Hospital sought court order to force C Section

meeeeh

clairefontaine wrote: »

That's not what I was replying to meeeh.

Jehovas witnesses can't practise their religion when medics over ride it. But medics in Ireland have to practise the state religion. And we both know what that is.

The spokesperson for the hospital said the issue was around the life of the baby vs the consent of the mother, thus forcing the state religion on the mother.

So one religion supercedes another. A good lawyer would pick that up as a discrimination case.

This has nothing to do with abortion debate. I'm firmly pro choice but you won't find a country that advocates abortion at 9 months. And this is not religious debate it is debate about less risk for mother or child vs. more risk for mother and child. There is no discrimination.

How Strange

How Strange wrote: »

This is where I fundamentally disagree. A woman, as an individual not just a baby carrier, has the right to expect to be treated with dignity and respect.

If the system is overloaded then the system needs to be fixed but to say that a patient should basically shut up and put up is unacceptable in a first world country.

I personally think women who've given birth deserve major kudos for putting up with a substandard system in which they're expected to just comply with the orders of healthcare professionals without question just to facilitate a hospitals schedule.

A woman absolutely has a right to be informed and to give consent in situations where she is of sounds body and mind in that moment. Of course there will always be emergencies but they are just that and the medical staff will have to act in the moment for the safety of the patient. However that is a different scenario.

Dialogue, consent, dignity and respect should always be at the ce tre of all medical care.

To be honest, I'm struggling to see what it is you're disagreeing with. I posited scenario where the system fails. I don't think anyone can disagree with that.

I feel it necessary to point out that in my post, nowhere did I suggest that women should be treated with anything less than care respect and dignity.

I especially never implied that a woman is merely an incubator. Nowhere did I suggest women should put up and shut up.

Anyone who goes through the (public) hospital system for any reason deserves kudos, male or female.

pwurple

How Strange wrote: »

I personally think women who've given birth deserve major kudos for putting up with a substandard system in which they're expected to just comply with the orders of healthcare professionals without question just to facilitate a hospitals schedule.

I hope this hasn't happened to you. I honestly have to say I was very happy with the level of care that I received in maternity care, and wouldn't call the irish system 'substandard' by any stretch whatsoever. I had a high risk pregnancy, and a safe healthy child at the end of it, with no interventions other than some pain relief which I asked for.

How Strange wrote: »

My son was born with the cord around his neck. The midwives told me that it happens quite a lot.

On second or subsequent babies it's not unusual for them to engage during labour. Also being high and I engaged may have been because she was 3 weeks earlier than the scan dated her at.

VBACs aren't necessarily complicated, lots of women go on to have them. Some hospitals have a policy of supporting them, such as Holles St, and others don't. But that doesn't make them complicated. Clearly if the baby is in the breech position then the medical team are more likely going to recommend a scheduled section.

This is all true. And doesn't this case sound odd because of all that? I went 14 days over due date without any intervention, or even a mention of intervention. No sweep, no oxytocin, no amniotic hook, nothing. Nada. I was scanned weekly to check fluid levels around the baby, and my next scan was due day 15, but there was never a suggestion of intervention, and certainly no court case involved. This woman was only on day 13. VBACs are not uncommon. This must have been a very unusual case for it to go this way. The positioning or state of the scar may have been different to normal, or some other medical issue. We just don't have any of the details here.

I think the assertions of women being treated as mere baby-carriers is way out of place here, as it is much more likely that there was a serious medical issue. Not the normal run of events at all.

clairefontaine

It begs another question. How far can doctors and the state go in terms of healthcare for your children? Can they force them to have procedures against the will of the parents? And I'm not talking about transfusions and the JWs, but what about surgery, cancer treatment etc?

@pwurple, no this case does not sound odd to me at all. What does sound odd is the hospital going so far as seeking a court order. Ive never heard of them doing that before.

Princess Peach

clairefontaine wrote: »

It begs another question. How far can doctors and the state go in terms of healthcare for your children? Can they force them to have procedures against the will of the parents? And I'm not talking about transfusions and the JWs, but what about surgery, cancer treatment etc?

@pwurple, no this case does not sound odd to me at all. What does sound odd is the hospital going so far as seeking a court order. Ive never heard of them doing that before.

There was a case late last year where a mother lost after refusing radiotherapy treatment for her son who had a brain tumour. It was in England, the father consented to the treatment and he and the doctors took the mother to court.

eviltwin

My experience of the way I was treated by maternity services here to be pretty dire tbh. From little things like being referred to a "mum" the whole time rather than by my name to a shambles of a delivery of my son and lousy aftercare its far from being the first class service we're told all the time it is. Anyone in any doubt just pay a visit to any of the parenting boards and have a read of the many threads discussing terrible treatment.

xLexie

clairefontaine wrote: »

It begs another question. How far can doctors and the state go in terms of healthcare for your children? Can they force them to have procedures against the will of the parents? And I'm not talking about transfusions and the JWs, but what about surgery, cancer treatment etc?
.

