• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child taken from womb by social services

Andalublue said:
There's an awful lot of hysterical fits being thrown by people here who don't know any details of the case in question. And we probably won't know the full details because the public does not always have the right to know them.

She may have been given a C-section because there was no way to stop the baby coming and yet she was in a state of severe bipolar mania. The C-section may well have saved her life and that of the baby. She may well have been in no mental state to make a decision, so one had to be made for her.

Her baby may have been taken into local authority care because the mother represented a severe threat to herself and the baby. That might well have been the correct decision.

She may have lost her court case because she did not demonstrate that she was no longer a threat to her baby. In order to rpove that she was not, she'd have to provide expert witnesses and testimony that her condition was no longer precarious. Perhaps she didn't do that.


Before people jump to conclusions they should get the facts. If they can't get those facts, they'd probably be advised not to comment as they make themselves look stupid.
Click to expand...

Let's try another few "maybe's":
1. Why was her physician in Italy not contacted?
2. Why was her family in Italy not contacted?
3. Why was an adoption by her extended family not allowed?
4. Why was she not offered the opportunity for third party representation during this whole process and in particular BEFORE the decision was made to take the baby?

I would suggest that this incident was the result of a gross breach of public trust and an absolutely inhuman abuse of government authority.
 
Lutherf said:
Child taken from womb by social services - Telegraph



So the woman is in the UK for some kind of job training. Apparently she's being treated for some kind of bipolar disorder. She gets off her meds and calls the cops who take her to the nut house where a decision is made to take her baby.

She's not a citizen of the UK.


OK...so this isn't one of those things we discuss when talking about nationalized health care but should it be? Is this really the kind of decision we want the government to be making for us? I mean, near as I can tell there was no representation for this woman until after the fact
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...




Unless there is something that we don't know it looks like the British government made a number of mistakes in this case.
 
There most certainly has to be more to this story. There is NO WAY this happened for no good reason.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
There most certainly has to be more to this story. There is NO WAY this happened for no good reason.


Tim-
Click to expand...

How can there possibly be a good reason for it?
 
I can certainly see the scenario and I cant imagine a problem with medical ethics and the case above if the Pt is not competent to make decisions, too crazy because she cant take her meds because she is pregnant, a danger to herself and others. What would be your plan? Let her kill herself and baby, strap her down till she delivers...? This is almost certainly another mindless right wing outrage. As to why the Brits not sending the kid home...I dunno.
shrubnose said:
That is an excellent question.

What happened to his rights?
Click to expand...
 
shrubnose said:
That is an excellent question.

What happened to his rights?
Click to expand...

Didn't you know? Fathers have no rights. Unless you live in a Muslim dominated society in which case women have no rights. :shrug: There is no inbetween.
 
Lutherf said:
Child taken from womb by social services - Telegraph



So the woman is in the UK for some kind of job training. Apparently she's being treated for some kind of bipolar disorder. She gets off her meds and calls the cops who take her to the nut house where a decision is made to take her baby.

She's not a citizen of the UK.


OK...so this isn't one of those things we discuss when talking about nationalized health care but should it be? Is this really the kind of decision we want the government to be making for us? I mean, near as I can tell there was no representation for this woman until after the fact.
Click to expand...

No. That would just be fear mongering. If it happened one time in one country the only reason to bring it in to the argument is to try to scare the stupid people that Obama is going to rip away your baby from you if anything is wrong with you. Something that I'm surprised conservatives haven't already argued.
 
Henrin said:
How can there possibly be a good reason for it?
Click to expand...

Oh I dunno, if she was threatening to stick a knife in her belly would be enough to cause a tiny bit of concern for the child I would imagine?

Tim-
 
Harshaw said:
"Trust the secret courts, no matter how outrageous things may appear."

Several of the things you mentioned are not the case, as shown in the story linked in the OP and another linked from there.

'Operate on this mother so that we can take her baby’ - Telegraph

Which you could have seen for yourself had you taken your own advice and looked.
Click to expand...

I was careful to suggest reasons why certain decisions may have been made. I don't know the full details, and neither do either you or the journalists from the Telegraph. That article was full of 'according to her lawyers'. All the hyperbolic language appears to be coming from them.

Lutherf said:
Let's try another few "maybe's":
1. Why was her physician in Italy not contacted? We don't know that they weren't. None of the articles I've read have said, one way or another.
2. Why was her family in Italy not contacted? This may have been a mistake, or time constraints may not have allowed.
3. Why was an adoption by her extended family not allowed? How do we know that they were not, or that they may not be allowed to do so in the future? Again, none of the articles say so.
4. Why was she not offered the opportunity for third party representation during this whole process and in particular BEFORE the decision was made to take the baby? The woman was clearly in a highly irrational, distressed state requiring sedation. Would she have been able to instruct representation? The sectioning procedure can only be invoked in circumstances in which a patient presents a risk to themselves or others. The decision is taken by two doctors and a social worker and another, "responsible medical officer" is appointed to observe and act as the patient's representative. None of the articles mentions whether such a person was indeed appointed. If they weren't then the law may have been breached.

I would suggest that this incident was the result of a gross breach of public trust and an absolutely inhuman abuse of government authority.
Click to expand...
 
That is exactly the point and why it is posted here. It is exactly what they are saying.
roughdraft274 said:
No. That would just be fear mongering. If it happened one time in one country the only reason to bring it in to the argument is to try to scare the stupid people that Obama is going to rip away your baby from you if anything is wrong with you. Something that I'm surprised conservatives haven't already argued.
Click to expand...
 
