HSE tried to get High Court Order to C-Section woman without her consent!

dublin99

!

Moonbeam

What is the purpose of this thread?

dublin99

Moonbeam wrote: »

What is the purpose of this thread?

Sorry Mod. Feel free to remove thread. Heard about this story but had to remove details for privacy reason till judgement confirmed by the courts. Just to affirm women who want to try VBAC should know they have the right to and a lot of support to do so!

dublin99

HSE objected to the lifting of the in camera rule, therefore case was only reported after the High Court ruled on it:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judge-refused-to-order-woman-to-undergo-caesarean-section-1.2852130

seamus

Can't see the full story because it's behind a paywall.

I'm going to guess though that the woman was insistent on going for a vaginal birth despite all recommendations against and the doctors considered the risk to the child grave enough to try and go to court over it.

I can see both sides here. I wouldn't condemn doctors for bringing this to court if they felt it was absolutely necessary (some people just refuse to listen to medical advice), but I'm also glad that the High Court denied the request.

The sooner we can repeal the eighth, the sooner these kinds of cases will stop coming up.

volchitsa

Yes, I found this article about the case too (no limit on articles, so everyone can read it).

It's shocking, but not terribly surprising for anyone who's had dealings with them, that our health service thinks their role is to take a labouring woman to court just for expecting basic her human rights to be respected.

http://www.thejournal.ie/high-court-judgement-caesarean-section-3059414-Nov2016/

“At present a pregnant woman’s right to make fully informed refusals are limited by the HSE’s national consent policy for pregnant women. This is in turn informed by the 8th amendment to the Irish constitution,” it said.

And after all that they wanted to keep this under wraps as well.
It's really all about what's good for the HSE isn't it? Never the patient.

intheclouds

seamus wrote: »

I can see both sides here. I wouldn't condemn doctors for bringing this to court if they felt it was absolutely necessary (some people just refuse to listen to medical advice), but I'm also glad that the High Court denied the request.

People do not HAVE to listen to medical advice. If I go to a doctor with cancer and he recommends chemotherapy and I dont want it - I dont have to have it.

Forcing people to undergo medical procedures is not where we should be at.

Incidentally, the womans waters broke the day after the court ruling and she did agree to have the C-section and all was well.

Shedite27

seamus wrote: »

The sooner we can repeal the eighth, the sooner these kinds of cases will stop coming up.

So we can prevent the birth rather than deciding how to give birth?

eviltwin

intheclouds wrote: »

People do not HAVE to listen to medical advice. If I go to a doctor with cancer and he recommends chemotherapy and I dont want it - I dont have to have it.

Forcing people to undergo medical procedures is not where we should be at.

Incidentally, the womans waters broke the day after the court ruling and she did agree to have the C-section and all was well.

This. People make decisions that go against medical advice all the time. People refuse life saving treatment. Pregnant women are not treated with the same respect any other patient in our hospital system is. This is what the 8th has brought us to.

eviltwin

Shedite27 wrote: »

So we can prevent the birth rather than deciding how to give birth?

This has nothing to do with abortion.

volchitsa

intheclouds wrote: »

People do not HAVE to listen to medical advice. If I go to a doctor with cancer and he recommends chemotherapy and I dont want it - I dont have to have it.

Forcing people to undergo medical procedures is not where we should be at.

Incidentally, the womans waters broke the day after the court ruling and she did agree to have the C-section and all was well.

But isn't this the problem : how did communications break down to that extent in the first place?

Adult women are not stupid, they don't want to die or have their baby die just for a whim, which is why adults are considered to be mentally fit to give consent for a medical procedure unless there's some evidence that they are not fit - but the HSE doesn't seem to feel it has to take pregnant women's views into account at all. They prefer to bully and browbeat women rather than discuss, and taking someone to court at this stage of her pregnancy is just an extreme version of what happens all the time.

rainbow kirby

Shedite27 wrote: »

So we can prevent the birth rather than deciding how to give birth?

The 8th has major ramifications in continued pregnancy, not just abortion. Informed consent doesn't exist when pregnant as a result of it, treatment for other conditions is affected, miscarriage management is affected and even end of life issues are too. It's absolutely ridiculous.

volchitsa

Shedite27 wrote: »

So we can prevent the birth rather than deciding how to give birth?

Are you not aware that the woman in question wanted the baby?

Abortion didn't come into it at all.

