-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Social services takes baby from the womb
- Thread starter ChainedMaster
- Start date
- Status
at the very least, the baby should be given back to family members and have italian social services deal with the aftermath, this is gross on every level.
also on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25173794
also on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25173794
TheRedSnifit
Member
Hahaha.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
Reads like something that the Nazis would have done.
/godwins
/godwins
This is basically it. The reporting of this is very sensational. The mother was in a hospital, and the baby would not have been born otherwise. The only thing the prosecution have is "why weren't Italian social services contacted?" and "why weren't her family contacted?"
They don't have a leg to stand on in terms of moral righteousness or whatever, so they'll spin the dystopian sci-fi angle for the press.
More details here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...this-mother-so-that-we-can-take-her-baby.html
FUCKING DISGUSTING.
UK, get out of EU.
a tip for anyone considering going to UK: Don't go there in case you are pregnant.
And in case you are pregnant and living in UK? -> If you want to flee your country, don't flee to France.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rance-only-to-have-their-baby-taken-away.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...this-mother-so-that-we-can-take-her-baby.html
FUCKING DISGUSTING.
UK, get out of EU.
a tip for anyone considering going to UK: Don't go there in case you are pregnant.
And in case you are pregnant and living in UK? -> If you want to flee your country, don't flee to France.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rance-only-to-have-their-baby-taken-away.html
Devolution
Member
What doctor agreed to this?
A doctor with a 75 year old German mindset. "Just doing his/her job".
Careful comrade... statements like that merely reveal the thoroughness of your indoctrination. The Guardian is pretty fucking far from approved.
EdibleExplosives
Member
What the fuck. I did not expect this story to be about my own country.
Arkos
Nose how to spell and rede to
Hopefully? Holy shit this is disgusting
The Incarnation
Member
Gathered that this was England. This is the sort of thing that the majority of the people here would support.
Not surprised that they did a test run on a foreigner though. Will be a benefit claimant next.
Not surprised that they did a test run on a foreigner though. Will be a benefit claimant next.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
The Telegraph has been caught red handed making up all kinds of bullshit with no basis on reality whatsoever. We are not talking about slant, but outright lies disguised as journalism (read: propaganda).
I've questioned The Telegraph in the past and I will continue to do so, even if this case seems to be as gross as implied. Their track record when it comes to social services, the NHS and the EU is fucking abysmal and everybody should remain cautious of their stories. They have become The Sun for the literate troglodyte.
Sounds like some bullshit. You don't get sectioned for 5+ weeks simply because of some panic attacks, and after that amount of time you'd assume the hospital would have her medical history and would have attempted to put her on some form of medication.
Only reason to order the c-section is if she was in no state to give birth naturally so I don't see what the big deal is as far as that is concerned.
Only reason to order the c-section is if she was in no state to give birth naturally so I don't see what the big deal is as far as that is concerned.
Maybe you should start questioning arte.tv as well.
http://www.arte.tv/fr/grande-bretagne-adoption-forcee/3727228,CmC=3727230.html
It seems this is nothing special in UK. I guess the section is. But taking away babies from their parents and putting them up for adoption isn't.
And only reason for putting the baby up for adoption is if she is currently in no state to take care of her baby, right? And we can't even give it to the father, because oh look how late it is, got to go.
Alcotholic
Banned
My friend posted this article on facebook saying something along the lines of "This is why we need feminism; because we live in a world that attempts and succeeds at controlling women's bodies from womb to tomb."
I mean I disagree with her statement, but I can't really figure out exactly why. Seems like an extremist view I suppose.
Regardless, this act is gross. I can't believe this actually happened.
I had to read over the article a few times as to why they did it, but it's sort of vague. Is the only reason why because she's bipolar and had a manic moment?
I mean I disagree with her statement, but I can't really figure out exactly why. Seems like an extremist view I suppose.
Regardless, this act is gross. I can't believe this actually happened.
I had to read over the article a few times as to why they did it, but it's sort of vague. Is the only reason why because she's bipolar and had a manic moment?
meltingparappa
Member
That was my thought as well, it sounds like there are either some missing details, such as potential addiction during her mania periods, or threats of self-harm at any point prior or during her stay.