Hicup said:
Oh I dunno, if she was threatening to stick a knife in her belly would be enough to cause a tiny bit of concern for the child I would imagine?
Click to expand...
Quite. Frankly, we have only the sketchiest details of what happened in this case, and all of those seem to be being provided by the woman's legal counsel. I think a bit of waiting and seeing may be in order. Proper procedure may not have been followed, but evidence for that doesn't seem to have been presented yet. Mistakes do get made, and people suffering bi-polar disorder are very vulnerable to over-reaction on the part of the authorities, usually because the consequences of under-reaction can be catastrophic.
 
Hicup said:
Oh I dunno, if she was threatening to stick a knife in her belly would be enough to cause a tiny bit of concern for the child I would imagine?

Tim-
Click to expand...

Well at least you made me think of it for a moment, but no, I can't see how I can agree with harming her for making such a threat while doing nothing else.
 
if she was doing nothing else, they probably would not have. This same scenario has probably played out many times over the years in this country and everywhere else. Almost no meds are safe for pregnant women. This outrage piece is just meant to scare the conservative base. Even if there really was some sort of outrage, there is still no evidence
Henrin said:
Well at least you made me think of it for a moment, but no, I can't see how I can agree with harming her for making such a threat while doing nothing else.
Click to expand...
 
Henrin said:
Well at least you made me think of it for a moment, but no, I can't see how I can agree with harming her for making such a threat while doing nothing else.
Click to expand...

The sectioning procedure may, just may, have saved her life and that of her baby. A section isn't applied unless three experts believe the person poses a direct and immediate threat to themselves or the public.
 
Henrin said:
Well at least you made me think of it for a moment, but no, I can't see how I can agree with harming her for making such a threat while doing nothing else.
Click to expand...

Well that was kind of my point. We don't really know anything at this point.

Tim-
 
Andalublue said:
I was careful to suggest reasons why certain decisions may have been made. I don't know the full details, and neither do either you or the journalists from the Telegraph. That article was full of 'according to her lawyers'. All the hyperbolic language appears to be coming from them.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. You don't know the facts, yet you assume their lawyers are being "hyperbolic," which assumes what they're saying isn't true. In any case, I don't see "hyperbolic language" coming from them, only you labeling what they say as being that.
 
mak2 said:
This same scenario has probably played out many times over the years in this country and everywhere else.
Click to expand...

On what basis, at all, do you assume this? Give other examples.
 
Hicup said:
Oh I dunno, if she was threatening to stick a knife in her belly would be enough to cause a tiny bit of concern for the child I would imagine?
Click to expand...

Could be a good reason to strap her down. Not so much for slicing her open.
 
Harshaw said:
Hmmm. You don't know the facts, yet you assume their lawyers are being "hyperbolic," which assumes what they're saying isn't true. In any case, I don't see "hyperbolic language" coming from them, only you labeling what they say as being that.
Click to expand...

'Hyperbolic' doesn't mean untrue. It means deliberately exaggerated, and I use it to describe language from the article that suggests that things happened in this case when no evidence of such is provided. I'm not saying there isn't a case to answer here, I'm saying there's hardly any evidence provided to suggest that the correct procedure wasn't followed, or that the actions taken were incorrect.
 
Because pregnant women go off their meds so the meds dont hurt the baby, then go so crazy they are a danger to themselves, their babies and others. Look I understand this is just an outrage thread, and there may or may not be one but there is not enough evidence either way at this point, so pretend and rage away. There certainly are many cases where stuff like this could and should happen.
Harshaw said:
On what basis, at all, do you assume this? Give other examples.
Click to expand...
 
Lutherf said:
Child taken from womb by social services - Telegraph



So the woman is in the UK for some kind of job training. Apparently she's being treated for some kind of bipolar disorder. She gets off her meds and calls the cops who take her to the nut house where a decision is made to take her baby.

She's not a citizen of the UK.


OK...so this isn't one of those things we discuss when talking about nationalized health care but should it be? Is this really the kind of decision we want the government to be making for us? I mean, near as I can tell there was no representation for this woman until after the fact.
Click to expand...

I think it's the way British Journalists write their reportings - but I always ave a hard time believing anything that comes from them. They present people's opinion statements, first, before presenting facts.

I don't know - I read the outlandish stuff from Britain and go 'I don't believe that even happened.'
 
Andalublue said:
'Hyperbolic' doesn't mean untrue. It means deliberately exaggerated, and I use it to describe language from the article that suggests that things happened in this case when no evidence of such is provided.
Click to expand...

Your specific examples being what?
 
mak2 said:
Because pregnant women go off their meds so the meds dont hurt the baby, then go so crazy they are a danger to themselves, their babies and others. Look I understand this is just an outrage thread, and there may or may not be one but there is not enough evidence either way at this point, so pretend and rage away. There certainly are many cases where stuff like this could and should happen.
Click to expand...

No, you don't get out of it so easily. You made a factual assertion -- that this kind of thing happens a lot, everywhere -- and it's you who need to demonstrate that it's so.

So it's hardly untoward to ask you for another example.
 
The forced cesarean is indeed unprecedented, but the fact that the state does often have the authority to remove a child from its parents and place it either in foster care or up for adoption is most certainly not new and happens in practically every Western country. I don't know why people are so surprised by this. The events in the OP happened 15 months ago and this woman still has not been able to get her daughter back. There's more than likely a very good reason for this. I'm not going to speculate on what that reason is and chances are we'll never find out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom