NationStates Jolt Archive

And people ask why the government should be abolished (http://www.ocregister.com/column/nate-parents-home-1982047-government-court).

A government that kidnaps children from their parents cannot be reformed. Smash the state - smash the whole fucking thing.

In truth, I don't know what to think on this issue. The welfare of children everywhere hang in the balance, and I am not prepared to trust either side completely.

And people ask why the government should be abolished (http://www.ocregister.com/column/nate-parents-home-1982047-government-court).

A government that kidnaps children from their parents cannot be reformed. Smash the state - smash the whole fucking thing.
Hmm...

1. Is this story verifiable?

2. Does every single fact check out?

3. If not, could the person possibly be overreacting and thusly lying and/or exaggerating?

4. If so, why should we assume all government officials would act the same way? Seems to me like this would be an isolated incident and we should fix the system, not chuck it.

Honestly, I am sick of that stupid sort of response to everything. "Hey, this isn't working with the exact way we're doing it right now!" "Get rid of it!" :rolleyes:

Hmm...

1. Is this story verifiable?

2. Does every single fact check out?

3. If not, could the person possibly be overreacting and thusly lying and/or exaggerating?

4. If so, why should we assume all government officials would act the same way? Seems to me like this would be an isolated incident and we should fix the system, not chuck it.

Honestly, I am sick of that stupid sort of response to everything. "Hey, this isn't working with the exact way we're doing it right now!" "Get rid of it!" :rolleyes:

What are you talking about? This sort of shit happens all the time.

http://www.wikio.com/news/Nate+Tseglin
http://discoverandrecover.wordpress.com/
http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/
http://www.helium.com/tm/359027/every-human-being-nateour

All due respect, but the writer doesn't come across as impartial. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, and that there are holes in the system, but does the whole government need to be taken apart and put bakc together because one authority made a mistake?

What are you talking about? This sort of shit happens all the time.

Not really...


I also feel we are only getting half the story. That whole article reeks of an agenda.

I was going to say source, but I see you're giving me sources.

Unfortunately I'm going to now have to ask for sources that aren't opinion sites.

All due respect, but the writer doesn't come across as impartial. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, and that there are holes in the system, but does the whole government need to be taken apart and put bakc together because one authority made a mistake?

I provided more sources in the post above.

This is just fucking insane. Why should the state be smashed? Because it enjoys a monopoly on crime. When private citizens kidnap, kill, rob, or assault people, they get punished for it. The state does so with total impunity.

I was going to say source, but I see you're giving me sources.

Unfortunately I'm going to now have to ask for sources that aren't opinion sites.

I'll try to find some.

All due respect, but the writer doesn't come across as impartial. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, and that there are holes in the system, but does the whole government need to be taken apart and put bakc together because one authority made a mistake?
Let's not forget something, though: This is not acceptable. If this did happen, and in the way described, then something needs to be done about it.

The key, however, is to react sensibly. Instead of mindlessly destroying everything, be realistic and rework the system. It'll take longer, but it'll be far better in the long term.

Not really...

Yes, really.

I also feel we are only getting half the story. That whole article reeks of an agenda.

Who cares what it reeks of? Kidnapping is never tolerable.

No news stories on it yet -- just lots and lots of Blogs. http://www.google.com/search?q=Nate+Tseglin&hl=en&start=20&sa=N&filter=0

Yes, really.

Oh boy.



Who cares what it reeks of? Kidnapping is never tolerable.


But its not kidnapping if his parents were really not treating him properly or something along those lines. We are only getting half the story because its an opinion peice.

I provided more sources in the post above.

This is just fucking insane. Why should the state be smashed? Because it enjoys a monopoly on crime. When private citizens kidnap, kill, rob, or assault people, they get punished for it. The state does so with total impunity.

The problem is that in your OP, you committed the fallacy of inductive reasoning, and argued that this one case is universal proof of the illegitimacy of the State.

It would have been much more compelling had you simply argued that the State is a institution whose sole legitimacy is prefaced on violence, and is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

http://www.wikio.com/news/Nate+Tseglin
http://discoverandrecover.wordpress.com/
http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/
http://www.helium.com/tm/359027/every-human-being-nateour

What's the point of posting all these links? With the exception of the last one they all refer back to the original opinion piece from the OP. Do you have a source on the story which isn't written by paranoid, "teh drug industry wants to eat my baby" types?