Only one panic attack and going off of your lamotrigine (or whatever) for a few weeks isn't enough to keep you there beyond two or three days with even the most cautious doctor.
Well I'm glad your facebook friend knows the details and isn't co-opting and simplifying a terrible story for the sake of an internet slogan or anything. :I
wsoxfan1214
Banned
Devolution
Member
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Slayven said:
Like I said, we don't know the full story here. There are many reasons for a cesarean section to be performed. We don't know why this procedure was performed, but hypothetically this woman could have been due to deliver soon and had a history of multiple prior C-secs. Obviously, you can't wait for the patient's manic/psychotic episode (which is what this seems like, since "panic attacks" dont last 5 weeks) to resolve before performing the procedure since waiting likely means she loses her uterus (or more).
Substitute decision making is not that simple. Sometimes family members cannot be reached. Sometimes they are also not capable of consenting. Often the decision is made by an appointed body.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Did you read what I wrote?
Devolution
Member
It sounds like it wasn't even tried. They had time. Minimizing performing a forced c-section on a patient is gross, especially if that person is not dying or in an accident and they're trying to "save the child."
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
I very much doubt the assertion that "it wasn't tried". I've never lived in the UK, but I think its safe to assume that the country has a fairly well developed legal apparatus. You just don't get admitted to a psychiatric facility for 5 weeks without someone trying to clarify power of attorney. There is a very strict regimen to these things in most countries.
As for them having time - I don't know that. Nor have I any reason to believe that this was done to "save the child". How do you?
Devolution
Member
My point was unless the fetus was in danger and the patient is dying or unconscious this kind of procedure should just not be forced on someone. From the reports so far, it sounds like it was and relatives were not contacted prior to it. I don't understand how people can honestly defend this.
Monty Mole
Member
I was going to say, hyperbole much? But then I realised posts like this will do a fine job of keeping EU immigrants out, so go ahead
As for this article, it smells incredibly fishy. There's two sides to everything and the Telegraph are renowned for hyperbole with their whistle-blower exclusives like this. There will be far more to this story than we realise, for better or worse.
Devolution
Member
I was going to say, hyperbole much? But then I realised posts like this will do a fine job of keeping EU immigrants out, so go ahead
As for this article, it smells incredibly fishy. There's two sides to everything and the Telegraph are renowned for hyperbole with their whistle-blower exclusives like this. There will be far more to this story than we realise, for better or worse.
The Guardian has the same article.
Monty Mole
Member
What, the exact same article? That would be plagiarism.
The Guardian just references The Sunday Telegraph as its source.
We need to wait until this breaks out further tomorrow and other news outlets investigate it further, so we can understand it further.
shadyspace
Banned
But then I realised posts like this will do a fine job of keeping EU immigrants out, so go ahead
Wow.
SuperBowser
Member
it's highly unlikely they didn't attempt to contact the family. but it's not the family's decision anyway. the doctor in charge of the patient's care acts in the patient's best interests if the patient does not have capacity to make a decision. speaking with the family is to get a better understanding of the situation or simply for courtesy.
i have no idea what happened in this case but i assume the baby's (and potentially mother's) life was the reason for a forced c-section.
regardless, it's ridiculous and disgusting that the courts are refusing to allow the mother to have her baby back. i hope there's more to the story that what's reported for why the courts are making such a decision.
Winterfang
Banned
WHAT!? Can't she sue or something? They took her baby.
Winterfang
Banned
Why does every time something awful happens in Europe the United States have to be mentioned?
Spring-Loaded
Member
Because the USA is that fucked up, obviously.
Well if we're talking purely about being stereotypically dystopian, both are pretty fucked in different (and some similar) regards. So comparison is natural.
Why else would it be performed? Either the woman was self-harming and putting the baby at risk or was unable to deliver naturally. It's not even as if the baby was delivered prematurely. I'm not seeing what's so indefensible to you.
This narrative of social services forcing a c-section on the woman is ridiculous. Like they're evil geniuses playing the medical team at the psychiatric hospital, the doctors who performed the procedure, an advisory board acting in the woman's best interests, and a high court judge like puppets in some nefarious plot to steal this baby.
None of us have enough information to understand the intricacies of this case.
