writing to comply with the hospital's regulations.
Everyone has the right to review the regulations beforehand (if you are pregnant
and think you might have a problem complying with safety-regulations, then it
would be smart to review all the regulations months in advance). If you
subsequently refuse to comply with the regulations regarding the safety of your
baby (after previously agreeing to comply with them), then the hospital will not
allow you to leave with the baby. It is not "confiscating" or "kidnapping"
because the hospital has legal custody of any new-born baby until they release
the baby into the care and custody of the parents.
This system has been working pretty smoothly for the last few decades.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
>> Didn't your mother teach you the difference between "can" and "should"
>> not?
>> If course you *can* put your kid in the care without a car seat. You will
>> be in violation of a law, but they cannot confiscate your kid if you
>> violate
>> the law. The law does not "prevent" you from violating it.
>>
>> I am tempted to throw in a "you're an idiot" but that would be childish.
>>
>>
>
> We'll try one more time, and then if it still is not sinking in then we
> will
> have to just chalk it up to brain-lock:
Apparently, your mother did not teach *you* the difference between what you
can do and what you should do.
> if you choose to give birth in a hospital, then the first thing that you
> will be
> asked to do is agree in writing to comply with the hospital's regulations.
Oh, it is in writing ... that makes all the diffence. Suppose they find out
that you cannot pay the bill, can they hold your child for ransom? You
still do not understand the difference between what a rule might be and how
one goes about enforcing that rule. It is a very important distinction,
Rudy. For your own sake, you need to understand the difference.
We have a saying that someone is "judgment proof." We mean that even if
that person owes you money and you "can" file a lawsuit and get a "written"
judgment against them ... you still cannot enforce it. Even if you jump up
and down and say "it is in writing" ... you still don't get your way.
> Everyone has the right to review the regulations beforehand (if you are
> pregnant
> and think you might have a problem complying with safety-regulations, then
> it
> would be smart to review all the regulations months in advance).
I know you think you are being quite clever, Rudy, but you still just don't
"get it."
> If you
> subsequently refuse to comply with the regulations regarding the safety of
> your
> baby (after previously agreeing to comply with them), then the hospital
> will not
> allow you to leave with the baby.
There is where you are wrong. You can indeed violate all sorts of hospital
regulations and they cannot keep your hostage or your family hostage until
you comply.
> It is not "confiscating" or "kidnapping"
> because the hospital has legal custody of any new-born baby until they
> release
> the baby into the care and custody of the parents.
How about the mother? Do they have legal custody of her until they release
her? You are getting deeper and deeper into strange territory, Rudy.
> This system has been working pretty smoothly for the last few decades.
It certainly has.
WuzYoungOnceToo
Except that, according to him, he isn't married.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
________________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
JerseyRudy
you can't be possibly be a lawyer and not know the answer to your own questions
here, can you??
The mother is different legally than the baby, because the mother is an "adult"
and the baby is a "baby". Different regulations apply to adults then apply to
babies. Babies can't vote or go to war (at least not yet). Adults without
babies don't have to use car seats. Babies must be placed in car seats or else
the hopsital will not release the baby into the care and custody of the
parents. As an adult, the mother can get into a car and not use her seat belt
and she will not be able to sue the hospital for endangering her. As a baby, the
hospital would be endangering the welfare of the baby if they released the baby
to parents who were not using a car seat.
And the comparison to not paying the hospital bill or being "judgment-proof" is
assinine. There is no hospital regulation that gives them a right to refuse to
release a newborn baby into the care and custody of a parent for refusing to pay
the bill. You are not endangering the safety of the baby by not paying the
hospital bill. The fact that you equate not paying the hospital bill with not
using a car seat shows that you are seriously warped by some purist Libertarian
ideology that has no basis in reality.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
risky biz
On Mar 4 2008 6:49 AM, Bob T. wrote:
> On Mar 4, 6:41=A0am, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> wrote:
>
> > One of the first items we purchased for my daughter was a car seat. We
> > installed it in our car before I was even close to giving birth.
>
> You're a woman? I never would have guessed.
>
> - Bob T.
He's talking about giving birth to his first coherent thought. He apparently miscarried. That
wouldn't keep him from carrying it around in a car seat but it would be difficult because he has to
push his ego around in a wheelbarrow.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Irish Mike
it; Bob T., de pickle and car seat.
However, my powers of deduction, perception and analysis are so incredibly
strong that I can immediately tell you the correct result.
1. Bob T. is wrong.
2. de pickle is right.
3. Neither of them will ever change the other's mind.
You're welcome,
Irish Mike
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e_Kdnd-MUKC...@giganews.com...
Bob T.
> All right lads, I'm jumping in to this thread knowing only these words about
> it; Bob T., de pickle and car seat.
>
> However, my powers of deduction, perception and analysis are so incredibly
> strong that I can immediately tell you the correct result.
Or you're an incredible idiot who has no idea what's going on.
>
> 1. Bob T. is wrong.
> 2. de pickle is right.
> 3. Neither of them will ever change the other's mind.
Wrong about what? Right about what? As far as I can tell, Pickle and
I were both being silly and neither of us was saying anything worthy
of being called "wrong" or "right".
Well, as long as we're comparing powers of deduction, perception, and
analysis, here is my prediction: within the next 30 days, Irish Mike
will post something moronic he found in his in-box and automatically
believed it was true because it said something negative about
Democrats. Hey Mike - why don't you tell us about how Obama is really
a Muslim? That'll be good for a few laughs. Be sure to use his
middle name every time you refer to him, that'll make it more
convincing.
- Bob T.
>
> You're welcome,
>
> Irish Mike
>
> "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e_Kdnd-MUKC...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > "Bob T."
>
> >> <snip>> One of the first items we purchased for my daughter was a car
> >> seat. We
> >> > installed it in our car before I was even close to giving birth.
>
> >> ================
> >> You're a woman? I never would have guessed.
> >> ================
>
> >> What sort of slip is this?
> > ====================
> > Well, if he's a woman it's much more likely that his slip is
> > showing... but I suspect he was just expressing solidarity with his
> > wife, who actually was close to giving birth at the time.
> > ====================
>
> > I suspect so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
WuzYoungOnceToo
> On Mar 4, 8:18 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > All right lads, I'm jumping in to this thread knowing only these words
about
> > it; Bob T., de pickle and car seat.
> >
> > However, my powers of deduction, perception and analysis are so incredibly
> > strong that I can immediately tell you the correct result.
>
> Or you're an incredible idiot who has no idea what's going on.
> >
> > 1. Bob T. is wrong.
> > 2. de pickle is right.
> > 3. Neither of them will ever change the other's mind.
>
> Wrong about what? Right about what? As far as I can tell, Pickle and
> I were both being silly and neither of us was saying anything worthy
> of being called "wrong" or "right".
It looks like Mike was doing the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
____________________________________________________________________
Bob T.
wrote:
> On Mar 4 2008 11:11 AM, Bob T. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 8:18 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > > All right lads, I'm jumping in to this thread knowing only these words
> about
> > > it; Bob T., de pickle and car seat.
>
> > > However, my powers of deduction, perception and analysis are so incredibly
> > > strong that I can immediately tell you the correct result.
>
> > Or you're an incredible idiot who has no idea what's going on.
>
> > > 1. Bob T. is wrong.
> > > 2. de pickle is right.
> > > 3. Neither of them will ever change the other's mind.
>
> > Wrong about what? Right about what? As far as I can tell, Pickle and
> > I were both being silly and neither of us was saying anything worthy
> > of being called "wrong" or "right".
>
> It looks like Mike was doing the same thing.
Perhaps so.
- Bob T.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
da pickle
> you can't be possibly be a lawyer and not know the answer to your own
> questions
> here, can you??
Well, Rudy, I DO know the correct answers to the questions, I am looking for
what you think are the correct answers to the questions. Why do you not
give it a try?
> The mother is different legally than the baby, because the mother is an
> "adult"
> and the baby is a "baby". Different regulations apply to adults then apply
> to
> babies. Babies can't vote or go to war (at least not yet). Adults without
> babies don't have to use car seats. Babies must be placed in car seats or
> else
> the hopsital will not release the baby into the care and custody of the
> parents. As an adult, the mother can get into a car and not use her seat
> belt
> and she will not be able to sue the hospital for endangering her. As a
> baby, the
> hospital would be endangering the welfare of the baby if they released the
> baby
> to parents who were not using a car seat.
You are still dodging the question about the other infant that the hospital
knows all about ... the not so big sister of the newborn that the hospital
"sees" being put in the car without a car seat ... they see it ... surely,
they must also scoop that child up while they fight with the mother for
custody of the baby? Don't you think they have a responsibility for all
children that are in their hospital? You see, Rudy, you have developed a
monster ... suppose the baby is in for its first well baby check up, does
the hospital still hold on to the baby until they go out and check the car
for a proper car seat? Are nurses in your area trained to spot a car seat
that is over five years old?
> And the comparison to not paying the hospital bill or being
> "judgment-proof" is
> assinine. There is no hospital regulation that gives them a right to
> refuse to
> release a newborn baby into the care and custody of a parent for refusing
> to pay
> the bill. You are not endangering the safety of the baby by not paying the
> hospital bill. The fact that you equate not paying the hospital bill with
> not
> using a car seat shows that you are seriously warped by some purist
> Libertarian
> ideology that has no basis in reality.
But it is a regulation, Rudy, and it is IN WRITING. You are becoming
somewhat hysterical about this.
But, do try and answer the simple questions. Do I need to continue to list
them so you can remember which ones have not been answered. They all
concern "how" the hospital will enforce this regulation that you seem to
think trumps parental rights.
Irish Mike
"Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
news:837db185-9a53-4171...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 4, 9:33 am, "WuzYoungOnceToo" <WuzYoungOnce...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 4 2008 11:11 AM, Bob T. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 8:18 am, "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> > > All right lads, I'm jumping in to this thread knowing only these words
> about
> > > it; Bob T., de pickle and car seat.
>
> > > However, my powers of deduction, perception and analysis are so
> > > incredibly
> > > strong that I can immediately tell you the correct result.
>
> > Or you're an incredible idiot who has no idea what's going on.
>
> > > 1. Bob T. is wrong.
> > > 2. de pickle is right.
> > > 3. Neither of them will ever change the other's mind.