No news stories on it yet -- just lots and lots of Blogs. http://www.google.com/search?q=Nate+Tseglin&hl=en&start=20&sa=N&filter=0

That's all I'm finding. I'll keep looking, though. I wouldn't expect the media to show any interest in this, though.

As a teacher with a fairly extensive knowledge of CPS (at least in California), I have to disagree. Far, far, far more common is the opposite---friends, neighbors and school faculty make continuous reports about a child who is obviously being abused/neglected and the state looks the other way. While there are some very sad cases of children being taken from homes without real justification, for every one of those cases you can find five more about children who were found beaten or starved to death in their basement. I don't know whether the state is right or wrong in this particular case, but it is definitely the exception and not the norm.



This is my experiance is well.

I think those who lived through the Montreal police strike (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-1805-12238-10/on_this_day/conflict_war/twt) would disagree with you on the 'abolition of government'.

Who cares what it reeks of? Kidnapping is never tolerable.

Deliberately depriving a child of medication could be neglect depending on the circumstances. Yes, they claim that medication has an adverse affect on him but as the article states "The parents are opposed to the use of psychotropic drugs" so they're not the most objective of sources.

Let's wait for an objective account before we leap to poorly reasoned conclusions, no?

And from all the sources you've given so far, this seems like an isolated incident. They all refer back to the same incident, there is no pattern of this type of behavior, no major reputable source you've given so far to back up your claim.

And, no, this shit does not happen all the time, because if it did happen all the time, don't you think people would notice if thousands of autistic kids were taken away by the government.

What are you talking about? This sort of shit happens all the time.

As a teacher with a fairly extensive knowledge of CPS (at least in California), I have to disagree. Far, far, far more common is the opposite---friends, neighbors and school faculty make continuous reports about a child who is obviously being abused/neglected and the state looks the other way. While there are some very sad cases of children being taken from homes without real justification, for every one of those cases you can find five more about children who were found beaten or starved to death in their basement. I don't know whether the state is right or wrong in this particular case, but it is definitely the exception and not the norm.

The state and the mental health care system don't need to be destroyed. But mental health care needs to be seriously reworked. Autistic kids and other mental health patients are often put on too many of the wrong drugs. Professionals often don't treat each autistic child as an individual who can have an adverse reaction to drugs that benefit other people, they just treat them the way they where taught to treat people like that in college.

And from all the sources you've given so far, this seems like an isolated incident. They all refer back to the same incident, there is no pattern of this type of behavior, no major reputable source you've given so far to back up your claim.

And, no, this shit does not happen all the time, because if it did happen all the time, don't you think people would notice if thousands of autistic kids were taken away by the government.

I know I'd notice my little brother missing all of a sudden.

Ah, yes, the guv'mnt knows better than parents how to treat autism. As long as the kid wasn't getting seriously hurt (because he evidently was one of the ones who hurt themselves - hard as fuck to deal with), and the parents were doing their best to minimize the amount of damage he was doing to himself, why the hell would anyone want to intervene? Gods, what a load of crap.

Would you have said the same about the family in this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/10/australia.mainsection) case? If you'd heard about it before the killing spree, would you have agreed that the parents knew best in taking her off her medication?

Deliberately depriving a child of medication could be neglect depending on the circumstances. Yes, they claim that medication has an adverse affect on him but as the article states "The parents are opposed to the use of psychotropic drugs" so they're not the most objective of sources.

Thats my feeling. I wonder if the parents are scientologists or that group of Christians who heal through the power of prayer and dont use medication, and thats why the government stepped in.


Frankly, I dont trust this source. He seems like one of those "drugs should never be taken zomg!" guys.

Ah, yes, the guv'mnt knows better than parents how to treat autism. As long as the kid wasn't getting seriously hurt (because he evidently was one of the ones who hurt themselves - hard as fuck to deal with), and the parents were doing their best to minimize the amount of damage he was doing to himself, why the hell would anyone want to intervene? Gods, what a load of crap.

The problem is that in your OP, you committed the fallacy of inductive reasoning, and argued that this one case is universal proof of the illegitimacy of the State.

It would have been much more compelling had you simply argued that the State is a institution whose sole legitimacy is prefaced on violence, and is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

Ah, good to see you around. I was going to pick your brain on this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13461554&postcount=108) little gem, if you don't mind.