The 8th amendment did, but that's because the 8th amendment has far more effects on women's healthcare than just being a nominal, and ineffective, ban on abortion.

intheclouds

volchitsa wrote: »

But isn't this the problem : how did communications break down to that extent in the first place?

Adult women are not stupid, they don't want to die or have their baby die just for a whim, which is why adults are considered to be mentally fit to give consent for a medical procedure unless there's some evidence that they are not fit - but the HSE doesn't seem to feel it has to take pregnant women's views into account at all. They prefer to bully and browbeat women rather than discuss, and taking someone to court at this stage of her pregnancy is just an extreme version of what happens all the time.

+1

Just to play Devils Advocate for a minute though, the HSE probably felt that if she didnt agree to C section and then baby died as a result that they could have been liable for criminal investigation for not upholding the 8th - so they were covering their own asses to bring it to court in the first place.

seamus

intheclouds wrote: »

People do not HAVE to listen to medical advice. If I go to a doctor with cancer and he recommends chemotherapy and I dont want it - I dont have to have it.

Forcing people to undergo medical procedures is not where we should be at.

Absolutely agreed. My point really is that from the doctors' point of view it could be analogous to a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion; from their point of view, the patient is putting their child at risk through some irrational insistence on ignoring the risks.

So I understand completely where they're coming from and I don't condemn them for bringing this to court if they felt like they needed to. In fact, one could argue that the doctors are duty bound to do everything they can within their legal power to save the patient. If that means pursuing the high court action, then they are duty bound to make that attempt, even if they personally don't believe they should.

Irish case law is still a mess in this regard, and the 8th just complicates things further. Odd that this ruling was made in 2016; 10 years ago the High Court ruled that a Jehovah's Witness could have a blood transfusion forced on her against her will (her child had already been born). 10 years before that, the Supreme Court had ruled that nobody could be forced to have medical intervention.

So some surity for doctors in these cases is badly needed - so they can stand back and let people make their own medical decisions and not feel duty bound to save the individual against their wishes.

volchitsa

intheclouds wrote: »

+1

Just to play Devils Advocate for a minute though, the HSE probably felt that if she didnt agree to C section and then baby died as a result that they could have been liable for criminal investigation for not upholding the 8th - so they were covering their own asses to bring it to court in the first place.

Id love to agree, but I think the recent reports into several neonatal deaths, and indeed possibly some maternal deaths, all show a staggering lack of care on the part of the HSE.

I fear that it's far more likely that it's more about running the service : women giving birth to order or on schedule simplifies the planning of staffing rosters enormously. The continued use of AML in birth situations where the NHS has explicitly banned it is a blatant case in point.

Mr. Incognito

I suspect that the baby was in distress and this was an emergency procedure

The same woman would sue the hospital if the baby died.

intheclouds

volchitsa wrote: »

Id love to agree, but I think the recent reports into several neonatal deaths, and indeed possibly some maternal deaths, all show a staggering lack of care on the part of the HSE.

I fear that it's far more likely that it's more about running the service : women giving birth to order or on schedule simplifies the planning of staffing rosters enormously. The continued use of AML in birth situations where the NHS has explicitly banned it is a blatant case in point.

Well I was just playing Devils Advocate!

Could you please say what AML is - the first two links on google tell me its Acute myeloid leukemia or anti-money laundering.

intheclouds

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I suspect that the baby was in distress and this was an emergency procedure

The same woman would sue the hospital if the baby died.

No thats not what the case was at all.

The woman had had previous C sections so was not recommended to have a natural birth. No emergency.

rainbow kirby

intheclouds wrote: »

Well I was just playing Devils Advocate!

Could you please say what AML is - the first two links on google tell me its Acute myeloid leukemia or anti-money laundering.

Active management of labour.

intheclouds

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Active management of labour.

Thank you.

Again I googled to see what that meant - its when they break the waters?

rainbow kirby

They also require cervical dilation to occur at a steady 1cm/hour or they will use a syntocinon drip to augment the contractions. It basically puts births on the hospital's time frame rather than the woman's (the aim is to be done in 12 hours, it was originally 24) but leads to more interventions and labours being labelled as "failure to progress" too soon.

volchitsa

intheclouds wrote: »

Well I was just playing Devils Advocate!

Could you please say what AML is - the first two links on google tell me its Acute myeloid leukemia or anti-money laundering.