>
> > Wrong about what? Right about what? As far as I can tell, Pickle and
> > I were both being silly and neither of us was saying anything worthy
> > of being called "wrong" or "right".
>
> It looks like Mike was doing the same thing.
Perhaps so.
- Bob T.
You're right Wuz. Bob is just wound up way too tight. Tell you the truth,
I'm worried for the boy.
Irish Mike
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> you can't be possibly be a lawyer and not know the answer to your own
questions
> here, can you??
He does. The problem is that you don't understand the purpose of the
question.
> The mother is different legally than the baby, because the mother is an
"adult"
> and the baby is a "baby". Different regulations apply to adults then apply to
> babies. Babies can't vote or go to war (at least not yet). Adults without
> babies don't have to use car seats. Babies must be placed in car seats or
else
> the hopsital will not release the baby into the care and custody of the
> parents. As an adult, the mother can get into a car and not use her seat
belt
> and she will not be able to sue the hospital for endangering her. As a baby,
the
> hospital would be endangering the welfare of the baby if they released the
baby
> to parents who were not using a car seat.
Parents, new baby and one or more hosptical staff members are at the curb
reviewing the seating arrangment in parents' car. Hospital staff
member(s) decide that the current child seating apparatus and/or its
installation method is/are not up to snuff. Parents reply, "Tough", take
child, get in car and leave anyway. What is the hospital staffs' course
of action at this point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Bob T.
wrote:
It depends on whether they are armed or not.
- Bob T.
Bob T.
Oh, Mike, that's so sweet. Kisses! Wait a minute... you don't really
care about me at all, you're just worried that I won't last long
enough to pay you $100 when Obama is nominated instead of Hillary. Is
the Democratic convention in September this year? I'll start saving
my pennies.
- Bob T.
>
> Irish Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > "Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
>
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com-Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
JerseyRudy
the hospital enforces the regulation by refusing to turn over the baby to the
parents. If the parents grab the baby from the nurse and try to leave with the
baby under such circumstances then there are police officers who will stop the
parents from leaving with the baby.
I will ask the same question to you in reverse: "how" (for some reason you put
this word in quotes) do you think the parents will be able to put their baby in
the car without a car seat and drive away from the hospital without being
stopped? Is it the same answer to the question of how the bank robber will be
able to leave the bank with the money: don't get caught?
As far as your question regarding the baby's siblings, unfortunately there is
nothing that a hospital can do to prevent stupid parents from driving away with
the siblings without an appropriate car seat. The reason for this is that the
siblings are in the legal care and custody of the parents, unlike the new-born
who is in the legal care and custody of the hospital. The parents of the older
sibling have already been released by the hospital where and when that child was
born, meaning that the parents of the sibling were given instructions on how to
properly use a car seat and at one point must have had a proper car seat when
they left that hospital. Therefore, if the sibling gets injured or killed
because there was no car seat, it will be solely the parents who are liable;
there will be no liability on the hospital. The same applies to your question
about visiting a doctor's office for a check up - the doctor's office in such
circumstances does not have legal care and custody of the child, so there is
nothing they can do to prevent parents from driving away without a car seat.
Your argument seems to be based on the premise that because hospitals and
doctors are not able to prevent every single instance of parents endangering
their infant by driving without a car seat, then they should not be able to
prevent it from happening in the one clear instance in which they can prevent
it. This is what Voltaire warned against when he said that "the perfect is
often the enemy of the good." It is a really weak argument.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
JerseyRudy
call the police....but I'm sure you could have guessed that on your own.
What you Libertarian purists fail to grasp is that in the real world parents of
new-born babies are ecstatic to get all the help that they can get regarding
proper safety for their baby. When the nurse explains how to properly use the
car seat and helps the parents install the car seat as they are leaving, the
parents in the real world respond by saying "thank you." So while it is
admirable that you guys are going to the mat to defend the rights of parents to
drive away from hospitals with their baby without a car seat, it will be a
challenge to actually find such a parent. But don't let that stop you; I'm sure
there are a few parents who put their right to drive without a car seat above
the safety of their baby...maybe you can all start a colony in Utah.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> the hospital enforces the regulation by refusing to turn over the baby to the
> parents. If the parents grab the baby from the nurse and try to leave with
the
> baby under such circumstances then there are police officers who will stop
the
> parents from leaving with the baby.
Holy shit. Are you trying to tell us that New Jersey hospitals have armed
police officers stationed at them to monitor and cover the curb-side
transfer of newborns to their parents? What kind of fascist police-state
bullshit operation are you clowns running there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
CHarrison100
Now attack the double wrist banding that they tag the child and parents with so
that you have a proof of ownership of the baby.
I would rather 100 checks trying to take my kid home then a lax come as you are
attitude that will have my kid go missing or get switched.
Chris
----------------------
No point in being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway. - 6ballman - Feb 2007
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> call the police....but I'm sure you could have guessed that on your own.
Yeah, but I thought you might have a way of supporting your assertion that
the hospital would not allow them to leave with the baby in the first
place.
> What you Libertarian purists...
Careful with the simple-minded and inaccurate labels. Your arguments are
weak enough without them.
> ...fail to grasp is that in the real world parents of
> new-born babies are ecstatic to get all the help that they can get regarding
> proper safety for their baby.
Having raised two happy healthy kids you'll forgive me if I take with a
grain of salt your presumptive guidance regarding what real-world parents
feel.
> When the nurse explains how to properly use the
> car seat and helps the parents install the car seat as they are leaving, the
> parents in the real world respond by saying "thank you."
Then there's really no need for a law/regulation in this area, is there?
Just offer the assistance and parents will gladly accept it.
> So while it is
> admirable that you guys are going to the mat to defend the rights of parents
to
> drive away from hospitals with their baby without a car seat, it will be a
> challenge to actually find such a parent.
See above. You've just made a case for the ridiculousness of the law
you're so ardently supporting.
> But don't let that stop you; I'm sure
> there are a few parents who put their right to drive without a car seat above
> the safety of their baby...maybe you can all start a colony in Utah.
Are you claiming that people in Utah don't care about their children as
much as people who live in New Jersey?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
JerseyRudy
On Mar 4 2008 2:12 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
well, I had one baby in New Jersey and one in Florida, and it was the same
procedure in both places. I guess your entire beloved country is becoming a
fascist police-state. How oppressive!!! Maybe you should leave while you still
have some rights....I hear Guatanamo is lovely this time of year.
What will be next? trying to stop parents from jabbing their baby in the eye
with a lit cigarette as they are leaving the hospital?? Enough is enough!!
Irish Mike
That's way harsh bucko.
JerseyRudy
I was suggesting a place for you to go with your fellow band of brothers who are
outraged by the car seat regulations. and you critcize the reading
comprehension skills of others?
The regulations are in place to make sure that parents know how to use a car
seat and have properly installed a car seat when they leave the hospital. It
serves its purpose in those cases in which parents (usually first-time parents)
have not previously been shown how to install a car seat or have not thought
about getting a car seat. What about that do you object to? You and your
ideological friend keep raising objections to it...are you really against
parents using car seats?
Another reason for the regulations is a purely legal one: in case parents do
something stupid like discard the car seat once they start driving away from the
hospital, then the hospital can avoid liability in a personal injury or wrongful
death suit if they can show that they explained to the parents how to use a car
seat and made sure that the car seat was properly installed and being used
properly when the car pulled away from the hospital.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> well, I had one baby in New Jersey and one in Florida, and it was the same
> procedure in both places.
Child transfer overseen by armed police?
> I guess your entire beloved country is becoming a fascist police-state.
You need to learn some math.
> How oppressive!!! Maybe you should leave while you still
> have some rights....I hear Guatanamo is lovely this time of year.
That would not constitute "leaving". You really are weak on everything,
aren't you?
> What will be next? trying to stop parents from jabbing their baby in the eye
> with a lit cigarette as they are leaving the hospital?? Enough is enough!!
Because jabbing a baby in the eye with a lit cigarette and driving away
with a baby in a car seat that doesn't satisfy a hospital staffer are
quite similar actions, right?
You think like a 12 year-old, and really shouldn't be raising children
yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
-------
JerseyRudy
I'll explain the complex comparison to you this one time, only because I am
actually starting to feel sorry for you - it's not easy trying to defend parents
who want to drive without car seats.
They both involve placing your baby in unnecessary physical danger for no good
reason other than you feel like doing it. That's the similarity.
Unlike your compadre who actually wasted our time earlier today by comparing
driving away from the hospital without a car seat to not paying your hospital
bill. Do you like that comparison better?
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> I was suggesting a place for you to go with your fellow band of brothers who
are
> outraged by the car seat regulations. and you critcize the reading
> comprehension skills of others?
I do when they're questionable. As for your statement, it was quite
poorly worded given what you now claim was your intended meaning. The
fault in that instance lies with the author, not the audience.
> The regulations are in place to make sure that parents know how to use a car
> seat and have properly installed a car seat when they leave the hospital. It
> serves its purpose in those cases in which parents (usually first-time
parents)
> have not previously been shown how to install a car seat or have not thought
> about getting a car seat. What about that do you object to?
You keep claiming that most all new parents are thrilled to receive this
help. So why the need for a regulation to force it on them? You keep
ducking that question.
> You and your
> ideological friend keep raising objections to it...are you really against
> parents using car seats?
What a stupid question.
> Another reason for the regulations is a purely legal one: in case parents do
> something stupid like discard the car seat once they start driving away from
the
> hospital, then the hospital can avoid liability in a personal injury or
wrongful
> death suit if they can show that they explained to the parents how to use a
car
> seat and made sure that the car seat was properly installed and being used
> properly when the car pulled away from the hospital.
That's a legal decision that the hospital can make all on its own if it
wants to avoid liability. So again...where's the need for a forcing it on
them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
________________________________________________________________________
JerseyRudy
I'm starting to realize that you are just plain stupid. THESE ARE HOSPITAL
REGULATIONS - NOBODY IS FORCING THEM - THEY THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THEM
AND EVERYONE BUT YOU AND A FEW OTHER NUTJOBS AGREE WITH THEM!!!!! HOSPITALS
HAVE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CARE OF NEW-BORN BABIES UNTIL THE BABY IS
RELEASED BY THE HOSPITAL.
There might be some hospitals in this country who do not make sure that parents
are properly using car seats when they leave the hospital. If that is the case,
you are more than welcome to use such a hospital for all of your medical needs.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> I'm starting to realize that you are just plain stupid.