Drop me a telegram with your thoughts for a good counter-argument? (I'm constructing one of my own, but a second opinion is always useful)

Anyway, as for the topic. Getting rid of the state, good idea. This particular case? As others have said, not enough of a story to judge it yet.

That's all I'm finding. I'll keep looking, though. I wouldn't expect the media to show any interest in this, though.

Are you kidding? try googling child abuse by teachers -- child abuse in foster homes, child abuse by children's services. I would be shocked if you didn't get many many many hits.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=child+abuse+in+foster+homes&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=teachers+accused+of+child+abuse&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=child+protective+services+accused+of+child+abuse&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=children%27s+services+accused+of+child+abuse&spell=1

Thats my feeling. I wonder if the parents are scientologists or that group of Christians who heal through the power of prayer and dont use medication, and thats why the government stepped in.


Frankly, I dont trust this source. He seems like one of those "drugs should never be taken zomg!" guys.

Indeed. While I don't reject the idea of social services screwing up out of hand, the emphasis on:

Our constitutional rights are being circumvented by those in power - the rights of families to live peacefully, and raise their own children

and

Government rips an autistic boy from his home because it prefers a different treatment than the one offered by the parents

and

The real issue in this case is that the agency
and some medical personnel believe their opinions regarding Nate’s
treatment are better than the parents’ choices, and have sought the
judicial intervention to override the parents’ decisions regarding
their son.”

leads me to suspect that they were doing something screwy: the emotional appeals and casual dismissal of professional opinions smacks of quackery.

And let's note further that there is no standardized treatment for autism. NONE! Intensive physical therapy combined with medication seems to help some, but not all. Dietary changes help some, as does mercury chelation in some cases. But because every case is unique, there just isn't anything standard. For the state to take away a kid because CPS disagrees with the treatment, when not even experts can agree on the best kind of treatment, is insane. INSANE, I tell you!

Ah, good to see you around. I was going to pick your brain on this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13461554&postcount=108) little gem, if you don't mind.

Drop me a telegram with your thoughts for a good counter-argument? (I'm constructing one of my own, but a second opinion is always useful)

Anyway, as for the topic. Getting rid of the state, good idea. This particular case? As others have said, not enough of a story to judge it yet.

Brain picked, telegram dropped. :p

Not really...


I also feel we are only getting half the story. That whole article reeks of an agenda.

Heheh and what news article doesn't nowadays?

And people ask why the government should be abolished (http://www.ocregister.com/column/nate-parents-home-1982047-government-court).

A government that kidnaps children from their parents cannot be reformed. Smash the state - smash the whole fucking thing.I do not take editorial for granted, as people are allowed to lie in them as much as they see fit without having to face any consequences whatsoever. Is there a verifiable source?

And let's note further that there is no standardized treatment for autism. NONE! Intensive physical therapy combined with medication seems to help some, but not all. Dietary changes help some, as does mercury chelation in some cases. But because every case is unique, there just isn't anything standard. For the state to take away a kid because CPS disagrees with the treatment, when not even experts can agree on the best kind of treatment, is insane. INSANE, I tell you!

Then clearly the parents here were not insane and desired assisted suicide. We should let the daughter finish the job on her mother and let her walk free yes?

Curious no? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/10/australia.mainsection)

After all, who needs professional opinions? A beggar on the street can certainly perform that brain surgery you need.

You'd be insane not to take it.

[/Amusement]

I do love reflected irony.

A government that kidnaps children from their parents cannot be reformed. Smash the state - smash the whole fucking thing.

I agree: I told that so many times. Smash the US government! ;)

And people ask why the government should be abolished (http://www.ocregister.com/column/nate-parents-home-1982047-government-court).

A government that kidnaps children from their parents cannot be reformed. Smash the state - smash the whole fucking thing.
The whole thing made sense as soon as I read "child protective services." I don't know about anywhere else but here CPS is the fucking Gestapo, or at least the mob. They can do whatever they want in order to "protect the children" and no one dares question them because they don't actually have to produce a reason to "protect" your child. They have no oversight and do whatever the fuck they please and we can only hope they are doing their job right. Oh yeah, and appealing a CPS decision is pretty much impossible. It would be easier to win a lawsuit against state for a road bump being built in front of your house.

The Government has decided you are not compentent enough to care for your own child. You know the child you carried around for nine months and spent your time from his birth up till now to care for him and love him to the best of your abilities, so we're going to take him away.

