Question of the Day: Is “Verbal Abuse” Of Staff Considered Medical Child Abuse?

Martin Luther King Jr
Question of the Day

Is  “verbal abuse” or rather disagreement with medical providers Medical Child Abuse?

Is “verbal abuse”, or rather, a disagreement with medical providers considered Medical Child Abuse?

Medical Child Abuse and a gag order scatter few trails…

Judge Joseph Johnston’s statement Justina Pelletier’s parents were “verbally abusive” to staff. It was implied that this was Medical Child Abuse. However, this alleged verbal abuse was towards the BCH staff who would not allow Justina Pelletier, their daughter, to see Dr. Flores, the physician that Justina was referred to by her treating physician at the Boston Children’s Hospital/Harvard. Boston Children’s Hospital’s pre-eminent doctors dismissed Justina’s parents, changing her diagnosis and treatment plan without an appropriate evaluation. It was reported that doctors of 7 months at Boston Children’s Hospital had made those decisions.

Those pre-eminent doctors performed a new procedure, parentectomy, or the removal of a child from his or her parents at the Boston Children’s Hospital/Harvard. {Remember this term originated at our nation’s top-ranked hospital, as well as the internationally top-ranked pre-eminent hospital, Boston Children’s Hospital}

Medical Child Abuse accuses Justina’s parents of suffering psychiatric factitious disorders (recently changed in DSM-5), popularly called Munchausen by proxy. Psychiatric patients with this syndrome are guilty of harming their children for selfish motives and attention. This is more often seen in women than men. It was unusual to have both parents with this diagnosis.

Boston Children’s Hospital /Harvard accused Justina Pelletier’s parents of medical child abuse. This triggered Boston Children’s Hospital/Harvard notification of DCF (elites swim in the same pond). Child abuse/Medical Child Abuse triggered an ongoing 13-month nightmare for Justina and her family.

#FreeJustina #OpJustina #Anonymous
#FreeJustina #OpJustina #Anonymous


Medical Child Abuse is rare. Having diagnosed child abuse infrequently in my 20 years of practice (at the emergency department), the diagnosis of medical child abuse is alarming. Judge Joseph Johnston stated in his ruling (see end of the post) that there were expert testimonies—why did he not share those testimonies? Instead, his ruling sought to discredit Justina’s parents and explain the ongoing scam. He made no reference to his contradictory rulings or the unusually long stay of Justina as a Ward of the State of MA—13 months and counting; the State of MA faces increasing difficulty finding a suitable home for Justina. He mentioned the parents’ stymied efforts for placement, but forgot to mention the possibility that those placements refused to accept care of Justina because they rejected the State of MA’s actions, and wanted no part of the inevitable blow-up from these unethical activities and behaviors.

Furthermore, Judge Joseph Johnston unsuccessfully attempted to deflect attention from the real issues at hand—the long-term plan for Justina Pelletier. Will Justina remain a ward of the state of MA until she is age 18? Who pays for this expensive and unnecessary deviation from standard medical care? The judge’s scathing rebuke of Justina’s parents was shocking; he appeared personally angry at them. (Why?) Does he know about the studies based on DCF data, which showed less than 0.01% of child abuse is medical child abuse?

Alternative Thoughts

Alternatively, time (over 13 months) has shown Justina’s family to be concerned, courageous, and consistent—the opposite of Judge Joseph Johnston, Boston Children’s Hospital /Harvard, and the state of MA. Justina’s parents’ effort to rescue their daughter is heart-wrenching. Time has shown BCH and DCF misdiagnosis by the deterioration of Justina’s condition. Scary are the obvious gaps that permit no viable recourse for victims—patients—of hospital abuse and fraud.

To date, allegations by Judge Joseph Johnston, Boston Children’s Hospital and DCF discredit Justina’s parents, paint Justina as a stereotypical somatic, yet do not explain the 13-month stay as a ward of the state of MA, now made worse by Judge Johnston’s latest ruling to reverse last week’s ruling. Last Tuesday, Justina’s parents were awarded “temporary conditional custody” of Justina, their 15-year-old daughter. What did her parents do in a week to have their temporary custody revoked? On March 25, 2015, Judge Joseph Johnston reversed his earlier rulings without explanation, extending Justina’s stay, transferring permanent custody to the State of MA. Judge Joseph Johnston did not put forth a shred of evidence to support such a ruling of permanent custody by the State of Massachusetts.

Another question: Will the State of MA, her legal caregivers, allow Justina to be referred back to her physician, as well as increase the frequency of visits Justina has with her parents? Will the State of MA return Justina to her parents?

I do not believe Justina’s parents were rude to providers. From personal experience, hospitals and their employees–doctors included– fabricate and project. It is more likely than not that the staff at Boston Children’s Hospital were verbally abusive to Justina and her parents.

Judge, did you know hospitals control the contents of EMRs (electronic medical records)? Hospitals and their employees create patient histories. These histories are projections of staff’s anger and psychopathology. EMRs and accused hospital employees receive undeserved trust; overseeing agencies view hospitals and their employees as pinnacles of integrity and truth, but nothing could be farther from the truth. A most dangerous myth, institutionalizing a new culture of corruption and cruelty in the delivery of medical care by hospitals and their employees. Hospital risk managers’ fabrications are accepted at face value without further investigation. Unsurprisingly, conflicts between staff and patients result in the documentation of a stereotypical, “verbally abusive” patient—the intent and purpose of which is to deflect attention from the hospital misdiagnosis and abusive treatment of patients. Hospitals use EMRs as weapons against patients—weapons to defame and condone continued bullying by the staff. Moreover, Judge Joseph Johnston’s perceived “verbal abuse” by hospital staff is not grounds for Medical Child Abuse; it does not meet criteria.

Finally, keep in mind the over $2 trillion dollars of our annual national budget spent on healthcare. We are paying for Justina’s stay as a Ward of the State of MA. How much will this unethical precedent cost Medicaid tax payers? How much will the federal government reimburse the state of MA for unnecessary and outrageously expensive services? Red flags and sirens, everyone!

Failure to listen to Justina and her family (the true advocates for Justina) by the State of MA and BCH/Harvard is widespread, and speaks of a struggle to maintain power by elite groups, as well as, why the ACA may not work. Failure to listen caused this preventable nightmare for Justina, her family, and now, the nation. Conspicuously absent are healthcare leaders and patient advocates. Where are they?


Justina Pelletier before Boston Children’s Hospital and DCF



The Strongest


How do you feel about this case?




Author: Angela Grant

Angela Grant is a medical doctor. For 22 years, she practiced emergency medicine and internal medicine. She studied for one year at Harvard T. H Chan School Of Public Health. She writes about culture, race, and health.

3 thoughts on “Question of the Day: Is “Verbal Abuse” Of Staff Considered Medical Child Abuse?

  1. So, as said prior, it is not the child involved. Its the adults and the staff who are conflicting. Now it is simply a battle of words. The part of “care” of the parents and medical staff has been long thrown out the window. Reverse the roles and make the child the parent and the staff, then lock them all up. Silly buggers.

Share your thoughts

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.