The truly ignorant often make such claims about those who are not subject
to the same cluelessness as themselves. It's a faulty perception that
just happens to serve as a psychological defense mechanism.
> THESE ARE HOSPITAL
> REGULATIONS - NOBODY IS FORCING THEM
Ahhh...so then they do not have the force of law? Then what's the deal
with armed police being involved?
> - THEY THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THEM
> AND EVERYONE BUT YOU AND A FEW OTHER NUTJOBS AGREE WITH THEM!!!!!
Agree with them about what? That car seats are a good idea? Who's
arguing with that? Perhaps if you spent more time trying to express
yourself clearly and less time thinking that typing in all caps is going
to somehow do that for you....
And why do you presume to know what "everyone" thinks? You seem to be
having a difficult enough time keeping track of your own thoughts.
> HOSPITALS
> HAVE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CARE OF NEW-BORN BABIES UNTIL THE BABY IS
> RELEASED BY THE HOSPITAL.
So then they release the baby to the parents as the parents leave. End of
story.
> There might be some hospitals in this country who do not make sure that
parents
> are properly using car seats when they leave the hospital. If that is the
case,
> you are more than welcome to use such a hospital for all of your medical
needs.
You seem pathologically incapable of formulating a coherent train of
thought on this (or anything else, it seems.) You started out by claiming
that hospitals have the authority to prevent you from leaving the hospital
with your baby until they're satisfied with your car seat prowess, but you
seem to have drifted from that claim in favor of some random emotional
outbursts. Exactly what the hell is it that you're arguing now?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
_____________________________________________________________________
JerseyRudy
one more time, back to the beginning (read slowly this time so you grasp every
word): hospitals have the the authority to prevent you from leaving the
hospital with your baby if you are not properly using a car seat.
James L. Hankins
"JerseyRudy" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1204661589$111...@recpoker.com...
> one more time, back to the beginning (read slowly this time so you grasp
> every
> word): hospitals have the the authority to prevent you from leaving the
> hospital with your baby if you are not properly using a car seat.
Do you mean legal authority? If so, from where does this authority come?
Are you referring to some state law or the hospital regulation?
da pickle
>> one more time, back to the beginning (read slowly this time so you grasp
>> every
>> word): hospitals have the the authority to prevent you from leaving the
>> hospital with your baby if you are not properly using a car seat.
>
> Do you mean legal authority? If so, from where does this authority come?
> Are you referring to some state law or the hospital regulation?
Rudy has fallen and he can't get up.
JerseyRudy
This is turning into an Abbott & Costello routine. If you don't have the
answers to those questions from the other postings in this thread, then I doubt
I can help you.
But, being a sucker, I will try again. It is the law in all 50 states that a
baby must be properly in a car seat. The hospitals, pursuant to those laws,
have regulations that require all parents to be instructed in the proper use of
the car seat and require that parents can only leave the hospital with their
baby if they are properly using the car seat.
For those who still can't grasp that, you are on your own from here on out.
Good luck.
da pickle
> the hospital enforces the regulation by refusing to turn over the baby to
> the
> parents. If the parents grab the baby from the nurse and try to leave with
> the
> baby under such circumstances then there are police officers who will stop
> the
> parents from leaving with the baby.
As I understand the way your hospital does it, the mother of the baby never
gets to hold the baby without supervision. (She might take the baby out of
the hospital without permission.) When it comes time for the mother and
baby to be discharged, the mother cannot carry the baby. The baby will be
carried by hospital personnel to ... well, what if the mother is walking to
the train station ... or maybe she lives just down the street from the
hospital ... can she take the baby from the nurse at the front door if she
says she does not own a car? How does the hospital know if she is lying to
them? Do they watch to see if she really goes out to a car and then runs
after her to check on the car seat?
I have never noticed those police officers at the door of the hospital that
guard against mothers carrying their own babies. I liked your idea that the
mother would have to grab the baby from the nurse ... I am sure you have
thought this through carefully.
> I will ask the same question to you in reverse: "how" (for some reason you
> put
> this word in quotes) do you think the parents will be able to put their
> baby in
> the car without a car seat and drive away from the hospital without being
> stopped? Is it the same answer to the question of how the bank robber will
> be
> able to leave the bank with the money: don't get caught?
You need not reverse the question until you answer the original questions.
I know that the parents would be able to carry their baby out to the car
without interference from the hospital because your ideas are nonsense.
Try this one on, you are Brittnay Spears driving with your baby in your lap
on the 5 in Los Angeles. The cop pulls you over and gives you a ticket for
not having your baby in a car seat ... now, the officer tells Brittnay that
she is unfit to care for the child and he is confiscating the child until
she gets a car seat and comes and picks up the baby at the station. (The
police all have a car seat in the trunk for just such emergencies.)
Oh good grief, Rudy. You do not have the slightest idea of what legal
custody means.
> Your argument seems to be based on the premise that because hospitals and
> doctors are not able to prevent every single instance of parents
> endangering
> their infant by driving without a car seat, then they should not be able
> to
> prevent it from happening in the one clear instance in which they can
> prevent
> it. This is what Voltaire warned against when he said that "the perfect is
> often the enemy of the good." It is a really weak argument.
You have no argument and you cannot understand simple truths. The hospital
might indeed call the police if they see anyone at any time violating any
law ... including the law that children of a certain age should be in car
seats. The police will give a ticket to anyone who violates the law. The
hospital never has "legal custody" of any child in the hospital. You cannot
give up your parental rights to a hospital by visiting the hospital no
matter how many words you put on any piece of paper you are asked to sign at
the hospital. Grow a sack, man.
da pickle
> But, being a sucker, I will try again. It is the law in all 50 states that
> a
> baby must be properly in a car seat. The hospitals, pursuant to those
> laws,
> have regulations that require all parents to be instructed in the proper
> use of
> the car seat and require that parents can only leave the hospital with
> their
> baby if they are properly using the car seat.
>
> For those who still can't grasp that, you are on your own from here on
> out.
> Good luck.
You have the law correct, you just don't understand that the hospital does
not have the POWER to require anything. The hospital cannot arrest you nor
can they detain you nor can they confiscate your child. Sorry, Rudy, they
just can't. They can ask that you follow their instructions and they can
call the police if they are afraid, but they can't take your child away from
you.
James L. Hankins
"da pickle" <jcpi...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5SdnVsCTZxUIlDa...@giganews.com...
Exactly. I was wondering on what point he was stuck for this thread to go
on this long.
He apparently thinks that a hospital "regulation" actually means something.
It means something to the employees of the hospital because their jobs can
be affected if they don't follow it, but it does not give a hospital any
authority at all to hold a baby from a parent.
Joe Long
> As I suspected, it's the law that you can't put your kid in the car without
> a car seat.
It's the law that you cannot exceed the speed limit. Does that mean
than no one ever exceeds the speed limit?
> ... Second, it's
> the law. When traveling in a motor vehicle on Long Island, all children
> under the age of four must be restrained in a child safety seat. This is
> stated in New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, Section 1229-c, which
> says:
> "No person shall operate a motor vehicle in this state unless all back seat
> passengers of such vehicle under the age of four are restrained in a
> specially designed seat which meets the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
> Standards set forth in 49 C.F.R. 571.213 and which is either permanently
> affixed or is affixed to such vehicle by a safety belt..."
Uh, Beldin, that says all "back seat passengers." It says nothing about
an infant in its mother's arms in the front seat.
> SAMPLE DISCHARGE POLICY
<reasons for policy snipped, except for:>
> Parents may need repeated
> encouragement to follow these guidelines.
Note "encouragement" and "guidelines" not "forced by kidnapping their
child."
> POLICY
>
> To comply with PA state law, parents of all infants and children under age 8
> discharged from the nursery and
> pediatrics shall be informed of PA state law. If unable to afford a
> restraint that meets FMVSS 213 they will be
> directed to the nearest child restraint loan program.
Note "informed of law" and "directed to ...", nothing about keeping the kid.
> Baby Safety When Leaving the Hospital
> a.. For your safety and comfort, you and your baby will be escorted to
> your car upon discharge.
Again, NOTHING here or following says anything about not releasing the
child if you are not complying with state law. NOTHING.
What you have posted just proves that you are wrong about the policy.
The hospital will not -- legally, can not -- refuse to allow you to
leave with your child for not complying with their policies or even
child seat laws.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
Joe Long
> if you choose to give birth in a hospital, then the first thing that you will be
> asked to do is agree in writing to comply with the hospital's regulations.
> Everyone has the right to review the regulations beforehand (if you are pregnant
> and think you might have a problem complying with safety-regulations, then it
> would be smart to review all the regulations months in advance). If you
> subsequently refuse to comply with the regulations regarding the safety of your
> baby (after previously agreeing to comply with them), then the hospital will not
> allow you to leave with the baby. It is not "confiscating" or "kidnapping"
> because the hospital has legal custody of any new-born baby until they release
> the baby into the care and custody of the parents.
>
> This system has been working pretty smoothly for the last few decades.
My God, it is 1984!!!
Although as we saw with Beldin, once he posted the actual policy, no
such refusal to allow the child to go with his parents was actually
there. Do you have any cites to back up your claim?
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> I'll explain the complex comparison to you this one time, only because I am
It's so sad when a starving man professes pity for one in a buffet line.
> - it's not easy trying to defend parents who want to drive without car seats.
Of course, no one is doing that. You really need to see someone about
those voices bouncing around in your otherwise empty skull.
> They both involve placing your baby in unnecessary physical danger for no
good
> reason other than you feel like doing it. That's the similarity.
Oh, hell. Why not compare shooting your child in the head with not
keeping a fully charged fire extinguisher in the kitchen? Only a moron
would think these are meaningful analogies.
> Unlike your compadre who actually wasted our time earlier today by comparing
> driving away from the hospital without a car seat to not paying your hospital
> bill. Do you like that comparison better?
He didn't compare the two as though they were similar acts. His point was
with regard to what authority you think the hospital has regarding whether
or not you can take your own child home with you.
Are you really this dense, or is it some sort of act?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
--------
Joe Long
> The mother is different legally than the baby, because the mother is an "adult"
> and the baby is a "baby". Different regulations apply to adults then apply to
> babies. Babies can't vote or go to war (at least not yet). Adults without
> babies don't have to use car seats. Babies must be placed in car seats or else
> the hopsital will not release the baby into the care and custody of the
> parents. As an adult, the mother can get into a car and not use her seat belt
> and she will not be able to sue the hospital for endangering her. As a baby, the
> hospital would be endangering the welfare of the baby if they released the baby
> to parents who were not using a car seat.
