Justina Pelletier, the 15-year-old girl removed from the custody of her parents by the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families, will soon be pushed into foster care following a judge’s decision on Monday. Justina’s parents lost custody of her over a year ago, they insist, because they disagreed with a diagnosis made by Boston Children’s Hospital that conflicted with a diagnosis of mitochondrial disease made years earlier by Tufts Medical Center, one of the best medical facilities in the country, resulting in the discontinuation of treatment they say was helping Justina. Tufts had diagnosed Justina with the disease, and according to her parents, she was doing well under treatment, but contracted the flu, sending her to BCH for care. But instead BCH accused them of subjecting Justina to unnecessary treatment and reported them to DCF. BCH concluded that the symptoms she was experiencing were not disease-related, but psychosomatic, and ceased treatment in favor of psychiatric care. Justina has been kept from her family for over a year. During the hearing Monday, Justina’s mother, buckling under the stress from the past year, collapsed and was taken by ambulance to an area hospital. On last night’s Kelly File, a representative for Justina’s family reported that Justina has developed red lines on her abdomen, which he asserted could be signs of poisoning, and various bruising on her head and arms.

Why should you care about Justina? Aside from the (unconstitutional?) gag order placed on her parents, given the current efforts by an out-of-control federal government to usurp our freedoms and a liberal ideology that says children belong to the state, it could happen to anyone. And there’s more. What is stated in the hospital’s policy manual on research should concern every single one of us:

“Children who are Wards of the state may be included in research that presents minimal risk…or greater than minimal risk with a prospect of direct benefit.

Children who are Wards of the state may be included in research that presents greater than minimal risk with no prospect of direct benefit (46.406 (50.53) or 46.407 (50.54) only if the [institutional review board] determines and documents that such research is related to their status as wards; or Conducted in schools, camps, hospital, institutions, or similar settings in which the majority of children involved as participants are not wards.”

You can read more on that policy here. The question is: Who decides what constitutes “a prospect of direct benefit,” or no benefit at all, and has that entity determined Justina fits that policy?