I came into this film very predisposed to side against the hospital after my own negative experiences with the medical establishment, but let's just take a step back for a second... The mother kills herself... It's ONLY been three months... She has a son too... It's not just her daughter who relied upon her... How incredibly short sighted. How emotionally unstable. How incredibly self-oriented, and this was all the fault of who? The judge? Because he didn't let her have a hug? Stop it... The presentation of this documentary becomes delusional after a certain point.
The trained hospital staff saw something extremely off about the mother, and clearly what they saw was a real thing, even if it wasn't Munchausen's syndrome, which is certainly much more common than CRPS. Keep in mind, it's an EXTREMELY rare medical condition, one that hardly anyone knows about, and one that's hard to test for. Where is the line? That's what I want to know, because if we follow the narrative here, a hospital should NEVER intervene; the parents ALWAYS need to be listened to, and there's NOTHING they can EVER do that would warrant state intervention.
Does the medical establishment have its limitations? Sure. Are they bound by hubris and professional pride? Of course, but again, if you follow the narrative here, the very idea of a case review, in and of itself, is wrong. At one point, they try to highlight the history of an abusive hospital staff member "Catherine Bedy," as a case in point for why the case review was ill-conceived or illegitimately handled. Basically, Catherine Bedy lost her temper with a child one time. Ok... And? Did she abuse Maya? No... So I'm sorry, but that's a non sequitur, as it doesn't relate to the case of Maya at all. That's what you call trying to muddy the water with guilt by association, which is dishonest.
I think we deserve a less biased presentation. I'd have preferred to hear a little more from the hospital staff, and a little less from the father who threw his wife under the bus when it was convenient to do so, but hey, they did reach out to them, and they declined to comment, which is sadly all too typical of institutions like this, when in recovery mode. A lack of transparency inevitably allows for a more biased presentation, and it sure as hell leads to suspicion, often times warranted. If you serve the public, it's your DUTY to communicate to the public, whether you like it or not. Because of this lack of transparency by the hospital, this documentary will convince a LOT of people of the hospital's wrongdoing, and fairly so, in this context.
One thing I'm really not a big fan of is taking a suicide victim, and then assigning a culprit to their suicide. You and ONLY you are responsible for your own mental health. No one else. When a tragedy like this happens, people feel angry, they feel guilty, and they want to take revenge. What makes it so disingenuous when it comes to this aspect of revenge-taking, is its ALWAYS someone else's fault. Does the father think HE should be held responsible for lying to his wife? For failing to stand by her under cross-examination? Of course not.... it's ALL Dr. Sally Smith's fault, and the fact that a few other families with similar experiences came out of the woodwork is supposed to be proof of that I suppose?
Of COURSE the doctors aren't always right, but how many cases of legitimate neglect/abuse do you think the hospital successfully intervened on? I wouldn't hazard to guess, but let me tell you, it's not zero. Why didn't this documentary try to answer that question? A fair-minded film maker would set that as their number one priority here. HAVE these case reviews actually helped people or not? Let's see some stats, results, and/or real numbers... or maybe they actually do know the answer to that question, but it's just not convenient to the narrative.
These are tough cases... for EVERYBODY, The families, the doctors, the nurses who deal with abominations upon humanity on a daily basis. If someone is so unstable that they kill themselves amidst this type of emotional turmoil, I really don't think that's anyone's fault, and if a doctor acted in good faith, I don't think they're a criminal. If the daughter, Maya, died under the care of the hospital, we would be having a COMPLETELY different conversation. THEN we could fairly entertain the conversation of criminal negligence, and in the end that's a huge problem I have with this documentary; they're tricking you into thinking someone's suicide is the same thing as criminal negligence by a medical professional. They're conflating the whole thing as ONE big tragedy, when it's not. The mother's suicide is its own thing. The "care" they gave to Maya, as per the title of this film, is separate.
