Baby baptized w/o parents' knowledge, parents sue

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2012 7:45:49 GMT -5 josieposy said:

How is it not relevant? NICU security is supposed to be heavily enforced. The staff dropped the ball by letting the priest get to the kid in the first place. I am agreeing with you here. I just think some of the blame falls on the staff in this case.

*Obviously* some of the blame falls on the staff.

But it sounded like you were saying this happened because Grandma was allowed to visit. Let's say for a monent she wasn't - how would that have stopped her from calling her priest and telling him to show up? Either way, she could have done what she did. That's why I said the visitation policy is irrelevant.

Obviously the visitation policy and security protocol were breached by the priest's presence, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Grandma was on an OK list.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2012 7:59:13 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Also, I haven't reviewed HIPAA in a while, but I don't think there is anything in the regulations that would apply hear. HIPAA is all about protected health information and privacy policies regarding that information, not priests visiting children.

Honest question - isn't patient identifying info part of the PHI? Clearly the priest had access to it without patental consent.

I ask because whenever we (at my job) use patient images or cardiograms for education/training purposes, we must first remove all patient identifiers - not just names, but also medical record numbers, account numbers and even dates of birth, or we are deemed by administration out of HIPAA compliance.

The priest had to have known the patient's name and which of the NICU patients had that name. And we know he didn't have parental authorization for this, which is what sets this case apart from ordinary clergy visits to patients.

[2vermont]

This is an interesting thread. I'm wondering whether the reactions would be similar if the priest just came in to say a prayer as opposed to an actual baptism. I can understand not wanting the baptism against one's wishes, but would a prayer evoke the same reaction?

As for the baptism, I agree that the Grandmother should not have done this without parental consent, but I'm goingto guess that she figured the baby's condition was fragile and thought baptism might be necessary (in the event he didn't make it?). Likewise, this may be why the priest went through with it as well (and Grandma may have led him to believe that all was on board).

[ttt]

Jun 23, 2012 9:05:20 GMT -5 2vermont said:

This is an interesting thread. I'm wondering whether the reactions would be similar if the priest just came in to say a prayer as opposed to an actual baptism. I can understand not wanting the baptism against one's wishes, but would a prayer evoke the same reaction?

As for the baptism, I agree that the Grandmother should not have done this without parental consent, but I'm goingto guess that she figured the baby's condition was fragile and thought baptism might be necessary (in the event he didn't make it?). Likewise, this may be why the priest went through with it as well (and Grandma may have led him to believe that all was on board).

I would be furious if the hospital allowed ANY unauthorized visitors to my baby in the NICU.

There are two different issues here, I think, one is the unauthorized visitor and the other is performing a religious ceremony without their consent. If you were religious and wanted to have a baptism ceremony, I imagine you'd be very upset if someone went ahead and did it without your consent because you can't exactly do that twice, right?

[heyjude]

I found this interesting on emotional damages. It's from wiki. Not a law journal. Hee!!

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_infliction_of_emotional_distress#section_2

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2012 10:04:15 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

Jun 23, 2012 9:59:34 GMT -5 @crackhabit said:

I didn't read the whole thread yet. Is grandma being sued, too?

The article doesn't specifically say she's named, just the hospital and the priest.

[debatethis]

I'm somewhat surprised that more of the parents of the NICU patients aren't joining in a suit against the hospital for the breach here. Regardless of who they were (grandma and priest), one person and potentially a second were not authorized to access a wing of medically fragile children but were somehow able to do so. And then they opened the isolette of a medically fragile micropreemie and used an unsterilized product on him. Those actions alone could have made many other babies very sick.

[GailGoldie]

my guess is that the nurses felt this baby would not make it.... and allowed the priest in with the grandma b/c she was on the OK list.

While I think they are 100% at fault for not following rules of the NICU visitation - I can also see that if they are Christian, and they feel the baby is likely going to die- that they might let it slide in this instance. Again- i don't think it's OK - but I can see why a nurse might allow it... which is sad b/c I'm sure the nurse(s) that allowed this only did so for good reasons.

Does it say anywhere if the baby survived? 24w is considered viability - but it's still not a great chance at life when born that early.

I think it's BS to sue the priest. But sue the hospital if for no reason than to get them to follow their own damn rules- or create more strict ones. But to sue the priest = they should also be suing the grandmother b/c they are equally at fault- if not more on the grandmother's side. The priest was just doing his "job".