Sorry - active management of Labour. (I see you've had some explanation already)
Developed in Dublin, where they had great results in reduction of numbers of caesareans, apparently. Unfortunately nobody else was able to reproduce these results, so it's fallen out of use except in a few situations. But is still commonplace in Ireland, and importantly, not always with the woman's consent.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08229.x/asset/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08229.x.pdf;jsessionid=E9BC34E9953A499068970DF119D30207.f01t02?v=1&t=iv25jt3p&a9b71f98

Here's a rather uncritical (Irish Times) description of it:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/what-is-active-management-of-labour-1.322290

Beanybabog

Good decision by the Judge... imagine the alternative, could we drag women kicking and screaming from their homes for C sections they don't consent to??
She was fully compos mentis and able to make her own decisions about her body, regardless of whether her final decision went contrary to the best medical advice available at the time.

The 8th amendment is an atrocity

Beanybabog

rainbow kirby wrote: »

They also require cervical dilation to occur at a steady 1cm/hour or they will use a syntocinon drip to augment the contractions. It basically puts births on the hospital's time frame rather than the woman's (the aim is to be done in 12 hours, it was originally 24) but leads to more interventions and labours being labelled as "failure to progress" too soon.

Interesting.... I know little to nothing about labour and my ante natal class midwife spun the 12 hour / active management thing as in your best interest, because best practice suggests that after 12 hours women are tired, and you are unlikely to progress if you have not by that stage. I suppose i blindly accepted it!! Must look into it more.

rainbow kirby

Labour is not a linear function of time. In my own case I was 3cm when I got to the hospital, 3cm 6 ish hours later when my waters broke at 3am (though we suspect that lazy night shift midwife just didn't want to do a transfer to birth centre at that hour), 9cm when the day shift midwives came in around 7 and my little boy arrived before 9. The use of AML practices probably would have triggered the cascade of interventions when all I really needed was peace and quiet, darkness, freedom to move and the gas and air.

lazygal

Beanybabog wrote: »

Interesting.... I know little to nothing about labour and my ante natal class midwife spun the 12 hour / active management thing as in your best interest, because best practice suggests that after 12 hours women are tired, and you are unlikely to progress if you have not by that stage. I suppose i blindly accepted it!! Must look into it more.

I found the same in Holles Street-it was full of what you're 'allowed' rather than best medical practice. I say this as someone who was happy to have two c sections and has no desire whatsoever to aim for a vaginal delivery in the future. The eighth amendment affects every single aspect of maternity care, along with a significant cohort of medical and nursing staff who don't like being challenged on their evidence or being told you don't consent to something.
I am a bit different to this case, in that I refused to consent to a procedure to help me achieve a vaginal birth and instead was firm that I wanted a section instead. The consultant treating me was not impressed when I used the term consent and his attitude was appalling.

Beanybabog

lazygal wrote: »

I am a bit different to this case, in that I refused to consent to a procedure to help me achieve a vaginal birth and instead was firm that I wanted a section instead. The consultant treating me was not impressed when I used the term consent and his attitude was appalling.

I found the midwife very wishy washy when someone asked her about consent in relation to the injection they give you to bring on the afterbirth. It seemed like if it's not coming they just stick you with the needle! I'm a solicitor so I know a bit about the the law in this area, and thus far I have gotten the impression for the medical staff consent it's very much an afterthought, or a niggling red tape matter they don;t want to deal with,

lazygal

Beanybabog wrote: »

I found the midwife very wishy washy when someone asked her about consent in relation to the injection they give you to bring on the afterbirth. It seemed like if it's not coming they just stick you with the needle! I'm a solicitor so I know a bit about the the law in this area, and thus far I have gotten the impression for the medical staff consent it's very much an afterthought, or a niggling red tape matter they don;t want to deal with,

I found they phrase it as 'I'm just going to do this now' rather than 'this procedure is for this reason, are you ok with that'. I remember getting an injection the morning after my first section, I wasn't told what it was for or why I needed it, and the nurse was a bit taken aback when I asked her to explain it rather than just jab the needle in.

Beanybabog

lazygal wrote: »

I found they phrase it as 'I'm just going to do this now' rather than 'this procedure is for this reason, are you ok with that'. I remember getting an injection the morning after my first section, I wasn't told what it was for or why I needed it, and the nurse was a bit taken aback when I asked her to explain it rather than just jab the needle in.

