Baby stolen from bi-polar tourist's womb
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Saw that before. The judge needs to be forcefully retired and the social service workers reassigned to a job that doesn't involve dealing with sentient beings.
Makes me wonder if people with mental illness have any rights at all in Britain.
Last edited by Loki; 12-03-2013 at 01:00 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Sounds like yet another case of the UK's social services found wanting.
They have fallen short a number of times following a spate of recent high-profile cases.
Indeed an MP is to raise this case in parliament.
--------------------
Lawyers for the woman say the council should have consulted the woman's family beforehand and also involved Italian social services.
Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming said today: "I intend to raise this in Parliament. I need to speak to the lady tomorrow evening to find out how she wishes to proceed.
"I can't work out why they didn't send her back to Italy. Being in a psychiatric institution when you are without your medication in a foreign country is not a good experience to go through.
---------------------
Seems like Essex CC should get slapped and the child reunited with mother swiftly.
Last edited by Timbuk2; 12-03-2013 at 08:36 AM.
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Read that last night, it sounds utterly terrible.
The only thing that makes me wonder if there's more to the story than is let on in the columnists version is the timeline that I missed first time. She was sectioned for 5 weeks between calling the Police and the c-section. Why so long? Maybe that's normal, I don't know, but if I had a pregnant relative who went off her meds and got sectioned overseas I'd want her back home and on her meds ASAP.
But unless there is much more to the story, it seems inexcusable what's happened.
Oh well, I'd take it with more than a pinch of salt this story. The reporter can only have based his story on her side of the story and of course the medical file stays tightly shut so we'll never get to the why of the proceedings.
The story itself already has some pointers towards a crazy story; why get in a panic over the passports of her children? Given that the children were in Italy even if their passports were lost it wasn't worth calling the police for.
I also note that the judge took into account that she wasn't particularly good at taking the medication she needed to maintain a certain level of normalcy. The normalcy one needs for example to responsably take care of a baby.
Not so long ago I heard a man explaining to a doctor that his ears got so agitated by conditions in The Netherlands that he feared staying in the country would lead to him being blind. I made sure that got in the minutes of the hearing, just so that there were two separate reports of the madness he was trying to convince me of.
Congratulations America
A more neutral article than Brooker's polemic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25193084
While the OP article states simply that the mother has two children who were "back in Italy" it glazes over the fact that Italy's courts had already taken the two children away from her. Furthermore the OP article implies she was taken into care then had a c-section suddenly without any warning, why the Essex CC Spokesman says they'd liaised with the family extensively before the birth.
More to the story than meets the eye and I suspect Hazir's right we may never know the full facts.
So her other two kids were already taken into care in Italy. Puts a slightly different spin on the story.
Telegraph taking a leaf out of the Mail's book.
That's what I thought too when I read it. TBH a bit surprised that Loki jumped straight to conclusions, being a political scientist and all that. That said, still plenty of chances they did things wrong, of course, since it is a big intrusion in private life, but it's hard to know if that was warranted without knowing details, which are frankly rightly private. Not sending the kid to family, be it not blood related, does seems like bureaucracy getting in the way.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It was a Comment piece not a news article. They always need taking with salt, in any paper.So her other two kids were already taken into care in Italy. Puts a slightly different spin on the story.
Telegraph taking a leaf out of the Mail's book.
Not really, not IMO. That's just not kosher to do with someone else's citizen and their unborn/just-born child.So her other two kids were already taken into care in Italy. Puts a slightly different spin on the story.
Telegraph taking a leaf out of the Mail's book.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Last I checked, the mentally ill have rights. Are we supposed to permanently take away the children of any person who suffers a temporary mental breakdown?
I also fail to see any medical reason for bringing forth the pregnancy. If the woman was sectioned, the doctors would have plenty of opportunity to monitor her progress. There doesn't seem to be any indication that she doing anything to jeopardize the well-being of her fetus.
Hope is the denial of reality
And here some more facts. And all of a sudden it looks like the actions taken were entirely justified.