[debatethis]

Goldie - the baby did survive. He's two now.
This article also says that the priest is saying he never went in the NICU w/ Grandma and didn't perform the rite of baptism at all - he claims he only blessed the hallway of the NICU and sprinkled some water on the floor:
www.therepublic.com/view/story/60c1380b8ea3493fa34f2a0eb27ee71c/PA--Baptized-or-Not

[curmudgeon]

Is there proof the priest was in the NICU? If he did just do a prayer, the lawsuit is obviously ridiculous. However, not knowing their religious beliefs, if it were me I would still be pissed at grandma.

[2vermont]

Jun 23, 2012 22:24:24 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Goldie - the baby did survive. He's two now.
This article also says that the priest is saying he never went in the NICU w/ Grandma and didn't perform the rite of baptism at all - he claims he only blessed the hallway of the NICU and sprinkled some water on the floor:
www.therepublic.com/view/story/60c1380b8ea3493fa34f2a0eb27ee71c/PA--Baptized-or-Not

I've never heard of a "pre-baptismal prayer" but this priest is Russian orthodox so I guess the Orthodox Church may have something of the sort.

ETA: Just did a quick google:

www.stgeorge.nh.goarch.org/orthodox-resources/sacraments/pre-baptismal-rites-forty-day-churching/

[heyjude]

As much as I hate the Gma, priest, and hospital for doing this, there was no harm that the law recognizes for purposes of compensation. And since the baby was already being monitored in NICU there probably wasn't anything more that needed to happen.

This family's recourse lies in reporting the hospital and staff to medical/licensing boards, not exacting money for a civil harm that does not exist in the eyes of the law.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2012 20:34:33 GMT -5 GailGoldie said:

my guess is that the nurses felt this baby would not make it.... and allowed the priest in with the grandma b/c she was on the OK list.

Then those nurses are idiots. They thought that a person on the "OK list" can bring guests without parental approval?

Jun 23, 2012 20:34:33 GMT -5 GailGoldie said:

While I think they are 100% at fault for not following rules of the NICU visitation - I can also see that if they are Christian, and they feel the baby is likely going to die- that they might let it slide in this instance. Again- i don't think it's OK - but I can see why a nurse might allow it... which is sad b/c I'm sure the nurse(s) that allowed this only did so for good reasons.

There's no good reason for letting an unauthorized visitor into NICU. If this is why they did so(and I really hope it's not) then they are letting their religious preferences get in the way of patient care. And common sense.

Jun 23, 2012 20:34:33 GMT -5 GailGoldie said:

The priest was just doing his "job".

No, he wasn't. It's not the priest's job to perform an unwanted baptism on a child whose parents never requested it. He make not have technically violated the law, but he's light-years out of line.

He HAD to have known this was unauthorized for these reasons:

1. The parents are not members of his church - if they wanted a baptism, wouldn't they have asked their own minister/priest, or the hospital chaplain? Why this guy?

2. The parents didn't ask him to do the baptism - this one is a no-brainer.

3. The parents weren't present for the baptism - that should have been a big fucking gigantic red flag.

[Deleted]

I have to wonder if the people sticking up for the priest would feel if Grandma was Jewish and snuck in a rabbi to perform a bris behind the parent's backs.

[marissa]

Jun 24, 2012 10:36:13 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

I have to wonder if the people sticking up for the priest would feel if Grandma was Jewish and snuck in a rabbi to perform a bris behind the parent's backs.

That would have gone into automatic not talking to the in-laws ever again territory. My MIL pushed for our boys to be circumcised. I didn't want them to be. DH listened to what she was saying and pushed for it to be done. Matthew's couldn't be done in the NICU and had to have a repair done since he had a hypospadias.

[GailGoldie]

Jun 24, 2012 10:36:13 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

I have to wonder if the people sticking up for the priest would feel if Grandma was Jewish and snuck in a rabbi to perform a bris behind the parent's backs.

really? REALLY? you think cutting off a foreskin is = to saying a prayer and sprinkling some water on a baby's head? really.


As for "sticking up for the priest"... many don't know NICU rules- and if someone called and was upset and desperate and asked for him to come and baptize her grandson- I can't imagine why he wouldn't... priest's job don't include investigating relations with family members, etc... they go to hospitals to help those in need --- they don't run background checks before doing so.

and the fact is- the ONLY bad thing he truly did was enter the NICU (if that even happened- since now people are saying he didn't).... saying a prayer does NOTHING bad to anyone. And I'm sorry- athiest or not- you are an asshole if you think someone praying for your baby is bad in any way.

