DanielInTheLionsDen.us / MichaelGodfrey-- you are here.      

RE: My Thoughts
From: dconrad000@hotmail.com
To: mgodfrey@utah.gov
Subject: 8/14/2008 8:09 PM

Thank you for the clarification of that one point, Mike.  We have reminded Dr Armstrong that he shared his view that those tests are not necessary in front of two witnesses -- both Mary and me -- so you should not have any trouble having him repeat that view to you.

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:01:02 -0600
From: mgodfrey@utah.gov
To: dconrad000@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: My Thoughts

Thanks for getting back with me..
Dr. Armstrong hasn't said to me the tests are not needed. IT is correct I'm following the service plan and what was ordered.
I do appreciate Dr. Armstrong seeing Daniel.  If Dr. Armstrong will  give me the same information he gave you it would really move us forward.
At this point in time, I recommend the tests we discussed be followed. Possibly a evaluation by a physician who is out of the area would be something we can do. If the physician doesn't recommend the testing , I will report back to the court what the recommendations are.
Thank you ..
Mike Godfrey
>>> Dave Conrad <dconrad000@hotmail.com> 8/13/2008 9:22 PM >>>
Mike, thank you for coming by on Monday.
I've had a little time to gather my thoughts and would like to share them with you.
I feel that you are a good guy and that you mean well...but you are lacking in understanding and experience in certain areas...and mistaken about a few things.
I am a well-trained doctor and understand the Hippocratic Oath which all doctors are supposed to take upon themselves when they become doctors -- 'First Do No Harm'.
Any good doctor knows that taking blood from a baby is very difficult and traumatic -- and that you do not traumatize a baby by taking blood for tests unless the baby is experiencing clinical signs of sickness or nutritional deficiency...which Daniel is clearly not.
Even Doctor Armstrong has had the decency to acknowledge that.  Back in March in both Mary's and my presence Dr Armstrong said that he thought that Daniel was looking so good and doing so well that he did not feel it necessary to have any additional blood taken for vitamin studies.
...and Daniel is even bigger, stronger and more robust now -- than he was back in March...in fact, his growth and development has been like a rocket on the chart -- on the simple treatment of not breathing Carbon Monoxide.
When you came by on Monday you said that you asked Dr Armstrong to order blood tests for nutrient and vitamin studies...and he said that he did not feel that that was necessary...but you thought they should be done, because of a statement you were interpreting in the Service Plan that Annette Monson drew up -- forgetting that the statement also contained the phrase 'unless authorized by Dr Armstrong'...and 'they will follow Dr Armstrong's recommendations regarding Daniel's care'...and also not realizing that a doctor following the Hippocratic Oath does not monitor blood nutrient and vitamin levels by actually taking blood from a thriving, healthy baby exhibiting no signs of sickness or deficiency -- but rather -- the fact that the baby is observed to be healthy and thriving is an obvious indication that he is not suffering from nutritional deficiencies.
Without realizing it, Mike -- when you put pressure on Dr Armstrong to take blood from Daniel --when Dr Armstrong did not feel that it was necessary -- you were putting pressure on Dr Armstrong to break the Hippocratic Oath.
...and then you found another doctor that was willing (without ever having even seen Daniel) to order the blood tests.
Mike, do you realize the position that puts you in?  You -- along with the Judge have stated that Daniel appears to be very healthy...but then you follow that by saying, 'but I'm not a doctor -- we have to go by what the doctor says'.  Now you have the doctor that has been free to see, handle and examine Daniel once per week for the last 7 months tell you that he does not feel certain tests are medically necessary (repeating what he told Mary and me back in March)...but now you take the position that you know more than the doctor about 'doctor things' -- and insist that the tests be done.
You have used the statement, 'It won't hurt your baby'.  Mike, when is the last time you had to hold your terrified, screaming, flailing baby or grandbaby down while someone engaged in the very painful, disturbing process of attempting to get enough blood from its tiny veins and body for one simple blood test -- let alone the 7 complicated blood tests you are insisting upon here?
Mike, if you will go back and read the portion of the Service Agreement to which we are referring, I think you will see that the manner in which Annette drew it up is subject to interpretation.  Monitoring of blood nutrient and vitamin levels need not be done by actually taking blood -- and should not be -- on a baby that is not exhibiting signs of sickness or deficiency (but rather by non-invasive and non-traumatic means as described above).  There is also wording that allows for the doctor's discretion -- as far as what the doctor thinks is actually medically necessary.
