It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK authorities forcibly removed baby from Italian’s womb

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

americanwoman
reply to post by Bassago
 


Yet you can have an "abortion" up until the moment of birth. What is more homocidal than that? I am happy they saved that baby, I just wish they would do that for them all.



What kind of backward country would do that, i never heard of any "Civilised" country aborting children up until the moment of birth?
and like other posters have said if the woman had a mental breakdown and made harm on herself it could harm the baby.
and it was no abortion.
im not calling you unintelligent, but the shoes seems to fit.




posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by generik
 


I didn't see any information on the due date of the pregnancy. the only rational explanation I could see is if she was at her due date and she had been scheduled for a c-section elsewhere . If a c-section was medically likely such as a breech baby or there was evidence of fetal distress, placenta previa, placenta abruption etc ...etc.. I seriously hope these idiots wouldn't go in and deliver a pre-term baby but unfortunately it wouldn't surprise me.

Unfortunately c-sections are pushed way beyond necessity in the medical world, half the labor and delivery interventions are unnecessary and create complications that lead to c-sections. So, it wouldn't take much for some gung ho OB surgeons who don't wanna give up their friday night delivering a baby, to say a c-section was perfectly ok. Center of Bioethics and human dignity

I think a bigger area of discussion is mental illness and what that means as far as the mentally ill being entitled to human dignity and rights. How many people are on medications? If it is okay to assume they are unfit to carry a child and deserve to be strapped to a table and given major abdominal surgery to forcibly remove a child , than I don't see much of a leap to revisiting the eugenic days of force sterilizing the "unfit" .....

Anyway on another note
The center for bioethics and human dignity has this to say about forced c-sections:

Perhaps there is another, better way. Consider that the maternal-fetal relationship—even the relationship with one’s own child after his or her birth—is unique, qualitatively different from any other relationship. The in utero relationship is unparalleled in the reliance of the fetus upon the mother. It is not a relationship of strangers, but of total dependence. The argument that one need not undergo risks for which another benefits may not apply. It would seem that in cases in which the mother has decided to carry to term, there has been a decision either to become a parent or give up the child for adoption. In either case, the decision to go to term creates an obligation to act in the interests of the child a woman is carrying. Children in utero have a prima facie claim to be protected from injury inflicted during pregnancy. Should the mother choose not to act in the best interests of the baby, the baby has no one else to serve as its advocate.3 The better way to look at this situation is to weigh the comparative risk to the fetus and to the mother. When the exercise of a liberty costs someone his or her life, life generally overrides liberty. Cases of forced C-sections can be seen as the conflict between grave risk to the fetus and moderate risk to the mother. Even the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade admits that in the third trimester—when these cases occur—the life of the fetus admits significant protection, and infringes the liberty of abortion. In addition, though the mother will most likely recover from the C-section, if the procedure is not performed the fetus most likely will not recover. Thus the degree of risk involved to the fetus and the unique relationship of mother to child in utero gives cause for caution in applying to this relationship the principle that one cannot be forced to assume risk for another’s benefit


If the woman was hospitalized and under proper supervised care without a REAL, and impending need to induce labor : than this should horrify and scare the crap out of everyone.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

edit on 1-12-2013 by paleorchid13 because: double post



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

americanwoman
reply to post by Bassago
 


Yet you can have an "abortion" up until the moment of birth. What is more homocidal than that? I am happy they saved that baby, I just wish they would do that for them all.


WRONG. Third trimester abortions are illegal in the UK aside from special circumstances (mother's life in danger etc)



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I haven't seen anywhere in these reports regarding a husband or a boyfriend so I can only assume this child is a result of a unwanted pregnancy or a soured relationship. She must have already been going through a real tough time before she had this anxiety attack but I'm also sure that the biggest mistake she made was calling the police when this happened. That is probably the whole start of this.

She's a foreign national, probably doesn't know our emergency phone numbers and what you should use for any given situation and the police over-reacted which is why they took her to a mental health unit. Probably very stressed, confused, worried, homesick and called someone for help and got the old bill out by accident and felt they had their time wasted and 'just another crazy foreigner'.

Then reading in the news about her not having the mental capacity to appoint a lawyer is shocking. What about those in her life that were able to do so which weren't involved. The Italian social services should have had the control and transfer of this case and just seems like ours in the UK didn't want to give up a responsibility or a statistic in their reports so they cut that baby out of her before kicking her out of the country. My girlfriend is Italian and makes me think if we should get her her citizenship sorted or get out of here, what if this happened to us, would I even be able to find where she is??

The telling thing right now is within a couple of months of her being back home, she's come back for her baby and that says a lot to me. This is obviously why they took the child without her knowledge as she would have fought for that kid, but in the eyes of those restraining her she would have just been having another 'episode' and further reason to steal that baby from her womb. They kept her confused and did as they pleased.