That's actually disgraceful and that's how mistakes happen - i.e. jabbing someone with an allergy

volchitsa

Beanybabog wrote: »

Interesting.... I know little to nothing about labour and my ante natal class midwife spun the 12 hour / active management thing as in your best interest, because best practice suggests that after 12 hours women are tired, and you are unlikely to progress if you have not by that stage. I suppose i blindly accepted it!! Must look into it more.

It's nonsense, you can't labour actively for hours, true, but the earlier stages of labour can go on for hours, some women even sleep during them - the problem in Ireland isn't the intervention itself, it's the systematic use of it far too early on in labour when it hasn't shown its usefulness and it can lead to complications.

A friend of mine nearly had a disaster when the injection of syntocin (IMUIC) sped up her labour so much it was suddenly out of control, and her little boy was born with shoulder dystocia because there wasn't time to adjust his position. The midwives were really panicking, and it was her third baby, so she knew what was normal at that stage.

(The baby was ok in the end, though he had to have physiotherapy for his arm, as they can be paralyzed if the damage is major - he wasn't, luckily. But the hospital admitted they caused the problem, and it could have been disastrous for the baby.)

lazygal

Beanybabog wrote: »

That's actually disgraceful and that's how mistakes happen - i.e. jabbing someone with an allergy

I'm allergic to a common painkiller, not life threatening but I get a very nasty rash. This was written on the front of my folder and once admitted I was wearing a tag on my wrist that stated I was allergic to it. I lost count of how many times a nurse came in with the painkiller and I had to ask if it was the one I can't have. And I was able to speak up and had no language barriers. How do other people with no english or who are deaf or have other communication issues deal with this? It wasn't a case of busy staff run off their feet either, it was purely lack of care and attention.

volchitsa

I gave birth outside Ireland BTW, and I was told, before the birth, that the solution of choice when labour is blocked like that is an epidural, not syntocin.

I had an epidural anyway so didn't get a chance to test it, but apparently if you start off without one, and then labour stops progressing, very often an epidural will be enough to get it going again.

I don't remember if it was explained why though, but it wasn't just the pain relief aspect.

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

It's nonsense, you can't labour actively for hours, true, but the earlier stages of labour can go on for hours, some women even sleep during them - the problem in Ireland isn't the intervention itself, it's the systematic use of it far too early on in labour when it hasn't shown its usefulness and it can lead to complications.

A friend of mine nearly had a disaster when the injection of syntocin (IMUIC) sped up her labour so much it was suddenly out of control, and her little boy was born with shoulder dystocia because there wasn't time to adjust his position. The midwives were really panicking, and it was her third baby, so she knew what was normal at that stage.

(The baby was ok in the end, though he had to have physiotherapy for his arm, as they can be paralyzed if the damage is major - he wasn't, luckily. But the hospital admitted they caused the problem, and it could have been disastrous for the baby.)

A woman I know had a really traumatic first birth. She was booked in for induction because she was ten days over and that was the policy and she was given no choice but instead told all the horror stories about what might happen.
Very soon after she was on the syntocin drip her whole body crashed and she ended up in theatre under a general anaesthetic, which had huge knock-on effects for bonding and breatfeeding (she simply couldn't cope with it after everything) and triggered some mental health issues. It took her ages to come to terms with what happened.
There was no reason to induce her, baby was fine, she was fine and her body simply wasn't ready to have the baby. But because in that hospital the 'rule' was induction after ten days, she felt pushed into an intervention she never should have had.

Beanybabog

lazygal wrote: »

I It wasn't a case of busy staff run off their feet either, it was purely lack of care and attention.

I have come across this many times with my friend. She spent a long time in hospital on her kids. On One she had a catheter in her arm and when she told a number of midwives it was sore. Turned out they were supposed to flush it out every day and she didn't know to ask this so it was filthy and her arm got infected. Not life threatening but totally unnecessary. She swears that you need to learn as much as possible from the internet so you can follow up on and monitor your own care, which is scary

seamus

^^

This is an actual known phenomenon - patients (and their families) have a tendency to place themselves completely and utterly into the care of the hospital when they're admitted. They don't ask questions, they don't raise queries or concerns. They assume that medical staff are looking after them, are making all of the right decisions and they haven't been forgotten about.