I'm christian - but I'll take prayers from anyone - any religion - any God they might pray to - and would never be upset about it... let alone SUE over it.

but again- I DO think a law suit is in order to get the hospital's shit together.

[debatethis]

Jun 24, 2012 10:36:13 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

I have to wonder if the people sticking up for the priest would feel if Grandma was Jewish and snuck in a rabbi to perform a bris behind the parent's backs.

How can you even compare the two?

[Deleted]

Jun 24, 2012 15:44:08 GMT -5 GailGoldie said:

Jun 24, 2012 10:36:13 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

I have to wonder if the people sticking up for the priest would feel if Grandma was Jewish and snuck in a rabbi to perform a bris behind the parent's backs.

really? REALLY? you think cutting off a foreskin is = to saying a prayer and sprinkling some water on a baby's head? really.


As for "sticking up for the priest"... many don't know NICU rules- and if someone called and was upset and desperate and asked for him to come and baptize her grandson- I can't imagine why he wouldn't... priest's job don't include investigating relations with family members, etc... they go to hospitals to help those in need --- they don't run background checks before doing so.

and the fact is- the ONLY bad thing he truly did was enter the NICU (if that even happened- since now people are saying he didn't).... saying a prayer does NOTHING bad to anyone. And I'm sorry- athiest or not- you are an asshole if you think someone praying for your baby is bad in any way.

I'm christian - but I'll take prayers from anyone - any religion - any God they might pray to - and would never be upset about it... let alone SUE over it.

but again- I DO think a law suit is in order to get the hospital's shit together.

Oh, FFS......obviously cutting off a foreskin does not = baptism. .

I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion on forcing one's religious beliefs on others who *gasp* may not share those beliefs, not a side-by-side procedural comparison.

Since we're being literal, WTF said the priest should have run a background check? It doesn't take a background check to understand that if the parents don't request a baptism, it probably shouldn't be done.

You can't imagine why he wouldn't do it? Again - maybe the parents wanted their own minister/priest. Or they *gasp* don't want any baptism at all.

You say the ONLY bad thing he did was enter the NICU - did you read the article? It says he put holy water on the baby which is considered violation of infection control protocol. If the reporting is accurate, that's a bigass gigantic deal and I can't accept the *shrug, NBD* attitude, sorry.

If this baptism was as emergent as you're suggesting, well, that's why hospitals employ chaplains.

Lastly, WTF did I ever say that saying a prayer is bad? Way to spin it out of context, and thanks for calling me an asshole, BTW. Last time I checked, you can pray alone, silently and from any location without breaching medical/security protocol or disregarding appropriate boundaries.

[2vermont]

Jun 24, 2012 17:59:34 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

Jun 24, 2012 15:44:08 GMT -5 GailGoldie said:

really? REALLY? you think cutting off a foreskin is = to saying a prayer and sprinkling some water on a baby's head? really.


As for "sticking up for the priest"... many don't know NICU rules- and if someone called and was upset and desperate and asked for him to come and baptize her grandson- I can't imagine why he wouldn't... priest's job don't include investigating relations with family members, etc... they go to hospitals to help those in need --- they don't run background checks before doing so.

and the fact is- the ONLY bad thing he truly did was enter the NICU (if that even happened- since now people are saying he didn't).... saying a prayer does NOTHING bad to anyone. And I'm sorry- athiest or not- you are an asshole if you think someone praying for your baby is bad in any way.

I'm christian - but I'll take prayers from anyone - any religion - any God they might pray to - and would never be upset about it... let alone SUE over it.

but again- I DO think a law suit is in order to get the hospital's shit together.

Oh, FFS......obviously cutting off a foreskin does not = baptism. .

I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion on forcing one's religious beliefs on others who *gasp* may not share those beliefs, not a side-by-side procedural comparison.

Since we're being literal, WTF said the priest should have run a background check? It doesn't take a background check to understand that if the parents don't request a baptism, it probably shouldn't be done.

You can't imagine why he wouldn't do it? Again - maybe the parents wanted their own minister/priest. Or they *gasp* don't want any baptism at all.

You say the ONLY bad thing he did was enter the NICU - did you read the article? It says he put holy water on the baby which is considered violation of infection control protocol. If the reporting is accurate, that's a bigass gigantic deal and I can't accept the *shrug, NBD* attitude, sorry.

If this baptism was as emergent as you're suggesting, well, that's why hospitals employ chaplains.

Lastly, WTF did I ever say that saying a prayer is bad? Way to spin it out of context, and thanks for calling me an asshole, BTW. Last time I checked, you can pray alone, silently and from any location without breaching medical/security protocol or disregarding appropriate boundaries.