For those of us in the UK with foreign partners or thinking of having kids with them, it's worrying and makes you really think.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
What we have here is over zealous social services, miscommunication between Italy and England, a system gaining it's own momentum and then the follow-up where those involved realised they screwed up and rather than admit it start to cover their asses by going along with the initial OTT response. Typical of people who can't say "sorry I was wrong". The sad thing is the vast majority of people (especially those here on ATS) would behave exactly the same way. Don't believe me? How many times has somebody posted a response and stated "Sorry folks I was wrong about that subject".......hmmm

In the end any heads that roll will be at the bottom or more likely "we have changed the procedures" and people up the ladder will be moved sideways to mismanage somewhere else. That's the real problem here mismanagement of a situation.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I am pregnant currently with my second child, and I suffer from anxiety - the doctors are VERY pushy about getting depression looked at, (I've mentioned my anxiety but was brushed off)

But how on earth is this supposed to help women with pre and post natal depression, or regular depression - its hard enough to talk about it, let alone the fears they will forcibly remove your child for admitting you're depressed! If I were suffering depression right now this sort of news would have me freaking out (more so than this news does in general)

Disgusting.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   

bkaust
I am pregnant currently with my second child, and I suffer from anxiety - the doctors are VERY pushy about getting depression looked at, (I've mentioned my anxiety but was brushed off)

But how on earth is this supposed to help women with pre and post natal depression, or regular depression - its hard enough to talk about it, let alone the fears they will forcibly remove your child for admitting you're depressed! If I were suffering depression right now this sort of news would have me freaking out (more so than this news does in general)

Disgusting.


Thank you for your post. Just as I thought we were making great strides in the way we go about treating psychiatrics, the world goes and does something as middle aged as this.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by generik
 


a few years back i was in hospital where they kept a pregnant girl,her story was all over papers.she was not allowed her medication to remain stable as she was pregnant.she had no chance.they are really evil,(and my childs a nurse) but once one person puts something wrong on your record,ie i have a dark sense of humour.i didn't know to not ever ever be friendly to them.then the next dr etc you see for 2 mins,reads your record as a dangerous person.with not one bit of proof over 50 years.they destroy you rather than ever admit they were wrong.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bkaust
 


Congratulations on your second child, I treated my panic attacks and anxiety with natural means, you just need to find a doctor in homeopathic medicine that will help you with your needs.

I also did acupuncture to help with the problem also a year and massage therapy as the key to minimize the attacks is relaxation.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
If the woman was having an episode of psychosis, which is common during/after pregnancy if the patient has bipolar disorder, there's a high chance she hated the unborn child (common symptom of puerpal psychosis)and would do everything she could to force an abortion. A person experiencing psychosis could think of some unique and disturbing ways to force the abortion. So the obvious answer is to put her under 24 hour supervision, someone constantly by her side ready to restrain if needed. This is never going to happen in the UK, there are not enough resources. The patient needs to be dealt with in the most cost efficient manner. The answer is to remove the child. The case put forward would have emphasised the difficulty of controlling the patient and the operation would have been given the go ahead with the child's safety in mind first.

Not my opinion just how the NHS works.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by generik
 


This makes no sense whatsoever. Abortions are okay because it's not human life, but suddenly they have to protect this unborn "baby" from the mother?? You cannot have it both ways.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

marg6043
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


Disagree, I had panic attacks that lasted two years
...
So no, panic attacks do not necessarily give hart attacks and neither get you to lose your mind.


Very true. The woman had an underlying mental health condition that was not being controlled through medication. What she considered an "anxiety attack" may have been something very different, or her deteriorating mental state may have included an anxiety attack, there are lots of possibilities. If it was just anxiety attack then she would not have been in hospital for that long.


OvernightGuy
...
She's a foreign national, probably doesn't know our emergency phone numbers and what you should use for any given situation and the police over-reacted which is why they took her to a mental health unit.
...
Then reading in the news about her not having the mental capacity to appoint a lawyer is shocking. What about those in her life that were able to do so which weren't involved.


If the police were genuinely concerned then they did the correct thing - bring her to a s136 ("place of safety") suite for a doctor to assess her. The police are not psychiatrists. If she was there for 5 weeks then I feel confident in saying there was more than just an "anxiety attack".

