Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

....... · 15-06-2017 09:23AM

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack · 15-06-2017 10:54AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What backtracking? My point hasn't changed? My post was in direct reply to Samaris' point that it was neither physically nor mentally healthy for young children to be giving birth, and from my point of view, based upon my experience, it's neither physically nor mentally healthy for young children to be having abortions to end their pregnancy either. You seem to be under the impression that I was suggesting that we encourage young people to get pregnant. That would be incredibly daft, as daft as me suggesting that you would want to force pregnant children to have abortions. I would never think you were suggesting that though because I'm willing to engage in the discussion in good faith without any preconceived judgements.

If anyone has backtracked here, it has been you when it was pointed out to you that you were incorrect in assuming that this case was as a result of rape, but I didn't sneer at you for that, because I wouldn't, it's just not something I do. You can backtrack and change your opinion as many times as you like, and I'm not going to sneer at you for it, because I'd see that as pointlessly arrogant and in no way conducive to a discussion in good faith.

bubblypop wrote: »

Its amazing the amount of people who don't believe in abortion, whose belief suddenly changes when their own child is pregnant!

I don't know if I'd say it was amazing, it's perfectly understandable. It's also perfectly understandable the number of women who believe that they would have an abortion asap if they ever found themselves pregnant, until they find themselves in that situation, and then they aren't so sure at all, they're often ferociously conflicted and can change their minds and go either way or any way in the blink of an eye from one minute to the next. It's never been understandable to me at least when parents put their reputations before their children's welfare and try to force their pregnant child into a position where they are forced into having an abortion or else face being ostracised from their family, or the opposite of that - forcing their pregnant child into a position where they are forced to remain pregnant or risk being ostracised from their family. It can go a number of different ways and there are an infinite number of scenarios and ways it could play out.

volchitsa wrote: »

Well I know I've seen on some of the links about whether or not women are sometimes harmed by abortion that coming from a culture where abortion is associated with guilt is a big danger signal for risk of depression and anxiety after an abortion.

So any conversation as to what the pregnant child wanted to do would have to be very careful.

The traditional Catholic "You know you're killing a baby don't you?" sort of discussion would not be helpful. Yet I suspect that's exactly the sort of "Are you sure you really want to" that the pro life people would want to have. And then they'd say triumphantly that of course she wants to keep it! :eek:

While I completely agree with the first part of your post, I'm disappointed that you couldn't resist a dig at Catholics and people who are pro-life, exposing your own ideological bias.

volchitsa wrote: »

Was this in Ireland? I believe it's illegal here. And probably unethical anywhere else too.

Yes volchista it happens in Ireland -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ok, when you first mentioned 'people' giving medical advice on this issue who are not neutral, I thought you were talking about advocacy organisations where women experiencing a crisis pregnancy would go for support, and it came to mind a few women who have been to certain family planning organisations for support who felt they were being pushed into having an abortion... but obviously you're not talking about those people, you're talking about medical professionals.

Medical professionals are held accountable for their conduct and there are numerous checks and balances in place to ensure that women and in this case a child receives the care that they believe is appropriate. I personally don't think they need to answer to the public for their privately held opinions, no matter where they stand on the issue of mental health or abortion. They are already answerable to professional bodies which monitor their professional conduct.

It's not illegal to give advice to a woman on her options, and whether it's unethical or poor or good advice is simply a matter of opinion. Often times I've talked to pregnant children and women who were convinced they would have to give up their education and were in the process of mapping out a fairly miserable future for themselves, until they were presented with alternative options which meant they would have every support they needed to overcome socioeconomic factors which are often the reason for why they are worried. Social ostracisation and even their own biases and perceptions of young women with children or women who have abortions are also considerable factors.

volchitsa wrote: »

(BTW, I realize you are replying as something of an aside, but I'm a little uncomfortable to see talk of "taking away control" used about advice given, on a thread about a child being sectioned. That's not the level of coercion we're discussing here at all, and that needs to be pointed out over and over if necessary.)