Don't worry, it's for your own good. :rolleyes:

If I was the parents, as soon as I got the child back, I would sue the Hell out of the California Child Service Department and the mental insitution that the boy was put in. I would bend both of them over a chair and have them pay out of the ass.

Heheh and what news article doesn't nowadays?

These aren't news articles at all -- they're all opinion pieces.

The Government has decided you are not compentent enough to care for your own child. You know the child you carried around for nine months and spent your time from his birth up till now to care for him and love him to the best of your abilities, so we're going to take him away.

Don't worry, it's for your own good. :rolleyes:

If I was the parents, as soon as I got the child back, I would sue the Hell out of the California Child Service Department and the mental insitution that the boy was put in. I would bend both of them over a chair and have them pay out of the ass.

Hmmm....
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/14/cst.03.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/30/national/main575794.shtml

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/childabuse.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse

http://www.childwelfare.gov/can/

http://www.safechild.org/childabuse4.htm

http://psychologytoday.com/conditions/childneglect.html

http://www.amazon.com/Child-Called-Childs-Courage-Survive/dp/1558743669/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203519390&sr=8-1

Yeah, you're right... there is no reason for these agencies except to torture people. Burn them, because ALL PARENTS ARE NATURALLY GOOD and ALL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IS BAD!

After all, Nixmary Brown NEEDED killing. She took and ATE a yogurt out of her family's refrigerator.

The Government has decided you are not compentent enough to care for your own child. You know the child you carried around for nine months and spent your time from his birth up till now to care for him and love him to the best of your abilities, so we're going to take him away.

Don't worry, it's for your own good. :rolleyes:

If I was the parents, as soon as I got the child back, I would sue the Hell out of the California Child Service Department and the mental insitution that the boy was put in. I would bend both of them over a chair and have them pay out of the ass.They're not going to get the child back.

They're not going to get the child back.

....I'm sorry, and you base this statement on what?
They do have legal recourse. They can get a lawyer, and their own set of experts to show that they were, in fact, treating their child appropriately. It's hardly an open and shut case.

If anything, the trend has been to reunite children with their parents -- and in some cases, with tragic results.

These aren't news articles at all -- they're all opinion pieces.



Hmmm....
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/14/cst.03.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/30/national/main575794.shtml

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/childabuse.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse

http://www.childwelfare.gov/can/

http://www.safechild.org/childabuse4.htm

http://psychologytoday.com/conditions/childneglect.html

http://www.amazon.com/Child-Called-Childs-Courage-Survive/dp/1558743669/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203519390&sr=8-1

Yeah, you're right... there is no reason for these agencies except to torture people. Burn them, because ALL PARENTS ARE NATURALLY GOOD and ALL GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IS BAD!

After all, Nixmary Brown NEEDED killing. She took and ATE a yogurt out of her family's refrigerator.

Yes, there is child abuse and neglect, and those parents should be punished. But as far as I can see, this Russian family didn't abuse nor neglect their autistic member of the family! Sure they had him on alternative medicines, but what's wrong with that?! If your body rejects a medication, then it rejects it. Hell the only way I could've taken a certain antibiotic was to take a medicine before that so that my own body wouldn't reject it as it did in the past.

Kidnapping a child just because the approach to treating it's autism is wrong and it blatant government overstepping it's boundaries. From the source available it sounds like the child is dying in the mental hospital where they have him on "regular" medication. Excuse me but I would rather have that boy in a loving caring home where he's on alternative medication than to be locked up in a mental institution slowly dying on regular medication and they don't even care! They don't!

People wonder why I advocate a restricted government.

....I'm sorry, and you base this statement on what?
They do have legal recourse. They can get a lawyer, and their own set of experts to show that they were, in fact, treating their child appropriately. It's hardly an open and shut case.

If anything, the trend has been to reunite children with their parents -- and in some cases, with tragic results.Just based on pessimism. There's no guarantee the autistic boy will be released.

The Government has decided you are not compentent enough to care for your own child. You know the child you carried around for nine months and spent your time from his birth up till now to care for him and love him to the best of your abilities, so we're going to take him away.

Don't worry, it's for your own good. :rolleyes:


Yes. I'm sure these (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/10/australia.mainsection) two doting parents were telling themselves what good parents they were while their doting child, whom they denied prescribed psychiatric treatment, stabbed them to death.