You do not need to have "mental capacity" to appoint a lawyer. If the hospital considers that you are not competent to do so then the MHAA ("Mental Health Act Administrator") will organise one automatically. I know this because MHAAs call me in situations just like this. It's not uncommon.


bkaust
I am pregnant currently with my second child, and I suffer from anxiety - the doctors are VERY pushy about getting depression looked at, (I've mentioned my anxiety but was brushed off)

But how on earth is this supposed to help women with pre and post natal depression, or regular depression - its hard enough to talk about it, let alone the fears they will forcibly remove your child for admitting you're depressed! If I were suffering depression right now this sort of news would have me freaking out (more so than this news does in general)

Disgusting.


I can completely appreciate that concern. If it helps, there are very strong links between mental health issues and pregnancy and that is entirely normal. It's part of the impact of the massive changes happening to the body. Depression is not going to trigger having a child removed. In many cases, even women who are suffering from more severe conditions can be placed in a postnatal psychiatric ward where they can stay with their baby (under supervision, for safety of both mother and baby) until they feel stable and prepared to leave. Just having a mental health condition is not enough.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

and14263
...So the obvious answer is to put her under 24 hour supervision, someone constantly by her side ready to restrain if needed. This is never going to happen in the UK, there are not enough resources...


Actually yes, this does happen. Enhanced Observations are either "within eyesight" or "within arms length". However, it is used sparingly and I've not often seen people on this level of observation - mostly because of resources, as you state.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


We have yet to hear all the facts but the 'feeling' I get about all this is just wrong. I understand what you're saying and can tell you have experience in these things but the whole way that the state has taken control of this woman's decisions using the basis of the welfare of the child as an excuse to step on her human rights is disturbing. They've done all this and the next of kin probably for most of it weren't aware of the full extent of what was going on or what was about to happen.

It just worries me that if it can happen to these people then it can happen to us and you can imagine that this is going to deter many women who when pregnant really need support or help from the medical authorities but will not go to their doctor for fear of being subjected to similar ridicule or treatment. These women who trying to decide what is best for them and their baby may now do harm to them just because they're afraid of what's happened to others.






edit on 2/12/2013 by OvernightGuy because: Didn't read correctly



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
This is one of them stories where you look at the screen in disbelief.
I just hope this isn't the end of the matter.

I'm still shaking my head. WTF.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
My viewpoint is very different because I look at it from the "inside out". I don't expect to ever convince people of my viewpoint simply because it's very hard to describe some of the experiences that formed it, without it sounding ludicrous, surreal or simply made up. More often than not, it's simply heartbreaking - but you realise that many people who might have been perfectly fine two months ago now desperately need help that they will not willing accept, but without it... well, even as someone who gets people out of hospital for a living, after a while doing the job I firmly believe that some people do genuinely need to be there just to keep them alive until they can find their way back to some level of normality. People you would not always expect. I still represent them to the fullest extent of my ability because that is my role, of course. It's not for me to decide who stays in or who gets out, I'm just there to fight their corner for them.

So, I'll set out the reasons that I believe drove this incident forward. I don't expect them to be agreed with or popular, but they are based on practical experience in this area. If it seems cold blooded - well, perhaps it is. Empathy is very important in this line of work, but you get to a point where you can't do the job to the best of your ability if you can't set aside emotion when necessary. I'm asked to speak on behalf of a client, not sit in the corner and cry on their behalf. Having said that, I could draw up a list I would gladly cry for; they all deserve it and they all broke my heart in their own ways. My own mental health depends on my ability to let all that go and move straight on to the next person, as harsh as that might sound.

Anyway, I digress.

A colleague of mine described this as a "perfect storm" of different aspects leading up to a rather rattling outcome. Taken individually, each element is consistently applied across many situations daily - and usually for good reason. It is quite rare to see all these elements brought together like this.


OvernightGuy
...the whole way that the state has taken control of this woman's decisions using the basis of the welfare of the child as an excuse to step on her human rights is disturbing. They've done all this and the next of kin probably for most of it weren't aware of the full extent of what was going on or what was about to happen.


There are two different aspects here getting mixed up: (i) taking control of the woman's decisions; and (ii) welfare of the child.

Put aside the pregnancy for a moment. Just because someone has a mental illness does not automatically mean they do not have the ability to give consent to things. Sometimes a person will be so ill that they cannot understand the situation well enough to give genuine consent. In those circumstances it is the role of the court to act on their behalf, weighing up situations and deciding whether it would be in the patient's best interests. It's not a perfect system, the court can't second-guess what the person would want to do and the decisions will be logical rather than emotional (just ask yourself how many decisions you make on a daily basis are based on emotion and wants rather than logic and needs, after all) but sometimes it is the best way out of a bad situation.

In this situation, this function of the court appears to have been engaged. It wasn't strictly engaged for the purposes of the c-section, it was generally engaged for any time a consent issue arose. So, we now have a situation where any time a question arose, it was for the court to determine consent. This happens on a regular basis across the country, day in day out.