What should also be pointed out is that the child wasn't sectioned because she was pregnant or because she wanted an abortion. You might want to interpret it that way, but the child was sectioned under Section 25 of the Mental Health Act because she was believed to have a mental disorder -

25.—(1) Where it appears to a health board with respect to a child who resides or is found in its functional area that—

(a) the child is suffering from a mental disorder, and

(b) the child requires treatment which he or she is unlikely to receive unless an order is made under this section,

then, the health board may make an application to the District Court (“the court”) for an order authorising the detention of the child in an approved centre.

The Order detaining the child was made several days earlier on the evidence of a consultant psychiatrist who reported that the child had a mental health disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act. The consultant psychiatrist was of the opinion that while the child was at risk of self harm and suicide as a result of the pregnancy, this could be managed by treatment and that termination of the pregnancy was not the solution for all of the child’s problems at that stage.

Whether a child is pregnant or not, they may still be detained according to Section 25 of the Mental Health Act if the consultant psychiatrist is of the opinion that they have a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act, and an application to have that Order overturned according to Section 3, is what this case was about. This case was not about abortion.

neonsofa · 15-06-2017 01:58PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know if I'd say it was amazing, it's perfectly understandable. It's also perfectly understandable the number of women who believe that they would have an abortion asap if they ever found themselves pregnant, until they find themselves in that situation, and then they aren't so sure at all, they're often ferociously conflicted and can change their minds and go either way or any way in the blink of an eye from one minute to the next. It's never been understandable to me at least when parents put their reputations before their children's welfare and try to force their pregnant child into a position where they are forced into having an abortion or else face being ostracised from their family, or the opposite of that - forcing their pregnant child into a position where they are forced to remain pregnant or risk being ostracised from their family.

.

This is an excellent point. I was pro choice (still am) and believed that if I ever found myself pregnant I would terminate, until it was confirmed I actually was pregnant and then I knew I couldn't do it. Despite the people telling me I was ruining my life, that I "had" so much potential, that they'd support my decisions (but realistically only if the decision was to terminate).

I am still pro choice, I personally didn't choose to terminate but that doesn't mean I don't think the option should be available. And as was mentioned in the thread previously, sometimes just knowing that you have real options available to you can bring solace and peace to the situation to allow a reasoned decision to be reached. If I became pregnant now (by some insane miracle given my single status :pac: ) I may find that a termination is the right decision for my family at this time and I may decide that this time it would be the right choice, you just never know until you're in the exact position and all the circumstances surrounding it, but again my stance is that I should at least have that CHOICE available to me, regardless of whichever decision I actually make.

Zubeneschamali · 15-06-2017 02:06PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This case was not about abortion.

Odd, then, that the title of the summary from the Child Care Law Reporting Project, sole source of all our information on this case is:

Order detaining pregnant girl seeking abortion discharged

Down in the body we learn:

... although an application was made in respect of the child’s right to travel, it was not necessary that the court consider the application under that ground...

In other words, the GAL had, up their sleeve, an application to have the girl released because her Constitutional right to travel for an abortion was being infringed, in case the judge didn't release her based on the 2nd psychiatrists evidence that she was not mentally ill.

Not about abortion my hole.

One eyed Jack · 15-06-2017 03:12PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Odd, then, that the title of the summary from the Child Care Law Reporting Project, sole source of all our information on this case is:

Order detaining pregnant girl seeking abortion discharged

Down in the body we learn:

... although an application was made in respect of the child’s right to travel, it was not necessary that the court consider the application under that ground...

In other words, the GAL had, up their sleeve, an application to have the girl released because her Constitutional right to travel for an abortion was being infringed, in case the judge didn't release her based on the 2nd psychiatrists evidence that she was not mentally ill.

Not about abortion my hole.

That would have been a separate case then?

Zubeneschamali · 15-06-2017 03:19PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would have been a separate case then?

Nope - the same hearing. The judge didn't have to consider that application because the application based on the 2nd psychiatrists opinion was successful, but it would have been the same case.

One eyed Jack · 15-06-2017 03:34PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nope - the same hearing. The judge didn't have to consider that application because the application based on the 2nd psychiatrists opinion was successful, but it would have been the same case.

What I mean is that the case as described in the report would have been a different case as the circumstances would have been different, and it wouldn't have reported that an application was being made to have it decided that the child need no longer be detained. A separate case being made that the child's right to travel was being infringed by her ongoing detainment.