You have to understand the substance of the case brought against the hospital "infliction of emotional distress." Essentially they're arguing that the hospital INTENTIONALLY induced the mother to suicide, and that they knew she was likely to do so. That's literally insane, and it negates the very reasonable assessment, which you can infer inductively based on the outcome of suicide itself, that the whole reason why the case began in the first place, is because the hospital staff detected something very off about the mother, which was clearly true. Three months is just such a short time. I can't reconcile that aspect of the case. Me and my mother have had to deal with an abusive, neglectful, and belligerent hospital staff for YEARS in regards to my father's care. Suicide is a PERSONAL choice, and it's NOT a justifiable one when you have a dependent, in this case TWO dependents who rely upon you. If you kill yourself and leave your two children motherless, YOU'RE the criminal. It's easy to lose sight of that.
It's easy to dismiss the fact that when Maya was brought to the hospital, her condition was so serious that they had to resort to drastic measures, and that there was a chance she could have died if they listened to the mother's instructions. Do you think the hospital staff are LYING to you when they say that? I don't. Why? Because it's ridiculous to suggest that an entire staff of medical professionals would knowingly invent a risk assessment that didn't exist, to intentionally harm a random child patient who literally just rolled in off the street.
On the other hand... Sally Smith repeatedly testifying that Maya wasn't suffering from CRPS when the hospital billed them for CRPS treatment is a huge contradiction. The hospital made a decision, and Sally Smith wouldn't put her name to it on record. Basically, if she would have testified that she knew Maya had CRPS, it would delegitimize the case review that she initiated... so what began as a matter of hubris and professional pride, clearly turned into someone trying to duck liability, and that's a legitimate problem that indeed does reveal a rather disgusting level of corruption, since the hospital stood by her.
That being said, one does not negate the other. One side looks like ambulance chasers, and the other side looks like a corrupt establishment. The way this case ends is very predictable... They settle out of court, the family receives some recompense, everyone involved gets a chance to think long and hard about what happened, and no one involved ultimately accepts any blame, which given the circumstances, is about as good as you can or SHOULD hope for, to be honest. The fact that this documentary was released BEFORE the case against the hospital goes to court, is interesting, because given the blatant bias of the filmmakers, it suggests that they're afraid of losing the case after having settled with Sally Smith.
The trained hospital staff saw something extremely off about the mother, and clearly what they saw was a real thing, even if it wasn't Munchausen's syndrome, which is certainly much more common than CRPS. Keep in mind, it's an EXTREMELY rare medical condition, one that hardly anyone knows about, and one that's hard to test for. Where is the line? That's what I want to know, because if we follow the narrative here, a hospital should NEVER intervene; the parents ALWAYS need to be listened to, and there's NOTHING they can EVER do that would warrant state intervention.
Does the medical establishment have its limitations? Sure. Are they bound by hubris and professional pride? Of course, but again, if you follow the narrative here, the very idea of a case review, in and of itself, is wrong. At one point, they try to highlight the history of an abusive hospital staff member "Catherine Bedy," as a case in point for why the case review was ill-conceived or illegitimately handled. Basically, Catherine Bedy lost her temper with a child one time. Ok... And? Did she abuse Maya? No... So I'm sorry, but that's a non sequitur, as it doesn't relate to the case of Maya at all. That's what you call trying to muddy the water with guilt by association, which is dishonest.
I think we deserve a less biased presentation. I'd have preferred to hear a little more from the hospital staff, and a little less from the father who threw his wife under the bus when it was convenient to do so, but hey, they did reach out to them, and they declined to comment, which is sadly all too typical of institutions like this, when in recovery mode. A lack of transparency inevitably allows for a more biased presentation, and it sure as hell leads to suspicion, often times warranted. If you serve the public, it's your DUTY to communicate to the public, whether you like it or not. Because of this lack of transparency by the hospital, this documentary will convince a LOT of people of the hospital's wrongdoing, and fairly so, in this context.