Mary scheduled Daniel for an examination in Dr Armstrong's clinic on July 29th.  The nurse took vital signs and then Dr Armstrong came into the room to look him over -- as he usually has, during the weekly visits.  I believe you have the report that he wrote following that examination -- which states the following:  'Daniel is pink, active and appears happy...his behavior appears appropriate...I believe that Daniel will continue to do well in terms of growth, and that the need for close supervision has passed...instead of weekly weighing, it would be fine to do it every two weeks.'
On Tuesday, the day after you visited us, Dr Armstrong accepted Daniel into his clinic for his usual (now 2-week interval) monitoring.  I have communicated my thoughts to Dr Armstrong on the matter and I believe we have an understanding.  Dr Armstrong will continue his role in monitoring Daniel's progress.
Mike, as you were leaving on Monday, you made the statement, 'If I thought we were hurting babies in any way, I would quit my job.'
I believe that you were being sincere when you made that statement...I sense that you are a good guy...but do you see that without realizing it, you were insisting upon something hurtful to Daniel that is absolutely not necessary for his well being -- not even necessary according to the current wording of the Service Agreement -- but something you thought necessary to the position and the interests of DCFS?
Now, I'm going to put you to the test, Mike...to see if you really meant what you said about 'quitting your job if you thought DCFS was hurting babies' -- even if it were to hit you in the pocketbook...
There are approximately 80,000 residents in Utah that live in manufactured homes.  A very high percentage of those manufactured homes have the exact dangerous furnace/hot water heater flue/fresh-air adder design as ours.  The people think they are safe because the State passed it off as being safe.  They are unaware of the danger.  Carbon monoxide is odorless, colorless -- tasteless.  People don't know what is affecting them.  This harms and in some instances kills people -- especially young children and babies -- or leaves them open to be exploited by the medical profession that routinely refuses to do the simple medical test for blood carbon monoxide levels.
People who have air conditioning are susceptible to the problem in the summer time.  In the winter it gets even worse -- especially with a high snow-fall winter.
People are being hurt -- especially young children and babies.
DCFS has an oath and responsibility to protect families -- especially children and babies...and that is what the citizens pay them to do.  DCFS -- all the way up to the Director -- Duane Betournay has had the information about this great danger to thousands of children and babies in Utah (and their parents) for many months now.  DCFS has the resources and connections to get the word out if they wanted to -- so that unsuspecting families in harm's way can be warned so that they can protect themselves from this danger.  (Tom Rodgers and I have been trying to get the word out, but our resources are limited -- and the vast majority of people in harm's way have still not been warned).  This problem will continue to sicken and kill people -- especially young children and babies.
But here is the problem...this dangerous situation was allowed by thousands of erroneous State inspections...so it is embarrassing for the State -- of which DCFS is a part.
...so now DCFS has to choose between saving families and babies from harm or death -- even though the needed information to the public is an embarrassment to the State (of which DCFS is a part)...or cover-up and suppress the information from the public -- which is to put the self-interest of the State and DCFS above the safety and well being of families, children and babies.
Mike, as a DCFS agent, you have sworn to protect families, children and babies.  You now have this information.  The information can easily be verified.  You now have a responsibility to do everything you can to make sure that your superiors all the way up to and including Duane Betournay gets the public sufficiently warned -- and soon.  They can do it if they are willing -- even if public knowledge of the problem could be somewhat embarrassing to the State.  DCFS has the resources and the connections -- and the responsibility.
Mike, if you have the courage to fulfill your responsibility as a DCFS agent -- with the oath that you have taken -- and insist that your superiors up to and including Duane Betournay get the public sufficiently warned about this hazard -- which they could easily do if they want to -- and you find that they will not -- that they would choose their own self-interest over saving babies from harm and death...will you then really quit your job, as you said you would?...even if it hits you in the pocketbook?
Dave Conrad
(Template.xyz - original in MSWord)
Back to Daniel in the Lions Den .us (home page)