The application to have the original order overturned wasn't just based on the second psychiatrists report though, it was based on the agreement of all parties concerned that the child no longer needed to be detained according to Section 3 of the same Act according to which she was detained in the first place (Section 25).

There was no mention of the POLDPA because abortion wasn't the issue, detainment was the issue, and that's why an application for the right to travel was not asked to be taken into consideration. The judge in the case would also have had to act in accordance with the law with regard to the 8th amendment if the POLDPA had been invoked, and that would have been a different set of circumstances which would have made it a different case again, as reported.

Outlaw Pete · 15-06-2017 04:57PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sigh. Except when I say they were, they were.

But AGAIN you move to generalized statements with no substance. Sigh.

No arguments, no citations, no examples, nothing I can point at and evaluate your comment as right or wrong. Sigh.

This is just an MO of yours when you have no content to offer. Sigh. You slip in generalized accusations with no substance..... so you can accuse me of things without actually directly accusing me of anything. Sigh.

When you slip back into "You always do...." "Youre always....." and can not offer any examples (even when asked) of what it is you are even talking about.... then you clearly got nothing. Sigh.

I am sure you can see from above how little that adds to anything.

Nope not what I am doing at all, just another of your generalized "always" nonsense. What I ALWAYS do in fact is when I find someone who is simply not getting my point, is I explain it better, with more length and examples and arguments and content and substance.

What you and your cohort Jack like to do is screech words like "waffle" back at me, so you can reply without ACTUALLY replying in any way, and then run away from the content of the post in question. Pretty Weak.

I come from a debating background. At school level, at college level, at competition level. I have debated in private, in competition settings, and before audiences. So yes, if I someone made a poor point, a poor analogy, or a poor misrepresentation of someone elses statements I would very much allocate time to pulling them on it.

I also come from a background of having escaped the Vime and Twitter and MTV generation and as such as I have a relatively superhuman attention span compared to many of my peers. What you bemoan as a "long" post is a bare flicker in my consciousness. I consume philosophical and medical and scientific tomes on a whim in a world where some people are worried that Twitter might extend their message length a bit and make them too much to read. So I am afraid I can not really apologize for being able to produce longer and more details responses to people than the one liner cop outs I all too often get in reply. I generally try (and take this in the spirit it was intended) to only reply to people on forums like this to people I credit with enough intelligence and concentration to be able to deal with it.

But as for the "half an hour" comment, I suspect you are underestimating just how fast I type. Probably by a factor of about 3 or 4 if I map the "half an hour" comment onto the post in question.

Or you could stop making this about ME in order to dodge replying to what I actually wrote? As I said earlier about two users, and I can include you as the third.... it is certainly VERY telling when someone runs away from WHAT you say and instead attacks HOW you say it. Observe how jack was left with no response other than to comment on my use of the CAPS button. That was literally all the reply he had left to offer, and you do no better here.

But as I said there is a MASSIVE difference in how we investigate the death of an infant to establish it WAS indeed "cot death" and no foul play, and how we investigate (or do not, as it generally is) the cause of miscarriage.

And I agree, and have said it to you not once but twice now, that this comparison of miscarriage and manslaughter is not MY point nor one I make or find useful.

But SOLELY in the context of people spouting the "abortion is murder" narrative it is a distinction that is worth highlighting to them as part of explaining to them what a complete nonsense that narrative actually is. When someone understands fully why we DO in fact treat miscarriage in a massively different way to finding a child dead in a bed......... they will then have the tools to begin to understand why the "abortion is murder" slogan is a nonsense.

And that is simply the distinction I think you missed when replying to "......." and which I highlighted to you in my first reply.

Except it IS the point and it DOES matter. It is the whole basis for the rebuttal of the "abortion with murder" narrative with the "miscarriage is manslaughter" counter narrative. That the latter is a nonsense is OBVIOUS. It is MEANT to be in the same way as Russels Teapot argument against god is MEANT to be a silly argument. It is contrived to be silly in order to highlight the silliness of the former.

Nope, I have ignored nothing and have replied to everything you have presented to me. You are making stuff up now. Again. As is your wont. And given I directly replied..........

....... to this section of your previous post your claim I "ignored" anything is on the face of it a clear and outright lie. Again the follow on point I made in that case is that what is interesting there is that investigation in one case is the NORM, while in the other case it is the EXCEPTION. And that is exactly the distinction I have been highlighting in ever point I have made since replying to your "......" reply.