One thing I'm really not a big fan of is taking a suicide victim, and then assigning a culprit to their suicide. You and ONLY you are responsible for your own mental health. No one else. When a tragedy like this happens, people feel angry, they feel guilty, and they want to take revenge. What makes it so disingenuous when it comes to this aspect of revenge-taking, is its ALWAYS someone else's fault. Does the father think HE should be held responsible for lying to his wife? For failing to stand by her under cross-examination? Of course not.... it's ALL Dr. Sally Smith's fault, and the fact that a few other families with similar experiences came out of the woodwork is supposed to be proof of that I suppose?
Of COURSE the doctors aren't always right, but how many cases of legitimate neglect/abuse do you think the hospital successfully intervened on? I wouldn't hazard to guess, but let me tell you, it's not zero. Why didn't this documentary try to answer that question? A fair-minded film maker would set that as their number one priority here. HAVE these case reviews actually helped people or not? Let's see some stats, results, and/or real numbers... or maybe they actually do know the answer to that question, but it's just not convenient to the narrative.
These are tough cases... for EVERYBODY, The families, the doctors, the nurses who deal with abominations upon humanity on a daily basis. If someone is so unstable that they kill themselves amidst this type of emotional turmoil, I really don't think that's anyone's fault, and if a doctor acted in good faith, I don't think they're a criminal. If the daughter, Maya, died under the care of the hospital, we would be having a COMPLETELY different conversation. THEN we could fairly entertain the conversation of criminal negligence, and in the end that's a huge problem I have with this documentary; they're tricking you into thinking someone's suicide is the same thing as criminal negligence by a medical professional. They're conflating the whole thing as ONE big tragedy, when it's not. The mother's suicide is its own thing. The "care" they gave to Maya, as per the title of this film, is separate.
You have to understand the substance of the case brought against the hospital "infliction of emotional distress." Essentially they're arguing that the hospital INTENTIONALLY induced the mother to suicide, and that they knew she was likely to do so. That's literally insane, and it negates the very reasonable assessment, which you can infer inductively based on the outcome of suicide itself, that the whole reason why the case began in the first place, is because the hospital staff detected something very off about the mother, which was clearly true. Three months is just such a short time. I can't reconcile that aspect of the case. Me and my mother have had to deal with an abusive, neglectful, and belligerent hospital staff for YEARS in regards to my father's care. Suicide is a PERSONAL choice, and it's NOT a justifiable one when you have a dependent, in this case TWO dependents who rely upon you. If you kill yourself and leave your two children motherless, YOU'RE the criminal. It's easy to lose sight of that.
It's easy to dismiss the fact that when Maya was brought to the hospital, her condition was so serious that they had to resort to drastic measures, and that there was a chance she could have died if they listened to the mother's instructions. Do you think the hospital staff are LYING to you when they say that? I don't. Why? Because it's ridiculous to suggest that an entire staff of medical professionals would knowingly invent a risk assessment that didn't exist, to intentionally harm a random child patient who literally just rolled in off the street.
On the other hand... Sally Smith repeatedly testifying that Maya wasn't suffering from CRPS when the hospital billed them for CRPS treatment is a huge contradiction. The hospital made a decision, and Sally Smith wouldn't put her name to it on record. Basically, if she would have testified that she knew Maya had CRPS, it would delegitimize the case review that she initiated... so what began as a matter of hubris and professional pride, clearly turned into someone trying to duck liability, and that's a legitimate problem that indeed does reveal a rather disgusting level of corruption, since the hospital stood by her.
That being said, one does not negate the other. One side looks like ambulance chasers, and the other side looks like a corrupt establishment. The way this case ends is very predictable... They settle out of court, the family receives some recompense, everyone involved gets a chance to think long and hard about what happened, and no one involved ultimately accepts any blame, which given the circumstances, is about as good as you can or SHOULD hope for, to be honest. The fact that this documentary was released BEFORE the case against the hospital goes to court, is interesting, because given the blatant bias of the filmmakers, it suggests that they're afraid of losing the case after having settled with Sally Smith.