In fact, I'm sure the mother wants her daughter to finish the job. I say we let her.

Parents could never be wrong about their children's welfare. Oh, no, no, no. It's always the evil pediatricians, the nasty psychologists, the conspiracy of the medical branch to deprive you of your children by subscribing professional, legitimate, treatments that have no business in child rearing.

So what if your child is going to die without a blood transfusion? You're the parent! And if your religious beliefs demand that he never has a blood transfusion, then GOD DEMANDS HIS DEATH!

What business of the government is it if I lock them up in boxes, never feed them, and use them as slave labor? I'm the bloody parent! I KNOW BEST!

[/sarcasm]

Yes. I'm sure these (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/10/australia.mainsection) two doting parents were telling themselves what good parents they were while their doting child, whom they denied prescribed psychiatric treatment, stabbed them to death.

So tell me, what threat did the Autistic boy show when he wasn't on the regular medication? The medication that his body had violent reaction to? Yes there were self inflicted wounds, but the parents had him on restraint.

In fact, I'm sure the mother wants her daughter to finish the job. I say we let her.

Do you deny that in this case, involving the 17 year old Autistic child that the government overstepped it's boundaries and took him away simply because his parents had him on alternative medication? That's enough justification for you? Because Hells Bells, the state of North Carolina should've taken me away when I was 16 and was on Alternative Meds for a short time.

Parents could never be wrong about their children's welfare. Oh, no, no, no. It's always the evil pediatricians, the nasty psychologists, the conspiracy of the medical branch to deprive you of your children by subscribing professional, legitimate, treatments that have no business in child rearing.

I'm not blaming those, and stop putting words in my mouth. I am blaming the California Child Service because they obviously overstepped their boundaries and put the child in a worst condition than he was in with his family!

So what if your child is going to die without a blood transfusion? You're the parent! And if your religious beliefs demand that he never has a blood transfusion, then GOD DEMANDS HIS DEATH!

Once again, how does this compare to Alternative Medication?

What business of the government is it if I lock them up in boxes, never feed them, and use them as slave labor? I'm the bloody parent! I KNOW BEST!

Hope I'm never your child.

Yes. I'm sure these (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/10/australia.mainsection) two doting parents were telling themselves what good parents they were while their doting child, whom they denied prescribed psychiatric treatment, stabbed them to death.

In fact, I'm sure the mother wants her daughter to finish the job. I say we let her.

Parents could never be wrong about their children's welfare. Oh, no, no, no. It's always the evil pediatricians, the nasty psychologists, the conspiracy of the medical branch to deprive you of your children by subscribing professional, legitimate, treatments that have no business in child rearing.

So what if your child is going to die without a blood transfusion? You're the parent! And if your religious beliefs demand that he never has a blood transfusion, then GOD DEMANDS HIS DEATH!

What business of the government is it if I lock them up in boxes, never feed them, and use them as slave labor? I'm the bloody parent! I KNOW BEST!

[/sarcasm]I think it's important to differentiate between people with autism and people with psychosis. You don't know if the autistic boy purposefully hurt himself, or if he had no control of his motor skills.

The Government has decided you are not compentent enough to care for your own child. You know the child you carried around for nine months and spent your time from his birth up till now to care for him and love him to the best of your abilities, so we're going to take him away.

Don't worry, it's for your own good. :rolleyes:

If I was the parents, as soon as I got the child back, I would sue the Hell out of the California Child Service Department and the mental insitution that the boy was put in. I would bend both of them over a chair and have them pay out of the ass.
CPS isn't the "government," per se. Child Services answers to Child Services.

....I'm sorry, and you base this statement on what?
They do have legal recourse. They can get a lawyer, and their own set of experts to show that they were, in fact, treating their child appropriately. It's hardly an open and shut case.

If anything, the trend has been to reunite children with their parents -- and in some cases, with tragic results.
How much have you seen and read about the Child Services system? They will be very, very lucky if they get the kid back - and by get him back I mean within the next 5 years. Even luckier if they get him back and he isn't far, far worse than when he left.

Don't get me wrong. Child Services does provide a necessary service and there is child abuse and neglect. But Child Services does fuck up and when they do, it is pretty much impossible to get it corrected because it is assumed Child Services is always right.

I think it's important to differentiate between people with autism and people with psychosis. You don't know if the autistic boy purposefully hurt himself, or if he had no control of his motor skills.