Indeed, and I have read a lot of your posts on OTHER topics and have found no fault with any of them. You seem to have your head screwed on very well on many subjects. I do believe you and I even have an almost 1:1 identical taste in music to the point we even get similarly excited, like a young child on christmas morning, at the prospect of certain gigs we are about to go to.

But when it comes to the subject of abortion the wheels appear to come off and you go off on some of the most egregious nonsense I have seen on the forum and I have yet to discern where, why and how this is happening. And peoples rebuttals of your points on that topic, especially mine (it seems to me at least, there may be users who have a worse effect on you) seem to make you see red in a way that only lessens how much sense you make.

But even on this statemement we are very much in agreement IN GENERAL, though I reckon the boundry lines of WHERE that agreement lies very. Because I too find SOME abortions to be murder. If we abort a child at 39 weeks for example, I would be hard pressed indeed to describe that as anything BUT murder.

So we seem to agree SOME abortions are murder, but I get the impression you think any abortion after something LIKE (I am not sure, do not mean to put words or anything in your mouth here) 12ish weeks begins very much to qualify. Whereas I would only find my moral and ethical concerns being tested and pressured somewhere closer to the 20,22,24 area.

Again however I should repeat what I wrote just above in reference to Russels Teapot. A lot ( I can not speak for them all, but I feel most) of the people making this "miscarriages are manslaughter" comments are doing it KNOWING it is a ridiculous statement. But they are doing so to MIRROR the ridiculousness of the "abortion is murder" narrative. They are not saying it because they ACTUALLY THINK miscarriage is manslaughter but because they think it is an analagous nonsense that serves to shed light on the nonsense it is a reply to.

And the Russels Teapot is a good example of what I mean there. Or the Flying Spaghetti monster. No one (ok near almost no one, I am sure the rule of "there is always one" applies here too) actually thinks there is a FSM or a teapot........ but they bring it up to highlight how ridiculous is "Well have you any evidence there is NO god" approach to apologetics is. They are making an intentionally farcical and ridiculous statement in order to highlight the farce and ridicule of the original statement.

And the same as at play here. Mostly. As I said Jamiekelly's nonsense is a world apart on it's own and I do not include him in ANY of this. As another user said, his equation of miscarriage with neglect basically disqualified him from speaking with the grown ups.

What the hell are you on about man?

What has you debating at competition level got to do with anything?? And Jack is my cohort now? lol. As for asking for citations...are you serious? To back up a simple analogy? You've lost the run of yourself. Oh and any chance you could quit repeating expressions I use... it's what an eight year old does. As for the rest of your post....... NONE of it retorts the simple point I made by way of an analogy nor does it further your position (if you can even remember it at this stage) that it is logically consistent to consider miscarriage as manslaughter of a person if that person can sometimes see abortion as the murder of a person.

The reason my analogy of cot deaths is sound is because women have no culpability in either happening.... they are both tragic events that they would wished have not happened. How you can't see that is astonishing. You are going off on wild tangents to show the differences between cot deaths and miscarriages but they don't negate the analogy one iota. All you are doing is showing that the two things are not the same... but nobody said they were... an analogy only has to have partial similarity for it to be of relevance.

At this stage I wouldn't be surprised if you came back and said most cots are made of wood which have a coat of paint and there is neither paint nor wood in a woman's womb and therefore my analogy fails as a result. If you don't want to be accused of waffling.... then quit waffling would be my advice.

Now, whenever you want to explain (in as succinct and concise a way as you can possibly muster) how the hell it is logically consistent for people such as myself to see miscarriages as manslaughter given our beliefs.... the I'm all ears and would relish the discussion.... but if you post another long winded, convoluted wall of text which in no way retorts any point that I have made nor backs up the one made here by others which you have endorsed..... then I won't be replying to you.....and you can call that "running away" (as you are want to do) as much as you like... but it won't be accurate.

Samaris · 15-06-2017 06:37PM

Uh, I read JamieKelly's comment as sarcasm, more or less (not quite, but drawing the argument to a logical, if extreme, conclusion). "If you think abortion is murder, why isn't miscarriage manslaughter?"

