• 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

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
49,267
Reaction score
55,004
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Child taken from womb by social services - Telegraph

A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.



Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.





The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.


The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.

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.
 
Wow. Just wow. A nervous breakdown doesnt make a woman incapable of loving or caring for her baby. What a bunch of bs.
 
And yet, there are still people in this country that think we should be more like the British.
 
The huge nanny state knows what is best for all of us. The leaders may simply claim not to have known about this until they read about in the news. They will investigate this matter, declare it well discussed and promise to try to do better in the future. The gov't is why we need more gov't to help control the gov't.
 
I bet there is more to this story. I have not looked it up yet...but could she take her bipolar meds while pregnant? Was she suicidal or attempting to harm herself or others or the baby? I bet there is a bit more to this story.
 
It almost sounds like an abduction - ending up in a nut house like that. I wonder where the father of the baby is?
 
Why in hte world do you think the Brits just want to do Csections on Itialns? Sounds like she was so crazy they had to to get her back on her meds. The article really dosent say much about the C section the problem is with keeping the baby in UK.
It almost sounds like an abduction - ending up in a nut house like that. I wonder where the father of the baby is?
 
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.

WOW. I mean, WOW, like ZOINKS! That's the kind of stuff you only see in dystopian movies, but no, it's the real-life state of the UK. I cannot imagine a greater violation of your person than forcibly slicing your body open and taking your unborn child. That's a tick above China's forced abortions.
 
Why in hte world do you think the Brits just want to do Csections on Itialns? Sounds like she was so crazy they had to to get her back on her meds. The article really dosent say much about the C section the problem is with keeping the baby in UK.
Yeah, I understand. There's a lot missing in the report about her mental condition. The problem in my view is not whether the surgery was necessary or not - it may have been - it was how it was done and what transpired afterward.
 
There's also a lot missing on her state of pregnancy. I couldn't even seem to find how far along she was.
It's interesting and a little scary. But yeah, there's a lot missing from the reporting, which leaves a lot to speculation. This is the type of thing that's just ripe for endless speculation...
 
What exactly is missing which would make this less . . . wow? Seriously, what could be brought to light which would make us say "oh . . . no big deal, then"?
 
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.

No one should doubt the seemingly unfettered powers of "social services" agents and agencies not just in Britain but all over the world. This is not a unique situation and has happened here in Canada where a woman has been considered unstable and/or mentally deranged due to drug use or other circumstances and is a danger to herself and her child.

Also, no one should doubt that the health and safety of this child is in jeopardy as long as her fate is in the hands of social services. Stories are legion of innocent children being left to abuse, neglect and sometimes death by "overworked" social services agents, often just paper pushers who just want the "problem" off their hands and books.
 
No one should doubt the seemingly unfettered powers of "social services" agents and agencies not just in Britain but all over the world. This is not a unique situation and has happened here in Canada where a woman has been considered unstable and/or mentally deranged due to drug use or other circumstances and is a danger to herself and her child.

Also, no one should doubt that the health and safety of this child is in jeopardy as long as her fate is in the hands of social services. Stories are legion of innocent children being left to abuse, neglect and sometimes death by "overworked" social services agents, often just paper pushers who just want the "problem" off their hands and books.

I have seen more than a few people -- here and elsewhere -- say "if my taxes are paying for your healthcare, I get a say in how you live."
 
I have seen more than a few people -- here and elsewhere -- say "if my taxes are paying for your healthcare, I get a say in how you live."

From what I've seen, this story has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with the intrusion of the state into the lives of people and their children. The state believes it has an unfettered right to raise children as it sees fit and if you cross the line, you risk having the state abduct your children and placing them in what they believe is a more suitable child-rearing environment.
 
From what I've seen, this story has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with the intrusion of the state into the lives of people and their children. The state believes it has an unfettered right to raise children as it sees fit and if you cross the line, you risk having the state abduct your children and placing them in what they believe is a more suitable child-rearing environment.

The concepts are intertwined, though. They spring from the same basic reasoning.
 
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.


I think this is less an issue with regard to nationalized medicine and more an interesting talking point concerning abortion. UK legal protection extends to the baby in the womb, which is why the cesarean was done in the first place. It is interesting that there isn't a lot of uproar that the procedure was done, only that the Italian government wasn't notified and the child hasn't been returned to the mother. It leaves me wondering if this baby would even be alive today in a country with more "progressive" abortion laws.
 
Health and Safety.

Health and safety aren't inherently or solely healthcare issues - protection of life and the safety of the innocent is really a law enforcement matter, which is why social services, a quasi law enforcement agency, was the authority in charge, and not the department of health.
 
There is no valid reason for any government to force a c-section on a woman who is not dying. I don't care the circumstances or the mental stability of the woman. This was wrong pure and simple.
 
Health and safety aren't inherently or solely healthcare issues -

The enforcement is based on the idea that the government is responsible for your health and well-being.


protection of life and the safety of the innocent is really a law enforcement matter, which is why social services, a quasi law enforcement agency, was the authority in charge, and not the department of health.

The Children Act of 2004 classifies it under health, though it's up to local authorities how exactly to implement it.

Children Act 2004

England puts it under the Department for Education, while Northern Ireland actually has a Department of Health, Social Services, and Public Safety.
 
This is a supposed defense of it:

Child taken from womb by social services: it's not always wrong - Telegraph

In which Sophie Khan, a "solicitor-advocate specialising in actions against the police and public authorities and legal director," starts off by saying she's going to give the rest of the story. All she does is repeat what we already know and say, essentially, "we should not question it." Man, if that's the best a lawyer whose supposed specialty is in holding the government accountable for civil rights can come up with for it . . . shweeeooo.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

"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.
 
Back
Top Bottom