Probably the grandmother didn't tell the police at the hotel that she hadn't taken her medication, but that she refused to take medication.
Congratulations America
There doesn't seem to be any indication, because you don't know anything. And temporary, as in her kids in Italy were already taken away, and a history of forced hospitalization.. I'm not saying things were done right, but screaming "The judge needs to be forcefully retired and the social service workers reassigned to a job that doesn't involve dealing with sentient beings." without knowing, well, anything other than a one sided editorial is not something I'd expect from someone who has had academic training in complex matters with biased reporting. The mother isn't the only one with rights, the child has rights too. Even activists who criticise cases like this pointed out that they couldn't really judge without more information.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25213214
The forced caesarian was a month early. And their excuse is that drugs against bi-polar would have negatively affected the baby, which is pure BS. Let's be honest here, if the woman was a crack addict, she would not be treated in this way. Apparently mental illness is worse than being a drug addict or an alcoholic.
Hope is the denial of reality
Just read a story in the New Yorker about California permanently taking someone's kid away for understandable but low-bar reasons.
The missing piece for me in this UK story is why there had to be a cesarean delivery at that time.
The reason they gave is that they thought the anti-psychotic drugs that were needed to stabilize the woman would damage the fetus.
Hope is the denial of reality
Wouldn't the damage have already been done?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
What do you mean? The whole problem was that she wasn't taking her meds.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not suggesting it created an immediate threat to the baby, but bipolar medicine isn't something you can safely start and stop on a whim.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
So there were medical reasons for the c-section? Presumably the reason there's 5 weeks between being sectioned and delivery is for when it was medically appropriate.
No, there were medical excuses. If the logic of this council was enforced, anyone on anti-psychotics wouldn't be allowed to get pregnant.
Hope is the denial of reality
You've been inclined to accept every conspiracy theory and see the worst in everything since before you had half the facts in this case. I'm inclined to believe they were following medical advice and weren't trying to "steal" a baby.
And yet they did, all without providing a sound reason for the decision. Other than "we're the government, trust us".
Hope is the denial of reality
Already been demonstrated not to be the case. They obtained a court's decision under medical advice - quite a bit more than "we're the government, trust us". You think there's a better place to decide contentious decisions than the courts?
A medical advice that is entirely without merit. Is England in the business of forcing pregnancies 4 weeks early now? And here I thought civilized countries only did that when there was imminent harm to the baby and/or mother, something that no one can actually substantiate in this case. Frankly, I can't believe that anyone would defend such a blatant violation of human rights.
Hope is the denial of reality
You have read the court transcripts? The doctors notes? The judges decision?
What are you basing this opinion on?
The only article that stats the abortion was early quotes the mother's lawyer as saying "about a month early", so it seems that while she didn't carry to a full 42 weeks, the baby was not forced out premature.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
If those are grounds for permanently losing one child, I wonder how many children in Britain are safe from the authorities? Mentally ill? Gone. Permanent physical disability? Gone. Substance abuse? Gone. Long-term unemployed? Gone.The judge said P's welfare throughout her life was his paramount consideration. On balance, "a permanent, predictable and stable home" would be best achieved by adoption.
I should also note that the Council claimed the woman was ok immediately after the birth and threw her out of the country, while both the British judge and Italian authorities said she was in a terrible state. So she was bad enough to lose her child, but not bad enough to remain in the hospital?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ffering-animal
Hope is the denial of reality
You're surprised that the welfare of a child is what the grounds are? Which led to the same decision the Italian authorities already had made twice before?
What makes the grounds if not the welfare of the child in the USA? The welfare of the Church?
I don't recall the Italian authorities forcing an early pregnancy. Neither were here two Italian children put up for adoption.
Everyone can claim something is in someone else's interest. There's no proof. Was the woman able to function or not? If not, why was she kicked out of the country, a move that requires her to be within her faculties?
Is the idea that when someone is temporarily unwell, you take temporary measures against them that hard to fathom?
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote