It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hospital holds babies as 'hostages' for cash

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

The Al-Muqaddas hospital in east Jerusalem has found an original way to get women who have given birth at the hospital to pay their debts: If persuasions and demands don't work, babies are kept as hostages – until the financial matters are settled, Israel’s leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported.


www.ynetnews.com...

So what now, if mom doesn't pay up what do they do with the baby? Sell it?

The planet has gone mad............




posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
If you read beyond the headlines, thermo, you'll see this is the only hospital that has done this, and they were told by the Israeli Justive Department to release the children. It's against the law and they knew it, they were trying to prove a point and failed.

~MFP


JAK

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   
If you read beyond the headlines bsl4doc you see that this is 'normal proceedure'. The child was allegedly held for two months. This is stunning and deplorable.

What is the extent of the trauma suffered by the child and parents? How long was this supposed to continue if not made public?

Although Eyal Globus, lawyer from the Legal Aid Department of the Justice Ministry said:

    Source
    "This is the first time the hospital has kept babies as hostages to get rid of debt,"
The hospital's director, Dr. Haytam al-Hassan, said this was 'normal procedure'

    Source
    The mother left with just two babies and last week approached the justice ministry.

    "We looked into the matter with the hospital," the ministry's head of legal aid, Eyal Globus, told Haaretz newspaper.

    "And it turned out that things were exactly as the mother said they were - the third baby was being held there."

    Mr Globus was told by the hospital director that this was the normal procedure for ensuring payment.
A statement such as this seems to suggest that if indeed this were the first time that such an incident has occured here it may not have been the last were it not exposed here.

What utter idiocy. How can anyone believe this is an acceptable act?

Jak

[edit on 17/3/06 by JAK]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
If you read beyond the headlines, thermo, you'll see this is the only hospital that has done this, and they were told by the Israeli Justive Department to release the children. It's against the law and they knew it, they were trying to prove a point and failed.

~MFP


Uhm, not quite. Did you read to the end?
The ministry was told by the hospital that it "was normal procedure", AFTER THIS woman went to them for help. How many other times made it "normal procedure", that we don't know of?

Did I skip the bit about the hospital "trying to prove a point"? I don't remember reading it. Also, with all your medical training and claimed compassion, do you support this as a way to get the bills paid?

All that aside, how can you trust intelligent, educated Doctors and health care professionals, who force the separation of a mother from her new born, for money, to give you the best and safest treatment?

With the hormonal reajustment going on, this sort of trauma can literally send a new mother insane.

Is the only evil in your eyes, not having blind faith in doctors?
Is that why you want to be one, so others will hang on your every word? Sorry, but where you consistantly choose to direct your outrage, and what you treat as 'fine', makes me pray you will never get to practice medicine.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I had a friend in the Peace Corp. He mentioned one hospital (In Kinshasa I think) where a jail was set up next to it. if you could not pay your bill thats were you went after you reovered. Then you worked off your bill by working at the facility.

While the jail aspect is clearly over the top, getting payment back for the services rendered is something most hospitals must do. The alternative esp. in 3rd world countries is that they close and then the surrounding population is really up a creek.

Keeping babies is a bit extreem however IMHO



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Keeping babies is a bit extreem however IMHO


Thanks for that concession Fred, though I'd still say doctors supporting this, who know how chemically fragile a new mother is, is WAY extreme.

Don't have much more to add, other than no one should ever condone holding children hostage for any reason, lest the practice becomes acceptable and spreads.

Oh, and there is also the question of how many women and children have died in childbirth, because they're too poor to risk going to such a hospital, if that 'normal procedure' was commonly known about.

What's the use of having a hospital in the black if the poor, those usually most in need of care, won't go for fear of a debt that will further lower their living standard?



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
It would be interesting to survey just how "normal" this procedure is worldwide. Might be a good grant in there somewhere.

By the way BSL-4 researchers usually work with rather nasty bio-terror agents, either trying to find a way to weaponize or find a vaccine. Micobiology not medicine............BSL4doc seems well suited.......



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

The Health Ministry sent a letter to the Al-Muqaddas hospital management which stated that "a hospital is not permitted to delay the release of a patient or a baby born in the hospital, and cannot force hospitalization."


"This is the first time the hospital has kept babies as hostages to get rid of debt," said lawyer Eyal Globus from the Legal Aid Department of the Justice Ministry.


When members of the Ministry sought an explanation from the hospital, Dr. Haytam al-Hassan said in response that this was a "normal procedure."


The baby was released from the hospital a few days ago, but Health Minister Jacob Edery (Kadima) instructed the Health Ministry director-general to urgently summon Dr. al-Hassan for clarification.


Did none of you read this last HALF of the article? The Justice Ministry said this is the first time this has occured, has demanded and explanation, and summoned the attending physician for further explanation of the justification.

What part of this article makes it seem as if this is a common occurence at the hospital?

Also, thermo, bsl4 researchers work to cure certain diseases, as well. Hence the new ebola vaccine which just passd human trials. I don't argue that some researchers in bsl4 facilities create weaponized forms of diseases, but by the same token, some physicists develop weapons, but many others develop alternate energy forms. Just because a small group of people in a profession do something dispicable doesn't warrant judging an entire group. Sounds like you and suzy ryan have something in common.