It's not an Irish problem, it's a global phenomenon, part of the human condition. Medical staff are usually aware of this, but they too can get used to not being questioned, or making the reverse assumption - that if someone says nothing, they need nothing. A patient may think they're bothering medical staff, when in reality continuous feedback from patients is essential to better outcomes, and is something any half-competent professional will be glad to get. A silent patient is one you will see again very soon.

It's something everyone needs to be aware of - if you're admitted to a hospital, or a family member is, ask questions. Pester the staff until you're properly informed about what's going on. Ring the call bell, and ring it often. If you think something is wrong or hasn't been done correctly, question it. The worst thing that can happen is that someone comes and takes a look and says it's fine.

lazygal

I knew going into hospital you have to be 'that' patient. The pain in the ass who asks questions and for second opinions and to use the call button as often as required. I remember a nurse telling me how busy they were when I asked her to stop and explain something-we're all busy in work, we all have aspects of our work that are so routine we never question them and perhaps don't feel the need to explain to others. However, my busy day leading to me taking shortcuts doesn't put anyone's health or life at risk.

dublin99

Interesting points made by AIMS Ireland on this case:

http://aimsireland.ie/7-points-on-the-high-courts-refusal-to-force-a-woman-to-undergo-a-c-section-against-her-will/

http://aimsireland.ie/statement-from-aims-ireland-on-the-lifting-of-in-camera-status-in-the-case-of-mother-b-vs-hse-heard-in-the-high-court-dublin-on-30th-september-2016/

Beanybabog

dublin99 wrote: »

Interesting points made by AIMS Ireland on this case:

http://aimsireland.ie/7-points-on-the-high-courts-refusal-to-force-a-woman-to-undergo-a-c-section-against-her-will/

http://aimsireland.ie/statement-from-aims-ireland-on-the-lifting-of-in-camera-status-in-the-case-of-mother-b-vs-hse-heard-in-the-high-court-dublin-on-30th-september-2016/

AIMS Ireland are aware of many cases in which heavily pregnant women have been threatened “with the guards coming to get them”

Sick sick country. Sounds like a perfect way to make a pregnant woman skip town and end up in labour with no medical assistance whatsoever.

rainbow kirby

Beanybabog wrote: »

Sick sick country. Sounds like a perfect way to make a pregnant woman skip town and end up in labour with no medical assistance whatsoever.

And why I'd like to complete my family here in the UK before considering moving back.

intheclouds

rainbow kirby wrote: »

And why I'd like to complete my family here in the UK before considering moving back.

If I were a pregnant woman in Ireland Id rather take my chances on a 2 hour drive to NI or a Ryanair flight if I thought anything at all was going wrong rather than face an Irish maternity hospital.

But even if things were going well, itd be better to be a pregnant woman NOT in Ireland.

This is the side of the 8th amendment that is overlooked by pro-lifers. Even on this thread someone was immediately jumping to "abortion" when in fact there was nothing in this case to do with abortion at all.

volchitsa

Beanybabog wrote: »

Sick sick country. Sounds like a perfect way to make a pregnant woman skip town and end up in labour with no medical assistance whatsoever.

Hopefully losing this case (and not being allowed to keep it quiet - good work, judge!) will make this sort of threatening behaviour impossible in the near future. That's why it's important that as many pregnant, or planning to be pregnant, women learn of this as soon as possible, so that women start to know their rights, and to insist on them.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

dudara

The biggest issue with the 8th amendment is how much it muddies the waters when it comes to healthcare of pregnant women. This is the single biggest reason to repeal it for me. Right now, while the 8th is still in effect, I would not feel 100% confident if I were a pregnant women in the Irish healthcare system.

volchitsa

intheclouds wrote: »

If I were a pregnant woman in Ireland Id rather take my chances on a 2 hour drive to NI or a Ryanair flight if I thought anything at all was going wrong rather than face an Irish maternity hospital.

But even if things were going well, itd be better to be a pregnant woman NOT in Ireland.

This is the side of the 8th amendment that is overlooked by pro-lifers. Even on this thread someone was immediately jumping to "abortion" when in fact there was nothing in this case to do with abortion at all.

Hmm. I don't want to pour cold water on your suggestion, but I'm from Northern Ireland and even without the 8th, the tradition of treating pregnant woman as though they'd lost their brains when they gained a fetus is not entirely unknown up here too. It's a deeply entrenched attitude, and the 8th makes it worse by giving a legal basis to it, but it's not the only reason for it.