Just to mention, because I think the guy is getting a bit more stick than he deserves. Red herring as it may well have been.

volchitsa · 15-06-2017 08:04PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What I mean is that the case as described in the report would have been a different case as the circumstances would have been different, and it wouldn't have reported that an application was being made to have it decided that the child need no longer be detained. A separate case being made that the child's right to travel was being infringed by her ongoing detainment.

The application to have the original order overturned wasn't just based on the second psychiatrists report though, it was based on the agreement of all parties concerned that the child no longer needed to be detained according to Section 3 of the same Act according to which she was detained in the first place (Section 25).

There was no mention of the POLDPA because abortion wasn't the issue, detainment was the issue, and that's why an application for the right to travel was not asked to be taken into consideration. The judge in the case would also have had to act in accordance with the law with regard to the 8th amendment if the POLDPA had been invoked, and that would have been a different set of circumstances which would have made it a different case again, as reported.

The problem here is that given that she didn't have a mental illness, it looks very much as though something that was described as irresponsible scaremongering during the POLDPA debate has in fact happened, namely that someone requested an abortion on grounds of suicide, as is her right, and then, this having been refused, was promptly interned on the same grounds.

Only it's hard not to suspect that (all other things being equal), if she hadn't requested an abortion, she would probably not have been interned?

volchitsa · 15-06-2017 08:12PM

neonsofa wrote: »

As a young teenager who was raising a baby it was not top priority in my life to be making complaints, rightly or wrongly, though I agree I should have. I was strong minded enough to be happy with my own decision and to disregard what I had discussed with them. Others may not have been. I did not say it put me personally under pressure, I just said it was my experience.

There is no need whatsoever to be rude. You responded to my post with a point that I did not understand in the context of what I had written, so if you would like for me to take your point on board then feel free to explain it further. Otherwise, it does your argument no favours to be making snide remarks and using sarcastic emojis when responding to people who just genuinely don't understand what you mean.

TBH a "young teenager" should probably not be raising a baby, statistically it's usually not a good outcome for them or for the baby. I'm sorry if you took that as pressure to abort, but I suspect it was not meant as such (as I said that's illegal in Ireland, under the 14th amendment iirc) but was more likely an attempt to discuss the situation logically with you.

neonsofa · 15-06-2017 08:40PM

volchitsa wrote: »

TBH a "young teenager" should probably not be raising a baby, statistically it's usually not a good outcome for them or for the baby. I'm sorry if you took that as pressure to abort, but I suspect it was not meant as such (as I said that's illegal in Ireland, under the 14th amendment iirc) but was more likely an attempt to discuss the situation logically with you.

Well thankfully we are not a statistic. Statistically, young parents don't go on to graduate- I did. Twice. Statistically the children of young parents don't do as well in school- grades are great and STEN scores are well above average. But more importantly we are just a happy family.

Once again, if you read the very post you have quoted, I didn't feel pressure, I just gave my own real experience in response to your hypothetical scenario. I was told exactly what I said in my post. That I couldn't continue with education and raise a child. Not that i shouldn't continue with the pregnancy as it would not be a good outcome statistically. And I don't know why you keep saying it's illegal as if that somehow changes what was said.

One eyed Jack · 15-06-2017 09:04PM

volchitsa wrote: »

The problem here is that given that she didn't have a mental illness, it looks very much as though something that was described as irresponsible scaremongering during the POLDPA debate has in fact happened, namely that someone requested an abortion on grounds of suicide, as is her right, and then, this having been refused, was promptly interned on the same grounds.

It was irresponsible scaremongering then, and it's irresponsible scaremongering now. If I was to speculate, I'd suggest that nobody involved in the case wanted it to be construed in terms of falling under the POLDPA as that would have been a proper head melt all round and would have undoubtedly made it into the media rather than another random case reported by an independent project (and the people reporting the cases do select them at random).

The consultant psychiatrist treating the girl was initially of the opinion that she had a mental disorder, and that a termination at that stage (it's important to note that we don't know what stage the girl was at in her pregnancy), would not have addressed all her problems. The inference there is that while she was suicidal and at risk of self harm, she did not meet the criteria for the POLDPA to be invoked as she was not an immediate risk of suicide, but that according to Section 25, she could be detained for treatment that she would not otherwise have received.

Only it's hard not to suspect that (all other things being equal), if she hadn't requested an abortion, she would probably not have been interned?

True, it's not hard to suspect it at least, but, knowing that children can be detained according to the act, and knowing that the State having the power to remove children from the family home if they are at risk and taken into care, ie - not even needing to invoke the mental health act to detain a child against theirs or their parents wishes, I personally wouldn't be given to suspecting that the initial application to detain the child was made with the intent to prevent her from availing of an abortion when the consultant psychiatrist had already decided that it wouldn't have helped her.

The same psychiatrist then agreeing with the consultant psychiatrist employed by the girls GAL only a few days later in an application to have the child released from detention would suggest that they weren't too pushed at all about an abortion, but were rather more concerned with the child being treated properly for suicidal ideation and all the other problems that were alluded to in their report.

volchitsa · 15-06-2017 09:40PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was irresponsible scaremongering then, and it's irresponsible scaremongering now. If I was to speculate, I'd suggest that nobody involved in the case wanted it to be construed in terms of falling under the POLDPA as that would have been a proper head melt all round and would have undoubtedly made it into the media rather than another random case reported by an independent project (and the people reporting the cases do select them at random).

The consultant psychiatrist treating the girl was initially of
the opinion that she had a mental disorder, and that a termination at that stage (it's important to note that we don't know what stage the girl was at in her pregnancy), would not have addressed all her problems. The inference there is that while she was suicidal and at risk of self harm, she did not meet the criteria for the POLDPA to be invoked as she was not an immediate risk of suicide, but that according to Section 25, she could be detained for treatment that she would not otherwise have received.

True, it's not hard to suspect it at least, but, knowing that children can be detained according to the act, and knowing that the State having the power to remove children from the family home if they are at risk and taken into care, ie - not even needing to invoke the mental health act to detain a child against theirs or their parents wishes, I personally wouldn't be given to suspecting that the initial application to detain the child was made with the intent to prevent her from availing of an abortion when the consultant psychiatrist had already decided that it wouldn't have helped her.

The same psychiatrist then agreeing with the consultant psychiatrist employed by the girls GAL only a few days later in an application to have the child released from detention would suggest that they weren't too pushed at all about an abortion, but were rather more concerned with the child being treated properly for suicidal ideation and all the other problems that were alluded to in their report.

I'm not sure I can follow the logic of that, it seems frankly implausible to me.

You realize people don't have to be detailed against their will for in-patient treatment?

Sectioning children in all but the most extreme circumstances is a truly shocking thing to do : was voluntary admission really not possible?

And how come the mother wasn't on board to give her consent, as next of kin? Because sectioning here means without the next of kin's consent - and the mother wasn't mentally ill, was she? So it can't have been made necessary because the person was too unwell to consent.

And of course the child's state apparently wasn't all that bad anyway, since they were allowed travel to Dublin together, where they believed they were going for a termination.

It's very hard to see how basic human rights have been respected in this, never mind acceptable medical practice.

One eyed Jack · 15-06-2017 10:13PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not sure I can follow the logic of that, it seems frankly implausible to me.

You realize people don't have to be detailed against their will for in-patient treatment?

Sectioning children in all but the most extreme circumstances is a truly shocking thing to do : was voluntary admission really not possible?

Is it not plausible that these were extreme and shocking circumstances, just that we're not privy to the evidence that was presented to the Court to obtain the initial order for detainment?

And how come the mother wasn't on board to give her consent, as next of kin? Because sectioning here means without the next of kin's consent - and the mother wasn't mentally ill, was she? So it can't have been made necessary because the person was too unwell to consent.

Given that the child in question had a guardian ad litem already appointed by the Court, they would be acting as an advocate for the child's welfare, so while it's always better to have the parents on board with any decisions taken regarding the child's welfare, it's not absolutely necessary from a legal point of view either.

And of course the child's state apparently wasn't all that bad anyway, since they were allowed travel to Dublin together, where they believed they were going for a termination.

We'd only be speculating about the child's mental state and how she and her mother were transported to Dublin, her mental state was such that the initial consultant psychiatrist made an application to have the child detained. When they got there it's understandable that they would have been severely agitated believing that they had been misled.