>
> And the comparison to not paying the hospital bill or being "judgment-proof" is
> assinine. There is no hospital regulation that gives them a right to refuse to
> release a newborn baby into the care and custody of a parent for refusing to pay
> the bill. You are not endangering the safety of the baby by not paying the
> hospital bill. The fact that you equate not paying the hospital bill with not
> using a car seat shows that you are seriously warped by some purist Libertarian
> ideology that has no basis in reality.
And there is no LAW that will allow a hospital to keep a baby against
the parent's wishes, no matter what their policy is or what the parents
signed. The hospital can tell you whatever they want, you can still
take your baby and leave and THEY CANNOT STOP YOU. If they use any
physical restraint against you or your child you'll have a hell of a
lawsuit against them.
They can call the cops and tell them that you're driving with a child
not in a car seat, and if the cops want to bother they can try to find
you and pull you over and give you a traffic ticket. The hospital
cannot keep your child.
Joe Long
> the hospital enforces the regulation by refusing to turn over the baby to the
> parents. If the parents grab the baby from the nurse and try to leave with the
> baby under such circumstances then there are police officers who will stop the
> parents from leaving with the baby.
And in just what fascist, totalitarian state does this happen? Sorry, I
don't believe this would happen even in New Jersey.
Even if the hospital calls the cops and the parents get stopped, all
they'll get is a traffic ticket.
> I will ask the same question to you in reverse: "how" (for some reason you put
> this word in quotes) do you think the parents will be able to put their baby in
> the car without a car seat and drive away from the hospital without being
> stopped?
No, the question is who is going to stop them? Are the nurses armed?
The cop's sure won't, they have no authority to do so. At most the
parents will get a traffic ticket.
> Is it the same answer to the question of how the bank robber will be
> able to leave the bank with the money: don't get caught?
Taking your own child home from the hospital is not the same as robbing
a bank.
> As far as your question regarding the baby's siblings, unfortunately there is
> nothing that a hospital can do to prevent stupid parents from driving away with
> the siblings without an appropriate car seat. The reason for this is that the
> siblings are in the legal care and custody of the parents, unlike the new-born
> who is in the legal care and custody of the hospital. The parents of the older
> sibling have already been released by the hospital where and when that child was
> born, meaning that the parents of the sibling were given instructions on how to
> properly use a car seat and at one point must have had a proper car seat when
> they left that hospital. Therefore, if the sibling gets injured or killed
> because there was no car seat, it will be solely the parents who are liable;
> there will be no liability on the hospital. The same applies to your question
> about visiting a doctor's office for a check up - the doctor's office in such
> circumstances does not have legal care and custody of the child, so there is
> nothing they can do to prevent parents from driving away without a car seat.
Clue: a hospital is not a prison, they cannot force anyone to not leave
unless they have a court order.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> This is turning into an Abbott & Costello routine.
If only your babbling made that much sense.
> If you don't have the
> answers to those questions from the other postings in this thread, then I
doubt
> I can help you.
You have yet to provide anything close to an actual answer. Plenty of
irrational meandering...but no answers.
> But, being a sucker, I will try again. It is the law in all 50 states that a
> baby must be properly in a car seat.
Check.
> The hospitals, pursuant to those laws,
> have regulations that require all parents to be instructed in the proper use
of
> the car seat...
Check.
> and require that parents can only leave the hospital with their
> baby if they are properly using the car seat.
And this is where you completely lose it. The hospitals have NO authority
to prevent anyone from leaving with their own child. They can be really,
really insistent about it...and even call the police *after* the
fact...but they can NOT prevent you from leaving with your child.
Sorry Sparky, but you haven't got the slightest idea what you're arguing
about.
> For those who still can't grasp that, you are on your own from here on out.
Can you grasp a rumor of a whisp of smoke?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
______________________________________________________________________
Joe Long
>
> On Mar 4 2008 1:39 PM, WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
>> Parents, new baby and one or more hosptical staff members are at the curb
>> reviewing the seating arrangment in parents' car. Hospital staff
>> member(s) decide that the current child seating apparatus and/or its
>> installation method is/are not up to snuff. Parents reply, "Tough", take
>> child, get in car and leave anyway. What is the hospital staffs' course
>> of action at this point?
> call the police....but I'm sure you could have guessed that on your own.
And when the desk sergeant is done laughing, he may tell them that if
the parents get stopped by a patrol car they may get a ticket.
Joe Long
> well, I had one baby in New Jersey and one in Florida, and it was the same
> procedure in both places.
You mean to tell us that both times there were armed cops there, guns
drawn, making sure no parent didn't use a proper car seat? Amazing.
What you don't get is that no one is claiming hospitals don't have
policies of advising parents about car seats, or even checking the
seats. They just don't have the legal or moral authority to prevent the
parents from leaving with their child if the parents choose not to comply.
Joe Long
> The regulations are in place to make sure that parents know how to use a car
> seat and have properly installed a car seat when they leave the hospital. It
> serves its purpose in those cases in which parents (usually first-time parents)
> have not previously been shown how to install a car seat or have not thought
> about getting a car seat. What about that do you object to? You and your
> ideological friend keep raising objections to it...are you really against
> parents using car seats?
Not in the slightest, they certainly should use them. I am outraged at
the idea that a hospital could actually keep a child against his
parents' wishes over a car seat. That is ludicrous.
> Another reason for the regulations is a purely legal one: in case parents do
> something stupid like discard the car seat once they start driving away from the
> hospital, then the hospital can avoid liability in a personal injury or wrongful
> death suit if they can show that they explained to the parents how to use a car
> seat and made sure that the car seat was properly installed and being used
> properly when the car pulled away from the hospital.
Explained, fine. Inspected, ok. Keeping the child? Outrageous.
Joe Long
> I'll explain the complex comparison to you this one time, only because I am
> actually starting to feel sorry for you - it's not easy trying to defend parents
> who want to drive without car seats.
It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to defend holding a child hostage.
> They both involve placing your baby in unnecessary physical danger for no good
> reason other than you feel like doing it. That's the similarity.
And you and a cockroach are both living things. That's a similarity,
too. And about as close as your examples.
There is a very tiny increase in danger to a child from being carried
lovingly home in his mother's arms instead of being secured in a car
seat. An increase that is dwarfed by such factors as the skill of the
driver, the condition of the car, the weather, traffic, and many others.
So who appointed you God to force the parents to make the choice you
would make?
That's what's so bad about the "nanny state." Control freaks get to run
all our lives, "for our own good." Like the Eagle character on the
Muppets, who's only concern for anything was "Is it safe?"
Joe Long
> one more time, back to the beginning (read slowly this time so you grasp every
> word): hospitals have the the authority to prevent you from leaving the
> hospital with your baby if you are not properly using a car seat.
And we are indeed full circle, because they clearly have no such
authority, as even your own cites demonstrated. They can only advise,
they cannot legally prevent you from taking your child and leaving no
matter if you use a car seat or not.
Joe Long
> But, being a sucker, I will try again. It is the law in all 50 states that a
> baby must be properly in a car seat. The hospitals, pursuant to those laws,
> have regulations that require all parents to be instructed in the proper use of
> the car seat and require that parents can only leave the hospital with their
> baby if they are properly using the car seat.
And those regulations have no force of law, nor do hospitals have arrest
authority -- so the parents can tell the hospital to shove it and leave
with their child, and there's nothing the hospital can do to stop them.
da pickle
> Exactly. I was wondering on what point he was stuck for this thread to go
> on this long.
>
> He apparently thinks that a hospital "regulation" actually means
> something. It means something to the employees of the hospital because
> their jobs can be affected if they don't follow it, but it does not give a
> hospital any authority at all to hold a baby from a parent.
I think he might have hit the tar baby one time too many.
BillB
"James L. Hankins" <jhan...@cox.net[no spam]> wrote in message
news:Qpkzj.60517$Ft5....@newsfe15.lga...
> They can ask that you follow their instructions and they
>> can call the police if they are afraid, but they can't take your child
>> away from you.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. See for example Michigan's Child
Protection Law (the first one I looked at):
722.626 Detention of child in temporary protective custody; preliminary
hearing; examinations; report; medical evaluation.
Sec. 6.
(1) If a child suspected of being abused or neglected is admitted to a
hospital or brought to a hospital for outpatient services and the attending
physician determines that the release of the child would endanger the
child's health or welfare, the attending physician shall notify the person
in charge and the department. The person in charge may detain the child in
temporary protective custody until the next regular business day of the
probate court, at which time the probate court shall order the child
detained in the hospital or in some other suitable place pending a
preliminary hearing as required by section 14 of chapter 12A of the probate
code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.14, or order the child released to the
child's parent, guardian, or custodian.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:SuOdnWazEfClQlDa...@giganews.com...
Wrong, shithead.
The state can hold the hospital liable for releasing the child illegally.
If they don't make sure the kid is in a car seat, they're an accessory.
If the kid dies, they're an accessory to manslaughter/negligent death.
This is the same thing as a bartender failing to cut off someone who he
thinks is becoming too drunk to drive.
Christ almighty, you anti-any-law morons crack me up sometimes.
Beldin the Sorcerer
They can refuse to be an a accessory.
Just like a bartender can be held liable if you get boozed up, then wrap
your car around a telephone pole.
Shit, retard, this ain't hard to grasp.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> JerseyRudy wrote:
>
>> I'll explain the complex comparison to you this one time, only because I
>> am
>> actually starting to feel sorry for you - it's not easy trying to defend
>> parents
>> who want to drive without car seats.
>
> It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to defend holding a child hostage.
Mom is there. Dad is there. They're in possession of the kid.
They simply can't be discharged, you FUCKING moron.
The hospital will help get them a car seat if they can't afford one. They
simply won't be an accessory to negligent homicide if the kid dies without
one.
Damn, Joe, this is a new high for stupidity for you.
>
>> They both involve placing your baby in unnecessary physical danger for no
>> good
>> reason other than you feel like doing it. That's the similarity.
>
> And you and a cockroach are both living things. That's a similarity, too.
> And about as close as your examples.
Joe, clean the shit out of your skull. You're embarrassing the species.