But from what information we have my opinion is that the c-section isn't the problem. The woman clearly didn't just have a panic attack. She was bipolar and was sectioned into a psychiatric hospital. She was in the care of a team of independent medical experts and they obviously decided the patient was not in a fit state to make decisions about where, when and how to give birth. Clearly circumstances arose where the medical experts deemed a c-section to be the best course of action for both the Mother and baby and this was given the OK by a high court order. It is a little surprising that the family were not informed (their consent is not needed, since she was sectioned and in the care of the medical staff at the hospital, but a courtesy call should have been made), but we don't know if the decision to have a c-section was an urgent one or not - this depends entirely upon the circumstances of the patient, which we don't know. Maybe attempts to contact the family were made but were unsuccessful.
I can understand the events up to this point ( even the Italian court conceded that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman), but it's the decisions of social services that puzzle me. A Judge ruled that she was still not fit to take care of the child, and she should be put up for adoption, but why have social services (who have an obligation to match the child to caring parents) not looked to the next of kin. Why insist on placing the child into care in Britain. It seems that social services simply don't have the capacity to place the child into care in another country, and bureaucracy is getting in the way.
Most people are just overreacting to this and are not reading the story. It's easy to get emotional and outraged about something when it's painted in such a blunt and misleading way without enough detail. Hence the ludicrous comparisons to Nazi Germany.
The doctors, advisory board and judges who make these decisions aren't all part of some interconnected evil plot designed to steal peoples babies. I assume that the OK for the c-section was given by the high court since the reasons for it were compelling.
It's the decision of social services to overlook the next of kin when looking for a family to adopt the baby (again, as decided by a judge) that is the only puzzling part.
But from what information we have my opinion is that the c-section isn't the problem. The woman clearly didn't just have a panic attack. She was bipolar and was sectioned into a psychiatric hospital. She was in the care of a team of independent medical experts and they obviously decided the patient was not in a fit state to make decisions about where, when and how to give birth. Clearly circumstances arose where the medical experts deemed a c-section to be the best course of action for both the Mother and baby and this was given the OK by a high court order. It is a little surprising that the family were not informed (their consent is not needed, since she was sectioned and in the care of the medical staff at the hospital, but a courtesy call should have been made), but we don't know if the decision to have a c-section was an urgent one or not - this depends entirely upon the circumstances of the patient, which we don't know. Maybe attempts to contact the family were made but were unsuccessful.
I can understand the events up to this point ( even the Italian court conceded that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman), but it's the decisions of social services that puzzle me. A Judge ruled that she was still not fit to take care of the child, and she should be put up for adoption, but why have social services (who have an obligation to match the child to caring parents) not looked to the next of kin. Why insist on placing the child into care in Britain. It seems that social services simply don't have the capacity to place the child into care in another country, and bureaucracy is getting in the way.
Most people are just overreacting to this and are not reading the story. It's easy to get emotional and outraged about something when it's painted in such a blunt and misleading way without enough detail. Hence the ludicrous comparisons to Nazi Germany.
The doctors, advisory board and judges who make these decisions aren't all part of some interconnected evil plot designed to steal peoples babies. I assume that the OK for the c-section was given by the high court since the reasons for it were compelling.
It's the decision of social services to overlook the next of kin when looking for a family to adopt the baby (again, as decided by a judge) that is the only puzzling part.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Why? What is the basis for your opinion?
What you're suggesting is reckless. Surgical procedures that are inevitable should always be performed on an elective basis. When there is an inevitable crisis that can be foreseen, such as in the case of pregnancy, they need to be done on an urgent basis. Holding off on a surgery until the inevitable emergency situation develops results in morbidity and mortality.
Speaking more specifically to this story, they waited 5 weeks. I don't know what her gestational age was, nor do I know why the operation was performed. But I do know that babies don't stay in the womb forever. If she wen't into labour and she had an indication for a cesarean section, this would likely have been a malpractice case.
I'm not defending anything. I'm laying out alternate and more plausible scenarios because, quite frankly, the allegations make no sense. We haven't heard from the hospital's side (and likely never will due to patient confidentiality), but the story the woman's lawyer has provided has enough omissions and unsubstantiated claims for me to doubt it.
I assume it's because they don't trust the family to adequately protect the child from the mother, which is why some relative in America was suggested as an alternative by the woman's family.
Figured there'd be more to it than was initially reported.
- Status