I think it's interesting that you're still all over the priest when there is now question whether the facts as originally told in the OP article are actually the facts.

Also, I'm not sure there were a lot of people giving the priest a complete pass wrt the OP article, but you're response seems over the top wrt priest ....it's just in the opposite direction.

[Deleted]

Jun 25, 2012 6:59:32 GMT -5 2vermont said:

I think it's interesting that you're still all over the priest when there is now question whether the facts as originally told in the OP article are actually the facts.

Also, I'm not sure there were a lot of people giving the priest a complete pass wrt the OP article, but you're response seems over the top wrt priest ....it's just in the opposite direction.

Yeah, my responses were based on the original article posted. I did notice that another article reporting a different version of events appeared later, but why do you assume that's the accurate one? Just because it was found and posted later in this thread? That doesnt make it an update. Or .....are you just choosing to believe it over the first one because it better suits your personal preferences?

If you're not sure there were people wanting to give the priest a pass, you haven't read the replies. In any case, I'm not sure what's so over the top about expecting him to respect the parents' wishes and medical/security protocol. I highly doubt that wouldnt be your expectation as well if there was a significant religious difference, because I have noticed extreme double standards with you WRT religion.

[Deleted]

I would throw a shitfit of epic proportions on everyone involved. Grandma, the priest, the hospitals, etc. But I wouldn't sue. Maybe I'm too nice.

HA! Not really, I'm just lazy and I can't see how suing would undo what has already been done and it's not like I now have extra expenses, bills to pay, nor has this cost me any time or effort aside from giving everyone a new asshole.

ETA: At the same time, I kind of feel for this grandmother IF she had good reason to fear her grandchild was going to die soon. I'm not sure I'd be able to forgive her if I was in the parents' shoes, not any time soon anyhow. But depending on the circumstances and the grandmother's character in general, I might be able to see why she did it.

However, if she's generally in the habit of being an all around stubborn asshat who pooh pooh's my faith or lack thereof, yeah, I'm cutting that bitch OFF!

[Deleted]

Jun 24, 2012 20:12:37 GMT -5 @publius said:

Jun 24, 2012 15:50:13 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

Anyone else think the case is actually motivated by insufficient insurance? A micropremie in the NICU runs up a steep tab. The parents couldn't pay the bills, cast around for something to use for bargaining with the hospital and came up with this breech of protocol.

This is one of the first things that popped into my head as well.

i thought about that. i also thought about how maybe the parents don't give half a rat's ass if they recover anything, and that they're suing just to make a point. now, that's a problem for their lawyer if he knows that they don't have any viable cause of action, but they don't have to care about that. they just have to be mad enough to do something to raise awareness.

[2vermont]

Jun 25, 2012 14:00:50 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

Jun 25, 2012 6:59:32 GMT -5 2vermont said:

I think it's interesting that you're still all over the priest when there is now question whether the facts as originally told in the OP article are actually the facts.

Also, I'm not sure there were a lot of people giving the priest a complete pass wrt the OP article, but you're response seems over the top wrt priest ....it's just in the opposite direction.

Yeah, my responses were based on the original article posted. I did notice that another article reporting a different version of events appeared later, but why do you assume that's the accurate one? Just because it was found and posted later in this thread? That doesnt make it an update. Or .....are you just choosing to believe it over the first one because it better suits your personal preferences?

If you're not sure there were people wanting to give the priest a pass, you haven't read the replies. In any case, I'm not sure what's so over the top about expecting him to respect the parents' wishes and medical/security protocol. I highly doubt that wouldnt be your expectation as well if there was a significant religious difference, because I have noticed extreme double standards with you WRT religion.

LOL. I am not choosing to believe the latter one over the former; however, I am recognizing that the former could be wrong. OTOH, speaking of supposed double standards, you still assume the first one is right and have given NO credence to the latter.

Oh and by the way, the priest isn't Roman Catholic, so there goes
your assumption that it's about personal preferences and my double standards. I also never said I thought it was okay that the priest/grandma should have done this...see my first response in this thread. It actually says that I think it's wrong to go against the wishes. Perhaps you should read posts more closely before making accusations/assumptions. I think your response is over -the-top because it sounds extremely emotional and vitriolic.


ETA: Oh and please do enlighten me with my supposed double standards wrt religion. And be specific. If you're right, I am willing to admit I was wrong.

ETA2: Apprently I deleted a portion of my response so I had to retype it.