>
> There is a very tiny increase in danger to a child from being carried
> lovingly home in his mother's arms instead of being secured in a car seat.
No, retard, there's a big increase in danger, in the event of an accident.
An increase that is dwarfed by such factors as the skill of the
> driver, the condition of the car, the weather, traffic, and many others.
Wrong again, moron boy.
> So who appointed you God to force the parents to make the choice you
> would make?
There is no "choice", shit for brains.
It's the law. Use a carseat or be party to negligent homicide if the kid
dies in an auto accident.
Get your head out of your ass, idiot boy.
>
> That's what's so bad about the "nanny state." Control freaks get to run
> all our lives, "for our own good." Like the Eagle character on the
> Muppets, who's only concern for anything was "Is it safe?"
No, moron. They're protecting the kids from retards like you who don't see
that failing to use a carseat isn't a small risk, it's a large one.
Morons like you disgust me almost as much as the fucking christian scientist
idiots who don't take their kids to the doctor.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> JerseyRudy wrote:
>
>> The regulations are in place to make sure that parents know how to use a
>> car
>> seat and have properly installed a car seat when they leave the hospital.
>> It
>> serves its purpose in those cases in which parents (usually first-time
>> parents)
>> have not previously been shown how to install a car seat or have not
>> thought
>> about getting a car seat. What about that do you object to? You and your
>> ideological friend keep raising objections to it...are you really against
>> parents using car seats?
>
> Not in the slightest, they certainly should use them. I am outraged at
> the idea that a hospital could actually keep a child against his parents'
> wishes over a car seat. That is ludicrous.
>
The parents are there TOO, you imbecile.
>> Another reason for the regulations is a purely legal one: in case parents
>> do
>> something stupid like discard the car seat once they start driving away
>> from the
>> hospital, then the hospital can avoid liability in a personal injury or
>> wrongful
>> death suit if they can show that they explained to the parents how to use
>> a car
>> seat and made sure that the car seat was properly installed and being
>> used
>> properly when the car pulled away from the hospital.
>
> Explained, fine. Inspected, ok. Keeping the child? Outrageous.
>
Yep, you're a shithead.
Pure and simple.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Moral first : they have a moral authority to prevent harm to a patient.
Legal : If they'll be liable as an accessory, and they will, they have a
legal responsibility to prevent you from being criminally negligent towards
your child.
And they damn well should call the cops and haul your idiot ass off to jail
if you forcefully leave anyway.
Especially, idiot, as they will make sure you can GET a car seat at no
charge to you, you fucking moron.
James L. Hankins
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:rUozj.44645$pM4.2553@pd7urf1no...
I think you were replying to pickle, not me.
But I think all states have similar statutes. In Oklahoma, it's used when a
child is brought in with injuries that appear to be abuse or perhaps when a
drug addict gives birth.
Using such a statute on the child seat issue would be a drastic
interpretation completely at odds with how it has worked historically.
And note, that even then, no one from the hospital ever does anything. They
call DHS to come get the child or the police.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"WuzYoungOnceToo" <WuzYoun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lg21a5x...@recgroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 1:36 pm, JerseyRudy <43083...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'll explain the complex comparison to you this one time, only because I
>> am
>> actually starting to feel sorry for you...
>
> It's so sad when a starving man professes pity for one in a buffet line.
>
>> - it's not easy trying to defend parents who want to drive without car
>> seats.
>
> Of course, no one is doing that. You really need to see someone about
> those voices bouncing around in your otherwise empty skull.
You're an imbecile. Protecting the right to "choose to disobey the law" is
exactly the same thing.
>
>> They both involve placing your baby in unnecessary physical danger for no
> good
>> reason other than you feel like doing it. That's the similarity.
>
> Oh, hell. Why not compare shooting your child in the head with not
> keeping a fully charged fire extinguisher in the kitchen? Only a moron
> would think these are meaningful analogies.
>
You're an imbecile.
Ah, but that's been established.
Driving without a car seat is akin to taking a stroller on an escalator.
Really stupid, potentially deadly, but often harmless.
So is smoking crack.
>> Unlike your compadre who actually wasted our time earlier today by
>> comparing
>> driving away from the hospital without a car seat to not paying your
>> hospital
>> bill. Do you like that comparison better?
>
> He didn't compare the two as though they were similar acts. His point was
> with regard to what authority you think the hospital has regarding whether
> or not you can take your own child home with you.
No, shit for brains. The hospital has every right to avoid being an
accessory to a crime.
Just like YOU do.
BillB
> news:Qpkzj.60517$Ft5....@newsfe15.lga...
>> It means something to the employees of the hospital because their jobs
>> can be affected if they don't follow it, but it does not give a hospital
>> any authority at all to hold a baby from a parent.
> I wouldn't be so sure about that. See for example Michigan's Child
> Protection Law (the first one I looked at):
>
> 722.626 Detention of child in temporary protective custody; preliminary
> hearing; examinations; report; medical evaluation.
> Sec. 6.
>
> (1) If a child suspected of being abused or neglected is admitted to a
> hospital or brought to a hospital for outpatient services and the
> attending physician determines that the release of the child would
> endanger the child's health or welfare, the attending physician shall
> notify the person in charge and the department. The person in charge may
> detain the child in temporary protective custody until the next regular
> business day of the probate court, at which time the probate court shall
> order the child detained in the hospital or in some other suitable place
> pending a preliminary hearing as required by section 14 of chapter 12A of
> the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.14, or order the child
> released to the child's parent, guardian, or custodian.
Sorry, I misquoted you. Fixed.
Beldin the Sorcerer
And if the kid dies, the hospital is off the hook and the sargeant is
looking for a new job... so wait, maybe the cops pull the parents over
anyway to avoid that.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Beldin the Sorcerer
The law that makes them criminally liable if the parents kill the kid
driving home.
The hospital can tell you whatever they want, you can still
> take your baby and leave and THEY CANNOT STOP YOU. If they use any
> physical restraint against you or your child you'll have a hell of a
> lawsuit against them.
And you'll lose.
And you'll likely lose custody of your kid due to willful child
endangerment.
See what a retard you are? In your idiotic quest for perfect libertarian
freedom, you're advocating willful child neglect, or the right to CHOOSE to
do so, like the fucking moron you are.
>
> They can call the cops and tell them that you're driving with a child not
> in a car seat, and if the cops want to bother they can try to find you and
> pull you over and give you a traffic ticket. The hospital cannot keep
> your child.
They can. They can refuse to release a minor to a negligent parent.
By refusing to comply with the carseat law, you become a negligent parent.
Your idiotic refusal to note that breaking the law and endangering your kid
isn't a "choice" confirms utterly your status as moron .
Beldin the Sorcerer
The use of a carseat is required, retard.
They said that. Are you too stupid to see that means "they can't leave
without one"?
Pickle asked for evidence of a law. I showed some.
>
BillB
> I think you were replying to pickle, not me.
>
> But I think all states have similar statutes. In Oklahoma, it's used when
> a child is brought in with injuries that appear to be abuse or perhaps
> when a drug addict gives birth.
>
> Using such a statute on the child seat issue would be a drastic
> interpretation completely at odds with how it has worked historically.
>
> And note, that even then, no one from the hospital ever does anything.
> They call DHS to come get the child or the police.
Well it's certainly arguable if declaring you were going to drive your
newborn home without a car seat rises to the level of impending neglect, but
if you look at the definition section, it does meet the definition quite
squarely. It talks about threatened harm including "negligent treatment".
And, god forbid, if the parents had signed some of agreement beforehand that
gave them a heads up, I would rather be the hospital's lawyer than the
parents' at the first hearing. I think the parents will be in for a good
reaming by the judge.
Joe Long
Surely you understand that the cite above refers to battered children
who have been brought to the hospital with injuries? Not to newborns
and car seats?
Beldin the Sorcerer
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>> As I suspected, it's the law that you can't put your kid in the car
>> without
>> a car seat.
>
> It's the law that you cannot exceed the speed limit. Does that mean than
> no one ever exceeds the speed limit?
Can anyone else be held as an accessory if you do?
>
>> ... Second, it's
>> the law. When traveling in a motor vehicle on Long Island, all children
>> under the age of four must be restrained in a child safety seat. This is
>> stated in New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, Section 1229-c, which
>> says:
>> "No person shall operate a motor vehicle in this state unless all back
>> seat
>> passengers of such vehicle under the age of four are restrained in a
>> specially designed seat which meets the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
>> Standards set forth in 49 C.F.R. 571.213 and which is either permanently
>> affixed or is affixed to such vehicle by a safety belt..."
>
> Uh, Beldin, that says all "back seat passengers." It says nothing about
> an infant in its mother's arms in the front seat.
Fuck, you ARE a shithead.
It's illegal in all 50 states to have a child under 4 in the front seat
PERIOD, you fucking moron.
Airbag issues.
Christ, you're not only an idiot, you're a fucking idiot.
>
>> SAMPLE DISCHARGE POLICY
>
> <reasons for policy snipped, except for:>
>> Parents may need repeated
>> encouragement to follow these guidelines.
>
> Note "encouragement" and "guidelines" not "forced by kidnapping their
> child."
>
It is not kidnapping to refuse to release an underaged patient to a
negligent, potentially abusive parent.
Failing to exercise safety concerns and, Oh Yeah, VIOLATING the LAW
certainly qualifies.
Fucking retards who want the freedom to do anything to their kids,
>> POLICY
>>
>> To comply with PA state law, parents of all infants and children under
>> age 8
>> discharged from the nursery and
>> pediatrics shall be informed of PA state law. If unable to afford a
>> restraint that meets FMVSS 213 they will be
>> directed to the nearest child restraint loan program.
>
> Note "informed of law" and "directed to ...", nothing about keeping the
> kid.
They won't be discharged.
You ARE a shithead.
>
>> Baby Safety When Leaving the Hospital
>> a.. For your safety and comfort, you and your baby will be escorted to
>> your car upon discharge.
>
> Again, NOTHING here or following says anything about not releasing the
> child if you are not complying with state law. NOTHING.
>
Yep, you're an imbecile.
> What you have posted just proves that you are wrong about the policy. The
> hospital will not -- legally, can not -- refuse to allow you to leave with
> your child for not complying with their policies or even child seat laws.
>
You are a complete shithead.
You can't read, and can't comprehend.
Joe Long
>> And those regulations have no force of law, nor do hospitals have arrest
>> authority -- so the parents can tell the hospital to shove it and leave
>> with their child, and there's nothing the hospital can do to stop them.
>>
>
> Wrong, shithead.
> The state can hold the hospital liable for releasing the child illegally.
> If they don't make sure the kid is in a car seat, they're an accessory.
> If the kid dies, they're an accessory to manslaughter/negligent death.
Do you have any cites for this ridiculous pipe-dream?
> This is the same thing as a bartender failing to cut off someone who he
> thinks is becoming too drunk to drive.
No, it isn't. Not selling someone more of your product is not the same
as taking his kid away from him.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"James L. Hankins" <jhan...@cox.net[no spam]> wrote in message
news:Qpkzj.60517$Ft5....@newsfe15.lga...
>
> news:b5SdnVsCTZxUIlDa...@giganews.com...
>> "JerseyRudy"
>>
>>> But, being a sucker, I will try again. It is the law in all 50 states
>>> that a
>>> baby must be properly in a car seat. The hospitals, pursuant to those
>>> laws,
>>> have regulations that require all parents to be instructed in the proper
>>> use of
>>> the car seat and require that parents can only leave the hospital with
>>> their
>>> baby if they are properly using the car seat.
>>>
>>> out.
>>
>> You have the law correct, you just don't understand that the hospital
>> does not have the POWER to require anything. The hospital cannot arrest
>> you nor can they detain you nor can they confiscate your child. Sorry,
>> Rudy, they just can't. They can ask that you follow their instructions
>> child away from you.
>
>
>
> on this long.
>
> He apparently thinks that a hospital "regulation" actually means
> hospital any authority at all to hold a baby from a parent.
It's illegal to release an infant to a negligent parent.
This is an issue of negligence.
This is something the hospital can be criminally liable for.
So therefore they EASILY have the right to prevent it.
>
Joe Long
Your own cites proved you wrong.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"da pickle" <jcpi...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5SdnVsCTZxUIlDa...@giganews.com...
> "JerseyRudy"
>
>> But, being a sucker, I will try again. It is the law in all 50 states
>> that a
>> baby must be properly in a car seat. The hospitals, pursuant to those
>> laws,
>> have regulations that require all parents to be instructed in the proper
>> use of
>> the car seat and require that parents can only leave the hospital with
>> their
>> baby if they are properly using the car seat.
>>
>> For those who still can't grasp that, you are on your own from here on
>> out.
>> Good luck.
>
> You have the law correct, you just don't understand that the hospital does
> not have the POWER to require anything. The hospital cannot arrest you
> nor can they detain you nor can they confiscate your child. Sorry, Rudy,
> they just can't. They can ask that you follow their instructions and they
> can call the police if they are afraid, but they can't take your child
> away from you.
Failing to discharge a parent displaying signs of criminal behavior is
certainly an option for any hospital in any state of the union.
>
>
Joe Long
>> It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to defend holding a child hostage.
> It's not hostage, you fucking moron.
> Mom is there. Dad is there. They're in possession of the kid.
> They simply can't be discharged, you FUCKING moron.
So then the parents take their child home without him being discharged.
If hospital staff refuse to turn over their child to them, they are
holding the child hostage. This isn't rocket science.
> The hospital will help get them a car seat if they can't afford one. They
> simply won't be an accessory to negligent homicide if the kid dies without
> one.
If the hospitall tells the parent they need a carseat and the parents
refuse to use one, the hospital is in no way an accessory to anything.
They don't have to hold the kid to avoid being an accessory.
...
>> There is a very tiny increase in danger to a child from being carried
>> lovingly home in his mother's arms instead of being secured in a car seat.
>
> No, retard, there's a big increase in danger, in the event of an accident.
"in the event of an accident," sure. But as an accident on the way home
is very unlikely, that is a tiny increase in risk. States have now made
it illegal for the parents to make that decision, but that does not give
the hospital any authority to enforce that law by detaining the child.
None.
> An increase that is dwarfed by such factors as the skill of the
>> driver, the condition of the car, the weather, traffic, and many others.
>
> Wrong again, moron boy.
>
>> So who appointed you God to force the parents to make the choice you
>> would make?
>
> There is no "choice", shit for brains.
> It's the law. Use a carseat or be party to negligent homicide if the kid
> dies in an auto accident.
> Get your head out of your ass, idiot boy.
Everyone can choose to obey or not obey any law ... and the state can
prosecute and punish them for it, if they're caught. Have you never
broken any law in your life? Not even exceeded the speed limit (which
puts other people, including children, at risk of injury or death)?
>> That's what's so bad about the "nanny state." Control freaks get to run
>> all our lives, "for our own good." Like the Eagle character on the
>> Muppets, who's only concern for anything was "Is it safe?"
>
> No, moron. They're protecting the kids from retards like you who don't see
> that failing to use a carseat isn't a small risk, it's a large one.
>
> Morons like you disgust me almost as much as the fucking christian scientist
> idiots who don't take their kids to the doctor.
Ah, why do I bother responding to you .. you're all seventh-grade
insults and no substance.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"da pickle" <jcpi...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> "JerseyRudy"
>
>> the hospital enforces the regulation by refusing to turn over the baby to
>> the
>> parents. If the parents grab the baby from the nurse and try to leave
>> with the
>> baby under such circumstances then there are police officers who will
>> stop the
>> parents from leaving with the baby.
>
>
> never gets to hold the baby without supervision.
How would you have any idea how any hospital typically does it?
Your inventing scenarios to support an idiotic position.
>
>
> You need not reverse the question until you answer the original questions.
> I know that the parents would be able to carry their baby out to the car
> without interference from the hospital because your ideas are nonsense.
>
> Try this one on, you are Brittnay Spears driving with your baby in your
> lap on the 5 in Los Angeles. The cop pulls you over and gives you a
> ticket for not having your baby in a car seat ... now, the officer tells
> Brittnay that she is unfit to care for the child and he is confiscating
> the child until she gets a car seat and comes and picks up the baby at the
> station. (The police all have a car seat in the trunk for just such
> emergencies.)
>
>
>> As far as your question regarding the baby's siblings, unfortunately
>> there is
>> nothing that a hospital can do to prevent stupid parents from driving
>> away with
>> the siblings without an appropriate car seat. The reason for this is that
>> the
>> siblings are in the legal care and custody of the parents, unlike the
>> new-born
>> who is in the legal care and custody of the hospital. The parents of the
>> older
>> sibling have already been released by the hospital where and when that
>> child was
>> born, meaning that the parents of the sibling were given instructions on
>> how to
>> properly use a car seat and at one point must have had a proper car seat
>> when
>> they left that hospital. Therefore, if the sibling gets injured or killed
>> because there was no car seat, it will be solely the parents who are
>> liable;
>> there will be no liability on the hospital. The same applies to your
>> question
>> about visiting a doctor's office for a check up - the doctor's office in
>> such
>> circumstances does not have legal care and custody of the child, so there
>> is
>> nothing they can do to prevent parents from driving away without a car
>> seat.
>
>
> Oh good grief, Rudy. You do not have the slightest idea of what legal
> custody means.
>
>
>> Your argument seems to be based on the premise that because hospitals and
>> doctors are not able to prevent every single instance of parents
>> endangering
>> their infant by driving without a car seat, then they should not be able
>> to
>> prevent it from happening in the one clear instance in which they can
>> prevent
>> it. This is what Voltaire warned against when he said that "the perfect
>> is
>> often the enemy of the good." It is a really weak argument.
>
>
> You have no argument and you cannot understand simple truths. The
> hospital might indeed call the police if they see anyone at any time
> violating any law ... including the law that children of a certain age
> should be in car seats. The police will give a ticket to anyone who
> violates the law. The hospital never has "legal custody" of any child in
> the hospital. You cannot give up your parental rights to a hospital by
> visiting the hospital no matter how many words you put on any piece of
> paper you are asked to sign at the hospital. Grow a sack, man.
You place the hospital in a judgement position of your fitness to be a
parent every time you take a kid to the hospital. They are required to keep
your kid there if you show signs of negligence or abuse. And they will. You
know this. So why are you bullshitting?
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
"da pickle" <jcpi...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> "James L. Hankins"
>
>>> one more time, back to the beginning (read slowly this time so you grasp
>>> every
>>> word): hospitals have the the authority to prevent you from leaving the
>>> hospital with your baby if you are not properly using a car seat.
>>
>> Are you referring to some state law or the hospital regulation?
>
> Rudy has fallen and he can't get up.
No, the libertarians have lost their collective minds.
>
BillB
> Surely you understand that the cite above refers to battered children who
> have been brought to the hospital with injuries? Not to newborns and car
> seats?
It means exactly what it says. And no, it doesn't just refer to battered
children who have been brought to the hospital with injuries. These statutes
can and are used in much wider circumstances than that.
Beldin the Sorcerer
>
> "JerseyRudy" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> news:1204661589$111...@recpoker.com...
>
>
>> one more time, back to the beginning (read slowly this time so you grasp
>> every
>> word): hospitals have the the authority to prevent you from leaving the
>> hospital with your baby if you are not properly using a car seat.
>
>
> Do you mean legal authority? If so, from where does this authority come?
> Are you referring to some state law or the hospital regulation?
And the fact that they're criminally liable if you kill the kid.
>
Joe Long
> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> What you don't get is that no one is claiming hospitals don't have
>> policies of advising parents about car seats, or even checking the seats.
>> They just don't have the legal or moral authority to prevent the parents
>> from leaving with their child if the parents choose not to comply.
>>
> Yep, you're consistently an idiot.
And you are consistently unable to mount any rational argument and so
resort to mindless insults.
> Moral first : they have a moral authority to prevent harm to a patient.
While in their care at their facility, yes. After the patient leaves
their facility, no. And they have no moral right to prevent a healthy
patient from leaving. None.
> Legal : If they'll be liable as an accessory, and they will,
No, they won't. This is some pipe dream of yours. If you act against
their advice, they have NO liability.
> they have a
> legal responsibility to prevent you from being criminally negligent towards
> your child.
In narrow circumstances where a battered child is brought in for
treatment, there is some truth in this. Quite different from parents
leaving with a healthy newborn to take him home.
> And they damn well should call the cops and haul your idiot ass off to jail
> if you forcefully leave anyway.