Now let's consider the pregnancy issue, putting aside the mental health issue. Social Services determined that there was a risk to the child when it was born and convinced a court that it was necessary to remove the child immediately. The common approach is for SocSer to ask the woman to consent to a c-section.

Let's take those two very common situations and merge them together - SocSer follow their usual procedure of asking the woman to consent to a c-section... except in this instance all questions of consent have been redirected to the court as the woman is not capable of giving consent. The court is not expected to make a decision on the emotional grounds that the woman might use because it cannot second guess those emotions. The only thing it can do is consider what is logically in the best interest of the woman. Logically, a c-section presents the least risk to the woman to achieve the outcome, so it is logically in the woman's best interests to consent to the c-section.

The application of the rules is straightforward, logical and consistent - it's just unusual to see the two rules working in conjunction in this manner.

You make an interesting point about human rights, but in some ways this has come about because of one of the processes used to guard her human rights. Imagine (and this is all purely hypothetical to explore the point) if the court was never allowed to give consent on her behalf. The only medicine that could help her recover was lithium and consent is not necessarily needed to give medication under parts of the Mental Health Act - however, consent is always needed to take blood samples (because drawing blood is not legally considered a medication) and you cannot safely give lithium without monitoring bloods. The woman is not capable of giving consent, no one else is capable of giving that consent, therefore she cannot get the treatment and she will never recover. Keeping her locked into a nightmare - isn't that also an issue of human rights? Part of the role of the court is to act as her guardian and protector. Believe it or not, in this incident it fulfilled that role.

Although this is purely a guess based on the articles, it is worth remembering that two courts were probably involved. I feel certain the following is how it happened but this might be proven wrong if all the details are ever made available (which is highly unlikely to be honest)

The first court would have been involved in granting the order (care order, emergency protection order) and would make its decision based on the "likelihood of harm" to the child if it was left with the mother. As the mother appears to have been very unwell, it is not surprising that this order was granted. This court would not have been involved in determining how the child was to be taken.

The second court would have been asked to give consent for the c-section. This second court would not be involved in determining whether the child should or should not be taken, it's role is simply to consider the matter of consent to the medical treatment. In the circumstances, it is also not surprising that this order was granted.

It may be that one court handled everything (I do not deal with care proceedings) but I would find that very hard to believe.

...wow, never hit the word limit on posts before, copying and pasting the next section to a new post!



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
...continued!


OvernightGuy
It just worries me that if it can happen to these people then it can happen to us and you can imagine that this is going to deter many women who when pregnant really need support or help from the medical authorities but will not go to their doctor for fear of being subjected to similar ridicule or treatment. These women who trying to decide what is best for them and their baby may now do harm to them just because they're afraid of what's happened to others.


That is always a concern and not just for pregnant women. A lot of people do strange or dangerous things to avoid being admitted under section. Lots of people break out of wards. The frustrating thing can be that, as an outside observer with a close working relationship with the staff involved, I can see that the staff are genuinely trying their best to help people get better and get discharged as soon as possible. Ok, one or two exceptions spring to mind, but that is a tiny percentage. Patients always have horror stories, but that is because many patients do consider a formal admission to be a horror.

Having said that, the alternative would be to let dangerous situations develop and (in this case) put the life of a child at risk just to avoid scaring off a mother with depression.

If a situation like the incident in the article needs to happen, then it needs to happen. It is not possible to educate everyone as to the reason why is happened because... well, it's taken me a few thousand characters just to scratch the surface, I bet most people stopped reading after the first three paragraphs. I would have more problems with them putting the child at risk in order to avoid offending people who don't necessarily understand "what" and "why".

Still, all we will have is a witch hunt in the media, cries of disgust from around the world and some MPs thumping the podium over a situation that they probably don't understand. Lots of noise will be made but nothing real will come from it, for the simple reason that the system worked in the way that it should so there is unlikely to be any reason to change it.

I'm sure that everyone will hate me after this post. My role isn't to be loved or popular, my role is give people the good news and the bad news with equal candour. Such is life.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by EvillerBob
 


I think it's good to have someone with your knowledge and input on this to keep people at least grounded and not jumping without knowing what processes go behind the scenes. It's been quite informative.

I think my main issue is that we are very blatantly becoming like the film minority report where we pass sentence before a crime has actually been permitted to happen and in doing so we are also creating those scenarios and in some circumstances making sure they happen.

I'm a firm believer in that you can't predict everything just because you've seen similar things before and every situation is unique and dynamic, there's no such thing as a text book case in my opinion which I hope these people haven't treated it as such when deciding the course this woman had to endure.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by generik
 

Well what else do you expect in a world were the patients run the madhouse. Whatever trauma and disorder she had, now she has it a hundred fold over, and so to will the kid.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join