I should hope so.

If a child is in need of medical attention and the parents are refusing, I would hope the hospital can force them to have it done.

I mean that in terms of transfusions/surgery/cancer and not the vaccination debate

clairefontaine

xLexie wrote: »

I should hope so.

If a child is in need of medical attention and the parents are refusing, I would hope the hospital can force them to have it done.

I mean that in terms of transfusions/surgery/cancer and not the vaccination debate

So the state has bottom line control of not only your body but your kids too. That's not a state I want to live in.

There are many reasons parents might not wish to avail of treatment, not just crackpot religion reasons.

How Strange

pwurple, as I said before, I genuinely hope there were extenuating medical reasons in this instance which haven't been made public but which justify such drastic action.

Thankfully my experiences of the maternity healthcare system in Ireland have been excellent and I hope it continues that way. However, not all women are as fortunate.

meeeeh

I had absolutely no problems with my treatment in maternity ward. I was public once and private once and there was no problem. I wasn't overly happy when I needed the last D&C after the birth (those for miscarriages were fine).

This debate reminds me of revolutions when one rotten regime is replaced by different kind of extremists.

meeeeh

clairefontaine wrote: »

So the state has bottom line control of not only your body but your kids too. That's not a state I want to live in.

There are many reasons parents might not wish to avail of treatment, not just crackpot religion reasons.

Oh so legalislating against crackpot religious reasons is ok and against crackpot nonreligious is not.

xLexie

clairefontaine wrote: »

So the state has bottom line control of not only your body but your kids too. That's not a state I want to live in.

There are many reasons parents might not wish to avail of treatment, not just crackpot religion reasons.

All children have the right to be safe, to have a roof over their heads and to adequate medical care. When a parent cannot afford a child's basic right, the state helps out in the form of council housing, social welfare benefits, ect. The state do have a duty of care to every child in the state and when the child's needs aren't met by the parents, the state helps out.

Now, if the child is being refused vital medical treatment, or surgery, that would be of enormous benefit to the child's quality of life because of the parents, the state should then be stepping in and ensuring the child get the best possible chance health wise.

clairefontaine

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh so legalislating against crackpot religious reasons is ok and against crackpot nonreligious is not.

There is no legislation against medicine being conducted by a crack pot religion, see my previous post about it being run through the state's crackpot religion.

It's just legislating against certain crackpot religions like JH. But I doubt they have legislated against infant circumcision. So don't give me this best interest of the mother and child crap.

The bottom line is they were prepared to force this woman, via the high court, to have surgery.

pwurple

How Strange wrote: »

pwurple, as I said before, I genuinely hope there were extenuating medical reasons in this instance which haven't been made public but which justify such drastic action.

Thankfully my experiences of the maternity healthcare system in Ireland have been excellent and I hope it continues that way. However, not all women are as fortunate.

I'd hope there were too, and call me totally biased, but any headline in the indo about forcing women to have c-sections, bringing up the associated mental images of medieval style torture chambers, deserves to be taken with a giant grain of salt.

Princess Peach

clairefontaine wrote: »

There is no legislation against medicine being conducted by a crack pot religion, see my previous post about it being run through the state's crackpot religion.

It's just legislating against certain crackpot religions like JH. But I doubt they have legislated against infant circumcision. So don't give me this best interest of the mother and child crap.

The bottom line is they were prepared to force this woman, via the high court, to have surgery.

I'm genuinely confused what this particular case has to do with religion at all. Granted there is limited information on it.

Dolbert

clairefontaine wrote: »

The bottom line is they were prepared to force this woman, via the high court, to have surgery.

And why do you think they did that? Would they really have bothered if it weren't a life-saving measure? I can't fathom how it's better to allow a high-risk situation to continue and have mother and baby potentially die when neither need to.

clairefontaine

Dolbert wrote: »

And why do you think they did that? Would they really have bothered if it weren't a life-saving measure? I can't fathom how it's better to allow a high-risk situation to continue and have mother and baby potentially die when neither need to.

Probably because they don't want the publicity of another dead woman on their hands.

clairefontaine

Princess Peach wrote: »

I'm genuinely confused what this particular case has to do with religion at all. Granted there is limited information on it.

Because of this statement in the article.

"During the sitting, Senior Counsel for the hospital Eileen Barrington had said that what was at issue was the woman's constitutional right to refuse treatment versus the right to life of the unborn and the judge had to balance these."

hollypink

clairefontaine wrote: »

The bottom line is they were prepared to force this woman, via the high court, to have surgery.