Since getting pulled over with children in the car who are not in
carseats results in a traffic ticket, not being jailed, this is nonsense.
> Especially, idiot, as they will make sure you can GET a car seat at no
> charge to you, you fucking moron.
Which is completely irrelevant. The discussion is not whether carseats
are a good thing, or even whether hospitals should educate parents about
them and even inspect them for the parents. It is about whether a
hospital can forcibly keep the child from leaving if they don't use one.
Parents haven't lost all rights to their children in this country, at
least not yet.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"da pickle" <jcpi...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> But, do try and answer the simple questions. Do I need to continue to
>> list
> them so you can remember which ones have not been answered. They all
> concern "how" the hospital will enforce this regulation that you seem to
> think trumps parental rights.
No, Pickel, this is where your tendency to lie steps in.
It's not the regulations that trumps parent's rights. It's the state's need
to protect the child from negligence, AND the requirement of the hospital to
assist in that, as they must in ALL cases of negligence or run the risk of
being held liable themselves.
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
"risky biz" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1204647180$111...@recpoker.com...
>
>
> On Mar 4 2008 6:49 AM, Bob T. wrote:
>
>> On Mar 4, 6:41=A0am, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>> wrote:
>>
>> > One of the first items we purchased for my daughter was a car seat. We
>> > installed it in our car before I was even close to giving birth.
>>
>> You're a woman? I never would have guessed.
>>
>> - Bob T.
>
> He's talking about giving birth to his first coherent thought. He
> apparently miscarried. That
> wouldn't keep him from carrying it around in a car seat but it would be
> difficult because he has to
> push his ego around in a wheelbarrow.
Risky, your capacity for stupidity is far larger than my ego.
What I've stated any number of times is still true. It isn't that I think
I'm brilliant. I don't. It's that there is so much abject stupidity out
there. This shit is obvious.
Your lack of economic understanding is equally obvious.
I pity you, so often ranting about things you have no clue about, when
google is so handy to you.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e_Kdnd-MUKC...@giganews.com...
> "Bob T."
>
>> <snip>> One of the first items we purchased for my daughter was a car
>> > installed it in our car before I was even close to giving birth.
>>
>> You're a woman? I never would have guessed.
>>
>> What sort of slip is this?
> ====================
> Well, if he's a woman it's much more likely that his slip is
> showing... but I suspect he was just expressing solidarity with his
> wife, who actually was close to giving birth at the time.
> ====================
>
> I suspect so.
You do not.
You aren't THAT stupid not to tell it's a cite... as everything labeled
"From hospital websites" was.
>
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
> "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>
>>I posted this over the weekend but it didn't show up. I suspect it might
>>have something to do with the image copied in one of the cites, so I'll
>>try again.
>>
>> From any number of different hospitals in multiple states.
>>
>> As I suspected, it's the law that you can't put your kid in the car
>> without
>> a car seat.
>
>
> not? If course you *can* put your kid in the care without a car seat. You
> will be in violation of a law, but they cannot confiscate your kid if you
> violate the law. The law does not "prevent" you from violating it.
They CAN take your kid away if you display harmful or negligent behavior.
This qualifies.
The hospital can make sure you don't make them an accessory to criminal
acts.
This qualifies.
>
> I am tempted to throw in a "you're an idiot" but that would be childish.
>
> <snip the rest of the material that does not support the conclusion>
No, idiot boy, it all showed there's a law about car seats.
I didn't think you were SO idiotic that you'd question whether a hospital
can cover their ass or prevent child abuse.
Of course they can.
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
news:c1047858-5a57-45a3...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 4, 6:41 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
wrote:
<snip>
> One of the first items we purchased for my daughter was a car seat. We
> installed it in our car before I was even close to giving birth.
You're a woman? I never would have guessed.
- Bob T.
*
Selective editing or gross stupidity?
That was a cite, and it's obviously so.
Note the line :
Beldin the Sorcerer
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>> "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message
>
>>> What you don't get is that no one is claiming hospitals don't have
>>> policies of advising parents about car seats, or even checking the
>>> seats. They just don't have the legal or moral authority to prevent the
>>> parents from leaving with their child if the parents choose not to
>>> comply.
>>>
>> Yep, you're consistently an idiot.
>
> And you are consistently unable to mount any rational argument and so
> resort to mindless insults.
No, idiot boy.
I insult you, absolutely. You post this dumb, you need to be slapped.
THEN I point out why your argument is idiotic.
See, Joe, when there's a REASON why I called you an idiot, it isn't mindless
insult.
>
>> Moral first : they have a moral authority to prevent harm to a patient.
>
> While in their care at their facility, yes. After the patient leaves
> their facility, no. And they have no moral right to prevent a healthy
> patient from leaving. None.
Wrong.
They have every moral responsibility to protect a minor from a dangerous
situation. And, yes, it's the law.
Siddown and shudafuckup.
>
>> Legal : If they'll be liable as an accessory, and they will,
>
> No, they won't. This is some pipe dream of yours. If you act against
> their advice, they have NO liability.
Wrong, shithead.
A bartender serves booze and is liable.
A hospital fails to protect a minor from a potentially abusive parent is
LIABLE.
>
>> they have a legal responsibility to prevent you from being criminally
>> negligent towards your child.
>
> In narrow circumstances where a battered child is brought in for
> treatment, there is some truth in this. Quite different from parents
> leaving with a healthy newborn to take him home.
Wrong, shithead.
Quite the same as a parent illegally transporting a child from your care
when you KNOW it will happen.
>
>> And they damn well should call the cops and haul your idiot ass off to
>> jail if you forcefully leave anyway.
>
> Since getting pulled over with children in the car who are not in carseats
> results in a traffic ticket, not being jailed, this is nonsense.
And since you killing the kid exposes the hospital to a suit, no it isn't.
And since you can be charged with negligent homicide if the kid DIES while
you're driving it home illegally, you REALLY ought to get your head out of
your ass.
>
>> Especially, idiot, as they will make sure you can GET a car seat at no
>> charge to you, you fucking moron.
>
> Which is completely irrelevant
Nope, it's completely relevent.
There's no excuse not to except criminal neglect. Ergo, anyone trying to do
so is GUILTY of criminal neglect.
The discussion is not whether carseats
> are a good thing, or even whether hospitals should educate parents about
> them and even inspect them for the parents. It is about whether a
> hospital can forcibly keep the child from leaving if they don't use one.
No, it's about whether a parent can unsafely remove a child, illegally, from
hospital care.
And the answer is No.
>
> Parents haven't lost all rights to their children in this country, at
> least not yet.
No, just the right to abuse them and expose them to harm.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:yUpzj.44721$pM4.7769@pd7urf1no...
Try getting them to consider a dad trying to take his 3 year old home on the
back of a motorcycle with no helmut.
If they don't see THAT, then they're simply mindless libertarian parrots.
>
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>>> It's a hell of a lot easier than trying to defend holding a child
>>> hostage.
>> It's not hostage, you fucking moron.
>> Mom is there. Dad is there. They're in possession of the kid.
>> They simply can't be discharged, you FUCKING moron.
>
> So then the parents take their child home without him being discharged.
Nope.
Then they all stay there till they get a car seat.
> If hospital staff refuse to turn over their child to them, they are
> holding the child hostage. This isn't rocket science.
No, shithead. They're protecting the kid from potentially abusive parents.
Not a hostage situation at ALL, you imbecile.
>
>> The hospital will help get them a car seat if they can't afford one. They
>> simply won't be an accessory to negligent homicide if the kid dies
>> without
>> one.
>
> If the hospitall tells the parent they need a carseat and the parents
> refuse to use one, the hospital is in no way an accessory to anything.
Wrong, shithead.
Thanks for showing your stupidity. Allowing a parent to abuse the kid is
negligence on the part of the hospital.
Period.
> They don't have to hold the kid to avoid being an accessory.
They have to prevent the kid from being abused to avoid liability.
You know it, I know it, shut the fuck up with your idiocy.
Read this. Pay attention to the section labeled "Liability"
Implementing a Comprehensive Child Restraint Program in a Pediatric
Hospital: An Effective Model
Pediatric Nursing, Nov, 2000 by Judith Talty, Judy Sheese, Susan Gunn,
Jayne Stone, Michelle Chappelow, Karen Wyatt, Marilyn Cox, Marilyn Bull
<< Page 1 Continued from page 6. Previous | Next
Documentation
Use of a teaching record has been implemented to consistently document
parent education and to serve as an instructional guide for nurses, ensuring
all pertinent information has been covered (see Figure 1). This teaching
record lists objectives parents need to meet including proper positioning of
the child in the child restraint and stated understanding of installation of
the child restraint in the vehicle. This teaching record allows the nurse to
document that information was given and learning was demonstrated. This
record then becomes a permanent part of the child's medical record.
[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
For specialized child restraints, a liability/loan agreement and a checklist
are completed in addition to the teaching record. Families receive a copy of
the loan paperwork and the originals are forwarded to ASFC for incorporation
into a database.
Keeping Current
Changes in child passenger safety practice and technology necessitate
continuing education of staff so that families are provided with accurate
information and resources. When new child restraints are introduced into the
system or significant changes occur, such as product recalls, nurses are
notified via unit newsletters. Self-study materials are revised as needed to
incorporate current information, and refresher courses are scheduled
annually for Automotive Safety Resources Nurses. In addition, physicians are
kept informed on the status of the car seat program through memos generated
by the car seat steering committee.
[AD]
Evaluation Component
Developing effective evaluation tools still remains one of the greatest
challenges for the car seat program. Currently, families receive a postcard
to complete that evaluates their satisfaction with the services they
received. Data are recorded on the number and types of child safety seats
distributed.
A pretest and posttest are in development that would evaluate a family's
understanding of child safety seat use before and after instruction. A
follow-up phone survey, to be conducted with families after discharge, is
under consideration as a method to evaluate retention of instructional
information received. Reviewing patient charts for documentation, which
verifies that children identified on admission or via a physician's order
received an appropriate child restraint, is another form of evaluation under
discussion.
Liability Issues
Minimizing liability for staff involved with the car seat program is an
issue under careful consideration. In order to minimize liability, ASFC
consults with the university's legal department concerning all applicable
documentation, in addition, the program supports transportation-related
policy statements issued by the AAP and follows recommendations detailed in
research commissioned by the National Easter Seal Society (National Easter
Seal Society, 1991; Smith, 1997).