Beanybabog

intheclouds wrote: »

This is the side of the 8th amendment that is overlooked by pro-lifers. Even on this thread someone was immediately jumping to "abortion" when in fact there was nothing in this case to do with abortion at all.

That's because the idea of dragging a woman, sedating her and cutting her open against her will is unlikely to gain as much sympathy for their position as the idea of women aborting late term healthy fetuses on a whim. But I believe some of the hard line pro-lifers wouldn't care

Beanybabog

I don't trust them either. I don't trust them to make decisions in my best interests. Maybe I should be ashamed to say it, but at least now I'm actually pregnant I know I still believe the same thing, but I am not willing to be a martyr. If that makes me a bad mother in some people's eyes so be it, but it should be my choice. I have told my husband numerous times not to let me die, and that he is my voice if something goes wrong - and it's disgraceful that I even have to think like that

Beanybabog

On a lighter note, at least I have thought on something to put on my birth plan!!

volchitsa

Beanybabog wrote: »

I don't trust them either. I don't trust them to make decisions in my best interests. Maybe I should be ashamed to say it, but at least now I'm actually pregnant I know I still believe the same thing, but I am not willing to be a martyr. If that makes me a bad mother in some people's eyes so be it, but it should be my choice. I have told my husband numerous times not to let me die, and that he is my voice if something goes wrong - and it's disgraceful that I even have to think like that

Of course it doesn't make you a bad person, nor a bad mother, (but as an aside you better get used to the first rule of motherhood : A mother's place is in the wrong" - once you know everyone will try to guilt you into doing what they think you should, you can just shrug it off and do your best!)

Anyway, on the actual point, I remember as a teen discussing this with my parents, and my dad saying (and my mother agreeing) that he would never have chosen to let her die so a baby could live. I took a while to get my head around that (we were being emotionally blackmailed at school by SPUC at the time) but he was right, he married her, not his children. And yet I know my father would have laid down his life for any of us - but he wouldn't have sacrificed my mother, nor left a newborn baby without a mother, never mind once there were other children at home who needed their mother too.

So no, I wouldn't give that thought a moment's hesitation. You and your husband are the basis of the family you've created together. Without you, there'd be no family, just a struggling single father. Not the same thing.

I'm sure he's aware of that too, even if it seems a bit harsh to say it like that.

Neyite

Beanybabog wrote: »

On a lighter note, at least I have thought on something to put on my birth plan!!

It's not really worth the paper it's written on tbh.

The real medical stuff you'd like on the birth plan ultimately gets decided by a doctor and potentially a judge. You can ask for stuff like delayed cord clamping or skin to skin - which while it's nice, its not you deciding your actual medical care. You indicate a preference on your birth plan but realistically you get to decide what whalesong to labour to and they get to decide how your labour will ultimately go.

dublin99

Just imagine being in Mother B’s shoes, having had 3 previous caesarean sections, she would be well aware of the possible complications and longer recovery time following another c section, as well as the need to look after 3 other young ones and a new born. The last thing she needed, on her due date, having gone into hospital with the hope of trying a natural birth (having weighed up all the pros and cons), was to be pressurised then be told the HSE was seeking a Court Order to section her. Imagine the stress! It was fortunate that, under the circumstances and the enormous pressure, she was able to seek assistance and put together her own legal team within hours to argue her case in the High Court.

According to the Judgment, the case was “heard at great haste”. The HSE, despite having two obstetricians giving expert evidence for its case, was unable to convince the Judge to grant the Order. On the other hand, “no contrary medical evidence was provided” in support of Mother B’s case, as the Judge noted that Counsel for Mother B was only instructed at 10am that morning of the urgent hearing, and had little time to prepare let alone produce expert witnesses to give evidence!

The HSE had come across as extremely high handed in this case, threw its weight around, and went even further to try to block the mother’s application to lift the “in camera rule” and have the case reported, although it is a case of public interests. The HSE was essentially throwing tax payers money away in legal fees, as they even engaged a separate legal team for the baby! This money should have been spent more wisely on real medical services!

AFAIK, Mother B made an informed decision not to have an elective caesarean. After her water broke, she agreed to a caesarean few hours later as labour had not progressed in a satisfactory manner. It was a wise and logical decision, as according to the AIMS statement, the case was heard in court on 30 September, so she probably had her section the following morning on 1 October, and therefore probably avoided causing disruptions for any of the medics who may have planned to watch the GAA finals (replay) that afternoon!