I wouldn't see it that way. I seem to remember from one of those Jehovah's Witness cases, where the hospital went to court because the person (or maybe next of kin) was refusing a blood transfusion, that it was explained by a legal person that the hospital wasn't going to court to be heavy handed about the matter. The purpose of going to court was to ensure that whatever action they took was in accordance with the law, rather than forcing a person to have a blood transfusion against their will and facing being sued, or accepting the person's choice and risking being legally liable for a death. So I think the hospital did the right thing in going to court so that if they and the patient couldn't agree, that the court would decide.

Lyaiera

clairefontaine wrote: »

Probably because they don't want the publicity of another dead woman on their hands.

You know, to have the publicity of a dead woman there needs to be a dead woman.


Also, I think you'd be fairly hard pressed to find someone who doesn't take into consideration the child when it's a case of a term pregnancy. Although I imagine you'd have one or two people who think it's ok to abort a child before it's drawn its first breath.

Religion and the constitution aside, do people think a full term baby should have rights? Or that it's rights are always secondary to the mothers, even in situations where the mothers actions endanger both of them?

I'm just interested in peoples opinions on that.

Morag

There is a tipping point with risk management and a dr/consultant is aware of it not just for the sake of the patient but for his own medical insurance loading.

clairefontaine

hollypink wrote: »

I wouldn't see it that way. I seem to remember from one of those Jehovah's Witness cases, where the hospital went to court because the person (or maybe next of kin) was refusing a blood transfusion, that it was explained by a legal person that the hospital wasn't going to court to be heavy handed about the matter. The purpose of going to court was to ensure that whatever action they took was in accordance with the law, rather than forcing a person to have a blood transfusion against their will and facing being sued, or accepting the person's choice and risking being legally liable for a death. So I think the hospital did the right thing in going to court so that if they and the patient couldn't agree, that the court would decide.

Ok that would make sense BUT...when you are in the hospital and you don't consent, you sign a waiver that you have deviated from hospital protocol and that immunises the hospital against lawsuits.

It's only when the hospital deviates from established medical protocol that the hospital or doctor is vulnerable to malpractice.

eviltwin

Candie wrote: »

Religion and the constitution aside, do people think a full term baby should have rights? Or that it's rights are always secondary to the mothers, even in situations where the mothers actions endanger both of them?

I'm just interested in peoples opinions on that.

I personally think the mothers rights always come first.

Princess Peach

clairefontaine wrote: »

Because of this statement in the article.

"During the sitting, Senior Counsel for the hospital Eileen Barrington had said that what was at issue was the woman's constitutional right to refuse treatment versus the right to life of the unborn and the judge had to balance these."

In fairness now she was about 14 days past full term. Separates this case from an abortion debate in my opinion.

If the case was about a mother refusing treatment to save a 2 week old newborn would you be of the opinion that it was about religion and state?

clairefontaine

Lyaiera wrote: »

You know, to have the publicity of a dead woman there needs to be a dead woman.


Also, I think you'd be fairly hard pressed to find someone who doesn't take into consideration the child when it's a case of a term pregnancy. Although I imagine you'd have one or two people who think it's ok to abort a child before it's drawn its first breath.

Doctors have to follow the laws of their land not their own personal moralities.

They might not see it as aborting a child at 9 months, they might see the death of the infant as a natural consequence of a birth that went wrong without intervention.

clairefontaine

Princess Peach wrote: »

In fairness now she was about 14 days past full term. Separates this case from an abortion debate in my opinion.

If the case was about a mother refusing treatment to save a 2 week old newborn would you be of the opinion that it was about religion and state?

Why would that be about religion and the state?

This particular case is about religion because it, according to the hospital rep was about a woman's constitutional right to refuse treatment vs the unborn's right to life, and the unborn's right to life is a religious, a Catholic ethos.

If you look at the language, it had NOTHING to do with saving the woman's life at all.

xLexie

clairefontaine wrote: »

Probably because they don't want the publicity of another dead woman on their hands.

Why is that a bad thing?

Wait, it's a catholic ethos to want to save the life of a full term baby? Are you for real?

Lyaiera

clairefontaine wrote: »

Doctors have to follow the laws of their land not their own personal moralities.

They might not see it as aborting a child at 9 months, they might see the death of the infant as a natural consequence of a birth that went wrong without intervention.

Yes, which is what the case was about. They didn't do anything illegal. They followed the laws of the land.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

I personally think the mothers rights always come first.

Me too, but I think a full-term foetus has to have some considerations too.

It's where those rights conflict that the line is fuzzy.