The AAP has strongly stated the importance of educating parents about the
use of child safety seats and the role of the hospital in this process (AAP,
1999b). The AAP recommends that car seat programs ensure that families
receive hands-on instruction and that staff training is performed under the
supervision of nationally-certified child passenger safety technicians and
instructors. The National Easter Seal Society's recommendations include
training staff, carefully inspecting child restraints prior to distribution,
demonstrating use of the child restraint, requiring a return demonstration
by the recipient, documenting instruction, checking child safety seats for
recalls and repairing seats according to manufacturers' instructions, and
destroying child restraints that have been involved in a crash.
>
>
> ...
>>> There is a very tiny increase in danger to a child from being carried
>>> lovingly home in his mother's arms instead of being secured in a car
>>> seat.
>>
>> No, retard, there's a big increase in danger, in the event of an
>> accident.
>
> "in the event of an accident," sure. But as an accident on the way home
> is very unlikely, that is a tiny increase in risk. States have now made
> it illegal for the parents to make that decision, but that does not give
> the hospital any authority to enforce that law by detaining the child.
> None.
>
>> An increase that is dwarfed by such factors as the skill of the
>>> driver, the condition of the car, the weather, traffic, and many others.
>>
>> Wrong again, moron boy.
>>
>>> So who appointed you God to force the parents to make the choice you
>>> would make?
>>
>> There is no "choice", shit for brains.
>> It's the law. Use a carseat or be party to negligent homicide if the kid
>> dies in an auto accident.
>> Get your head out of your ass, idiot boy.
>
> Everyone can choose to obey or not obey any law ... and the state can
> prosecute and punish them for it, if they're caught.
Yep. and when it involves their kids, they can do a lot more.
Have you never
> broken any law in your life? Not even exceeded the speed limit (which
> puts other people, including children, at risk of injury or death)?
I don't ever endanger kids.
I surely don't whine like a retard when a hospital does what it can to
prevent it.
>
>>> That's what's so bad about the "nanny state." Control freaks get to run
>>> all our lives, "for our own good." Like the Eagle character on the
>>> Muppets, who's only concern for anything was "Is it safe?"
>>
>> No, moron. They're protecting the kids from retards like you who don't
>> see
>> that failing to use a carseat isn't a small risk, it's a large one.
>>
>> Morons like you disgust me almost as much as the fucking christian
>> scientist
>> idiots who don't take their kids to the doctor.
>
> Ah, why do I bother responding to you .. you're all seventh-grade
> insults and no substance.
No, shithead.
I'm all substance, pointing out you're clueless.
While trying to slap some sense into that idiot head of yours.
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
But then, idiot boy, you can't read either.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
>
>>> And those regulations have no force of law, nor do hospitals have arrest
>>> authority -- so the parents can tell the hospital to shove it and leave
>>> with their child, and there's nothing the hospital can do to stop them.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong, shithead.
>> The state can hold the hospital liable for releasing the child illegally.
>> If they don't make sure the kid is in a car seat, they're an accessory.
>> If the kid dies, they're an accessory to manslaughter/negligent death.
>
> Do you have any cites for this ridiculous pipe-dream?
>
It's preventing abuse, you moron.
>> This is the same thing as a bartender failing to cut off someone who he
>> thinks is becoming too drunk to drive.
>
> No, it isn't. Not selling someone more of your product is not the same as
> taking his kid away from him.
No, but not allowing a parent to abuse a child isn't the same as taking
their kid away from them either.
You retard.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Not using a car seat is abuse.
That'd be the WHOLE point of this discussion, you complete moron.
Beldin the Sorcerer
>>
>> "James L. Hankins" <jhan...@cox.net[no spam]> wrote in message
>> news:Qpkzj.60517$Ft5....@newsfe15.lga...
>>
>>> They can ask that you follow their instructions and they
>>>> can call the police if they are afraid, but they can't take your child
>>>> away from you.
>>
>> I wouldn't be so sure about that. See for example Michigan's Child
>> Protection Law (the first one I looked at):
>>
>> 722.626 Detention of child in temporary protective custody; preliminary
>> hearing; examinations; report; medical evaluation.
>> Sec. 6.
>>
>> (1) If a child suspected of being abused or neglected is admitted to a
>> hospital or brought to a hospital for outpatient services and the
>> attending physician determines that the release of the child would
>> endanger the child's health or welfare, the attending physician shall
>> notify the person in charge and the department. The person in charge may
>> detain the child in temporary protective custody until the next regular
>> business day of the probate court, at which time the probate court shall
>> order the child detained in the hospital or in some other suitable place
>> pending a preliminary hearing as required by section 14 of chapter 12A of
>> the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 712A.14, or order the child
>> released to the child's parent, guardian, or custodian.
>
>
>
>
> But I think all states have similar statutes. In Oklahoma, it's used when
> a child is brought in with injuries that appear to be abuse or perhaps
> when a drug addict gives birth.
>
> Using such a statute on the child seat issue would be a drastic
> interpretation completely at odds with how it has worked historically.
>
> And note, that even then, no one from the hospital ever does anything.
> They call DHS to come get the child or the police.
They prevent the parent from taking the kid home.
That's the point.
>
Bob T.
wrote:
> "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c1047858-5a57-45a3...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 6:41 am, "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beldin...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>> One of the first items we purchased for my daughter was a car seat. We
> > installed it in our car before I was even close to giving birth.
>
> *
> You're a woman? I never would have guessed.
>
> - Bob T.
> *
> Selective editing or gross stupidity?
> That was a cite, and it's obviously so.
You might want to check the format of the post as it was posted -
there was no punctuation or other formatting to indicate that part of
it was a cite. I went back and looked at it and I can see it now, but
it is far from obvious. In any case, I was just being silly.
- Bob T.
- Bob T.
da pickle
>> So then the parents take their child home without him being discharged.
>
> Nope.
> Then they all stay there till they get a car seat.
How do they prevent the parents from walking away, Beldin? Do they have
handcuffs? Do they have guns? You have fallen off a cliff, Beldin.
You have posted nothing more than Hospitals should and do instruct new
parents on safety for their newborns ... no one disagrees with this. You
have decided, however, that hospital personnel have police powers that they
do not and never have had.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> >> - it's not easy trying to defend parents who want to drive without car
> >> seats.
> >
> > Of course, no one is doing that. You really need to see someone about
> > those voices bouncing around in your otherwise empty skull.
>
> You're an imbecile. Protecting the right to "choose to disobey the law" is
> exactly the same thing.
Haven't you made a big enough fool of yourself by now without adding to
it? No one is arguing about protecting the right to "choose to disobey
the law", you empty-headed twit. The argument is against the idea that
hospitals and/or the state have the right/authority to prevent you from
taking custody of your own child because they're not satisfied with the
car seat you own or the way you have it installed.
> > Oh, hell. Why not compare shooting your child in the head with not
> > keeping a fully charged fire extinguisher in the kitchen? Only a moron
> > would think these are meaningful analogies.
> >
>
> You're an imbecile.
> Ah, but that's been established.
> Driving without a car seat is akin to taking a stroller on an escalator.
> Really stupid, potentially deadly, but often harmless.
> So is smoking crack.
How many times are you going to say something phenomenally stupid in an
attempt to tell someone else that *they* are stupid? Do you really not
comprehend the huge difference between direct, intentional infliction of
intense pain and significant (possibly life-threatening) injury...and
failing to take a precaution and causing a small increase in the
probability of a serious injury? Really? You're THAT fucking stupid?
> > He didn't compare the two as though they were similar acts. His point was
> > with regard to what authority you think the hospital has regarding whether
> > or not you can take your own child home with you.
>
> No, shit for brains. The hospital has every right to avoid being an
> accessory to a crime.
> Just like YOU do.
Now you're trying to tell us that forcibly taking your child away from you
in that instance is simply avoiding being "an accessory to a crime"?
You're just too damned stupid to live. Please stop wasting our oxygen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Be polite. Be professional. But...have a plan to kill everyone you meet."
______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
>
> Try getting them to consider a dad trying to take his 3 year old home on the
> back of a motorcycle with no helmut.
Phil Helmut?
> If they don't see THAT, then they're simply mindless libertarian parrots.
Or their dad let them ride on his motorcycle without a helmet. Did
yours?
da pickle
>>> But, do try and answer the simple questions. Do I need to continue to
>>> list them so you can remember which ones have not been answered. They
>>> all concern "how" the hospital will enforce this regulation that you
>>> seem to think trumps parental rights.
>
> No, Pickel, this is where your tendency to lie steps in.
There are many areas in which you have a clue, Bledin, but this is not one
of them.
> It's not the regulations that trumps parent's rights. It's the state's
> need to protect the child from negligence, AND the requirement of the
> hospital to assist in that, as they must in ALL cases of negligence or run
> the risk of being held liable themselves.
You are just wrong, Beldin, and no matter how many insults you shout, you
will not be right.
A hospital is not "the state" ... the hospital has no police power. Neither
do you. If you see someone at the mall getting into a car with a baby with
no child seat in the car ... you have no police power to take the baby from
them and hold the family for the police to arrive. You might think you have
such power, but you do not.
If you see someone spanking a child "too much" in your opinion, you might
intervene, but you will do so at your own risk. Many of us might take civil
action in such circumstances, but you do not have any legal right to do so.
It will be good if you have plenty of witnesses that agree with your actions
... the police when they get there might look the other way about your
actions, but if you get beat to a pulp for trying to get involved in a
family dispute, you might not have a result that fits your Pollyanna ideas
about the law and who has what rights.
WuzYoungOnceToo
wrote:
>
> Not using a car seat is abuse.
> That'd be the WHOLE point of this discussion, you complete moron.
Your penchant for making up your own meanings for words is well beyond
boring, you know?
Negligence and abuse are different words for a reason.
da pickle
Have you ever had such a case, Bill?
da pickle
> No, wrong, they DO do something.
> They prevent the parent from taking the kid home.
>
> That's the point.
They have the child separate from the parent and they are in the hospital
and the child has objective signs of abuse. They are no standing in the
parking lot outside the hospital with a mother with the child in her arms
and trying to snatch the baby from her. If you cannot see the difference,
Beldin, there is no hope.
da pickle
> Not using a car seat is abuse.
> That'd be the WHOLE point of this discussion, you complete moron.
What does a police office do when he sees a child in a car without a car
seat, Beldin?