~MFP



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Well Thermopolis, I sure do like being found to have something in common with you, but I hope others won't hold that against you.

Call us old fashioned, but some folk just don't like the idea of mis-using babies, as is our right, untill more of a certain ilk have the laws changed to stop those they declare 'narrow minded', from publicly expressing their opinion. Kind of like alot of voters falsely declared fellons and losing that right.

Oh, and thermopolis, thanks for reminding me of why that name screamed "agenda" to that bit of memory stuck in the back of my head. My battle against forced vaccination years ago, was so traumatic (crossed some very dangerous people) that 'forgetting' alot of it was the best way to cope.

This isn't really off topic, as I do think it is very important that folk concider the hidden 'agendas' of any poster claiming expertise, before giving it too much weight.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
This thread reminded me of when I had my son in a Salt Lake City Utah hospital.........
........I COULD NOT take my child home, untill I had registerd him for a Social Security number.

It was ~REQUIRED~ if you wanted to take your baby with you when you left.....and I thought of it as government blackmail at the time.
Still think that actaully.............



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   
BSL4Doc, I can't believe that you would actually think that some government bureaucrat would be telling the truth about this. Of course, he's going to act indignant, that's his job.

-Forstlady



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
This thread reminded me of when I had my son in a Salt Lake City Utah hospital.........
........I COULD NOT take my child home, untill I had registerd him for a Social Security number.

It was ~REQUIRED~ if you wanted to take your baby with you when you left.....and I thought of it as government blackmail at the time.
Still think that actaully.............


Thanks for reminding us all that it is the 'creeping' of a restriction here, requirement there and "one off" injustices everywhere that are leading us all to accepting the worst of everything everywhere, because it's 'normal' or World's Best Practice (for our ultimate demise).

Was there ever a time in history when you risked becoming a crimminal in so many ways, just for being a parent?

And yes forestlady, to me trusting 'the party line', is like trusting 'party drugs'; silly at best and deadly at worst.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   
So how is it that anyone in a white coat can stop YOU from taking YOUR child home? Only because we let them.

Take you child and leave. What are they going to do, call the police? Then what?

Governments need to be reminded where their pay comes from. Same with hospital............if you don't feed the animals they will go away.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   


    What part of this article makes it seem as if this is a common occurence at the hospital?
The directors claim that this is 'normal proceedure'. Can you really not see that? That such a phrase might be open to interpretation?

The question:

    Originally posted by suzy ryan
    How many other times made it "normal procedure", that we don't know of?

Is, in my opinion a valid one. Does a course of action require repetition to become ''normal proceedure'?

To recap, although Eyal Globus, lawyer from the Legal Aid Department of the Justice Ministry said:

    Source
    "This is the first time the hospital has kept babies as hostages to get rid of debt,"
The hospital's director, Dr. Haytam al-Hassan, said this was 'normal procedure'

    Source

    Mr Globus was told by the hospital director that this was the normal procedure for ensuring payment.


How then could this be possibly classed as 'normal proceedure' buy the director of the hospital no less (where one might be permitted to make a foolish leap of logic and imagine he has the hospital's best interests at heart) when it has only happened once? A newly adopted standard perhaps, making it (although only acted upon/enforced the once) a 'normal proceedure' but without it (yet) being a 'common occurance'?

I'm trying to justify the phrase that was used with the suggestion that this is a one off, to look at if from your point of view. But surely you can conceed that 'normal proceedure' could well be interpreted as commonplace and could bee seen as an odd way of suggesting something is a one off, a first time. That it is a phrase which could be open for interpretation? Or perhaps even normal proceedure does indeed mean common occurance and someone, somewhere could be telling porkies to cover their behind.

As well as being so meticulous as to read the last half of the article (and so pretentious to suggest that no-one else did) why not try giving other members a little credit and try looking at things from every perspective, or do you not believe there is any room for questioning the official story on a conspiracy website?



[edit on 18/3/06 by Mark Harris]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Good find hot city.


You're right. The world has gone mad.

Now, if you can find a parallel law that prohibits home births and midwifery - you have absolute proof and a great story.




posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I agree with the hospital. They want to be paid and who can blame them?

If holding the baby hostage will get the bill paid, so be it.



(just joking)
This is disgusting, actually and inhumane.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Good find hot city.


You're right. The world has gone mad.

Now, if you can find a parallel law that prohibits home births and midwifery - you have absolute proof and a great story.



Yo bird babe..how about how close china monitors births that villagers kill female births to have more sons to work the farm.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
hmm, Usually The Mother\Child in America is kicked out on "day one".

I guess, Israel went the other route.

As to Baby Napping. It happens all the time. The mother in question is tested. Found Positive for Cocaine. And the Baby is then seized by the state. (And the mother is incarcerated)

The same can happen for “supposed” child Abuse, Sexual Abuse, or Neglect.

As to social security. Yep, its “required”. As well as finger\toe printing. For future Surveillance purposes.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join