Yes, but remember, these are opinion blogs, which have no check against lying or distorting facts in order to carry forward their stance. Media outlets at least can be sued for false reporting.

Using the blog to create blanket claims is foolishness at best.

single sided anti government arguments are great

Ah, yes, the guv'mnt knows better than parents how to treat autism. As long as the kid wasn't getting seriously hurt (because he evidently was one of the ones who hurt themselves - hard as fuck to deal with), and the parents were doing their best to minimize the amount of damage he was doing to himself, why the hell would anyone want to intervene? Gods, what a load of crap.

But as has been pointed out already, we only know the parents' side of the story, which may or may not be truthful. Personally I'm reserving judgment until I know more.

Whereas in Britain, Social Services kidnap children from the Maternity Unit when the mother has suffered in the past (20 years aparently is not long enough to have recovered enough to raise a child) from Mental Health Problems.

The British have a truly awful record on child theft.

But Government targets are met so it goes on.

Whereas in Britain, Social Services kidnap children from the Maternity Unit when the mother has suffered in the past (20 years aparently is not long enough to have recovered enough to raise a child) from Mental Health Problems.

The British have a truly awful record on child theft.

But Government targets are met so it goes on.

I'm glad I don't live in Britain then. It seems like everyday yall become more and more of a Nanny State turning into Big Brother.

And obviously the parents, whose deep medical knowledge is apparent from their ability to conceive a child are the best judges of that, and are completely unprejudiced by their nutty anti-medical views...

So if the child body is having an adverse reaction to "mainstream" meds, you would do what? Seek out other treatment options? Yes, no, maybe?

Yes, because obviously the government gets a cash bonus from the evil Kitten Grinding Pharmaceutical Conspiracy for every child they kidnap and murder through inappropriate medication.

Well it's apparent that they don't care seeing as the child is back on "mainstream" meds and his body is not having a good reaction to it, and it doesn't seem like they're doing anything to change that.

Judging by this post it's because you have trouble analysing evidence...

and what does your sophisticated analyzing skills say?

Sure they had him on alternative medicines, but what's wrong with that?! If your body rejects a medication, then it rejects it.

And obviously the parents, whose deep medical knowledge is apparent from their ability to conceive a child are the best judges of that, and are completely unprejudiced by their nutty anti-medical views...

From the source available it sounds like the child is dying in the mental hospital where they have him on "regular" medication. Excuse me but I would rather have that boy in a loving caring home where he's on alternative medication than to be locked up in a mental institution slowly dying on regular medication and they don't even care! They don't!

Yes, because obviously the government gets a cash bonus from the evil Kitten Grinding Pharmaceutical Conspiracy for every child they kidnap and murder through inappropriate medication.

...

Or alternatively, the paranoid and medically ignorant parents are talking rubbish. Is that really so difficult to believe?

People wonder why I advocate a restricted government.

Judging by this post it's because you have trouble analysing evidence...

So if the child body is having an adverse reaction to "mainstream" meds, you would do what? Seek out other treatment options? Yes, no, maybe?

I pick option D: talk to an expert, i.e. a doctor, seeking a second opinion if necessary.

Well it's apparent that they don't care seeing as the child is back on "mainstream" meds and his body is not having a good reaction to it, and it doesn't seem like they're doing anything to change that.

The entire point of my post was that the parents are not a reliable source of information. They're anti-medicine kooks, you can't expect an objective opinion from them. If the two possibilities are 'evil government deliberately poisoning innocent children with evil medicine' and 'pair of quacks are incapable of forming a trustworthy opinion as to the effects of medicine on their child' I'll take the latter please.

and what does your sophisticated analyzing skills say?

One doesn't need any sophistication at all, it's obvious:

1. There are only two sources of information for this story: an opinion piece and an account from the mother.

2. Neither is an unbiased source.

3. Both are anti-science kooks.

Parents aren't as good at judging the best treatments for their children as doctors are, that's why we have doctors. Why should we give their account any more credence than we give to the many parents who'll swear blind that the MMR vaccine made their child autistic, or than we give to al-Fayed's paranoid accusations against, well, most of the western world...

No college Critical Thinking class would give this story more than a minute before they chucked it out.

The entire point of my post was that the parents are not a reliable source of information. They're anti-medicine kooks, you can't expect an objective opinion from them.

I want to know what story you are deriving that 'fact' from because it wasn't in the one I read.