Scouts-L Mail Archive for September of 1999: Medical information missing
Medical information missing
Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:51:34 -0400
Pam and Scouts-L folks,
Considering the direction Pam seems to be taking this, I have nothing more
to say about this matter, either on the list or off.
I have maintained my silence because I was checking with MY resources.
I gave copies of your posts to a local pediatrician that has served on
CHADD's National Professional Advisory Board as a medical authority on
medical care for children with AD/HD. I asked him if this boy would
have been in any additional danger had he followed through on his
threats to commit suicide, with a health form indicating that he had
been taking meds. that he had, in fact, not been taking. I received an
interesting response from him. He stated that in his experience,
Scoutmasters take the responsibility for dispensing controlled
substances such as AD/HD medications. His first question in that
circumstance, would have been to the Scoutmaster, asking what
medications the Scoutmaster had been dispensing over the week. He
further stated, if the health form indicated that ANY meds were to be
taken by this Scout, they should have been held by the SM to be
dispensed by an adult. So in his opinion, this Scout was NOT in any
additional danger in the situation you have described.
I have also sent copies of your posts to our CHADD National
Professional Advisory legal consultants to ask about the discrimination
factor. I have not heard back from them yet. They are well respected,
nationally recognized,legal professionals that specialize in this type
of case. I will keep you posted when I get a response from them.
Carol, you have made very clear in your posts how you feel about this
boy's parents. While I can agree that the parent handled this
situation very poorly, I cannot agree that this Scout should pay for
his parent's errors, by being made to switch troops!
I am fully aware of how many people read Scouts L. I am also aware of
the digest version posted on the web. I often check it myself.
In answer to your post from Aug. 27th, I might be viewed as incorrect
in my stance, but I would never worry about the adult leader's best
interests over a Scout's best interests! The boys ALWAYS come first in
You've asked what responsibility I would ask the adult troop leadership
to take for this situation. Well, first of all, an adult leader SHOULD
HAVE taken responsibility for this boy's medication. If one of the
other boys had tried it out (after all, it IS a form of speed); you
could have had an entirely different situation on your hands! If any of
the adult leaders had seen my brochure (which you quoted), the question
should have been asked, "Is he on a medication vacation?" Since the SM
already had the health form stating that a change had been made in the
medication, he should have very particularly questioned these changes
(for his own comfort and because he was assuming responsibility for
this boy for the next 8 days)! Secondly, if a parent could not be
reached within 24 hours, this Scout should have been returned home to
his parents immediately! I realize that to do so would not have been
convenient, but to continue to keep him in camp for 8 days when he is
threatening suicide accomplishes nothing, certainly not responsible
behavior for any adult, given this situation. Isn't that exactly WHY
we ask for additional adults on our outings?
You ARE correct in that I misused the word ACCidents when you had
stated paranoid INcidents, and that there is a difference. For THAT
error, I apologize.
My basis for suggesting that SOMEBODY (notice that I have not YET named
any specific individual in any of my posts)might be showing
discrimiation is based entirely on the statement closing your second
post, regarding recommending the Scout and his family to the special
needs troop. It is almost always best to integrate our AD/HD kids into
You accuse me of issuing a diatribe on Scouts L. My copy of Webster's
Dictionary tells me that a diatribe is a bitter, abusive criticism or
denunciation. While I did not mean it in a bitter nor abusive manner;
I suppose it could be viewed as criticism. I meant it as a cautionary
statement. At our local Roundtable, Scouters often ask me for advice
in working with AD/HD Scouts. I was simply offering that it was
something to look out for.
I guess Carol, that we need to just simply agree to disagee on this
one. My concern is for that Scout, and has been from the beginning. I
refuse to apologize for that.
Green River District
Chief Seattle Council
--- Carol McFadden <email@example.com> wrote:
I want to clarify why I posted my question last week
about the medical danger in which one of our AD/HD Scouts was placed
during our camping trip to a remote Canadian camp. My concern was
that, had he attempted
to carry out one of his suicidal threats, there may
have been a mistake made in his emergency treatment based on the drug
listed on his medical form. Others(and our legal counsel) have replied
to me privately that since we would have been acting in good faith,
there probably would not have been any legal ramifications. I don't
care about the legal stuff, I was worried about the kid's health and
welfare! And I want to suggest to the troop that we build procedures
into our guidelines to avoid this type of accident from happening.
Contrary to your assumptions, this is not a campaign
on my part to throw this boy out of the troop. I'd love to keep HIM
and get rid of the parents. They do very little to suggest methods of
handling their son,
avoid staying at meetings to help him even when we've requested their
presence (the mother's been to exactly 1 meeting and stayed 10
minutes), and in fact do not attend Courts of Honor where their son has
NUMEROUS merit badges. My reaction to this situation has/had nothing
to do with the boy's AD/HD and more to do with the parents'
non-cooperativeness and neglect for their son. They KNEW he'd been off
medications and causing trouble for other camps, and that we'd refuse
to take him into the wilderness under those conditions. So they said
nothing to us and would not return our phone calls. I wanted to be
able to tell them that they'd placed him in a position where they may
have hampered medical help if their son were injured.
You may not realize the seriousness with which I have taken your
accusation of discrimination. The following points may help you
1. Scouts-L is read by over 2,000 Scouters, some of
whom are in my district and council. I have to work with these people
at present and in the future. This accusation may leave some doubts
about my leadership abilities and qualities in their minds, and may
therefore influence my effectiveness as a youth volunteer.
2. Scouts-L is accessable to anyone who wants to
subscribe, whether they are Scouters or not. The digests are also
archived on a webpage which is accessible to anyone who is not
subscribed. Given the current atmosphere of litigation against BSA
(the religious discrimination case in Washington state and the sexual
discrimination case in New Jersey), do you think it's wise to allow
this unfounded accusation to remain in the public domain? It's doesn't
make the BSA look very sound when it's own members are throwing
accusations at each other.
3. May I suggest that, if you feel you have a valid
complaint about my personal involvement in this boys Scouting future,
you address them to my district and council for resolution. I'm in
Greater Pittsburgh Council, Scout Executive Robert Mazzuca, Senior
District Executive Rhonda Brncic (412-471-2729). My District
Commissioner is Judy Ray--ask me or the council for her phone number as
she is cautious about who has it.
However, if you now feel your complaint was made in
haste, please retract it and apologise, for both our sakes and the BSAs
> Carol McFadden, ASM T194, Allison Park, PA
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com