It's very hard to see how basic human rights have been respected in this, never mind acceptable medical practice.

That's because you're either unwilling to, or purposely ignoring the fact that the child was initially diagnosed with having a mental disorder, so an application was made to the Courts to have her detained. You're also either unwilling to, or ignoring the fact that no one person would or could have made the decision to detain the child on their own.

volchitsa · 15-06-2017 10:37PM

No, again, this simply doesn't make sense.

For example, the idea that a child or young teenager could suddenly develop such a severe mental illness that she needed to be sectioned, but without informing her mother is more than just an unfortunate event, it's just crazy.

TBH you're simply making stuff up here to make it fit with your beliefs. But the mother is still the guardian, the GAL doesn't replace her for normal decisions, it's only after the child is sectioned that the GAL is named to ensure her interests within the system..

So the initial decision to section cannot have been made by the GAL, who only came into the story after that.

The decision to commit should be done the doctor with the next of kin's consent and only if no voluntary admission can be achieved. It's very hard to see how that could have been even attempted if the mother wasn't aware of what was going on.

And as for the idea that a teenager might suddenly develop such a mental illness but that this might then just "go away" leaving no need for close psychiatric supervision in the foreseeable future is just mad, frankly.

One eyed Jack · 15-06-2017 10:51PM

volchitsa wrote: »

No, again, this simply doesn't make sense.

For example, the idea that a child or young teenager could suddenly develop such a severe mental illness that she needed to be sectioned, but without informing her mother is more than just an unfortunate event, it's just crazy.

TBH you're simply making stuff up here to make it fit with your beliefs. But the mother is still the guardian, the GAL doesn't replace her for normal decisions, it's only after the child is sectioned that the GAL is named to ensure her interests within the system..

So the initial decision to section cannot have been made by the GAL, who only came into the story after that.

The decision to commit should be done the doctor with the next of kin's consent and only if no voluntary admission can be achieved. It's very hard to see how that could have been even attempted if the mother wasn't aware of what was going on.

And as for the idea that a teenager might suddenly develop such a mental illness but that this might then just "go away" leaving no need for close psychiatric supervision in the foreseeable future is just mad, frankly.

Touché, surely?

As in - haven't you just done exactly the same thing?

Without knowing the exact details, as none of us are privy to the specifics, of course anything we suggest here is merely speculation.

To be honest, I thought I was going to have to dive for cover when you did the same thing with this post -

volchitsa wrote: »

TBH a "young teenager" should probably not be raising a baby, statistically it's usually not a good outcome for them or for the baby. I'm sorry if you took that as pressure to abort, but I suspect it was not meant as such (as I said that's illegal in Ireland, under the 14th amendment iirc) but was more likely an attempt to discuss the situation logically with you.

If that's not making stuff up to make it fit with your beliefs, I don't know what is!

volchitsa · 15-06-2017 11:12PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Touché, surely?

As in - haven't you just done exactly the same thing?

Without knowing the exact details, as none of us are privy to the specifics, of course anything we suggest here is merely speculation.

Well of course, but when it's based on things that are contrary to known facts or the law, then that's different. Such as your claim that the GAL could make it unnecessary to even inform the mother that her daughter was to be sectioned.

One eyed Jack · 15-06-2017 11:36PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Well of course, but when it's based on things that are contrary to known facts or the law, then that's different. Such as your claim that the GAL could make it unnecessary to even inform the mother that her daughter was to be sectioned.

How is that contrary to law exactly? The GAL doesn't answer to the parents, they answer to the Courts, and they are responsible for representing the interests of the child, not the parents. They make recommendations to the Courts in respect of the child, which may or may not conflict with the wishes of the parents, but as I said earlier - it's better if the parents are on board with any decisions that are made in the interests of the child, but they don't necessarily have to be informed.

Widdershins · 16-06-2017 12:01AM

Was the girl known to social services/any kind of mental health team before she first sought the abortion?

Was this GAL only assigned to her after she sought the abortion?

volchitsa · 16-06-2017 12:07AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How is that contrary to law exactly? The GAL doesn't answer to the parents, they answer to the Courts, and they are responsible for representing the interests of the child, not the parents. They make recommendations to the Courts in respect of the child, which may or may not conflict with the wishes of the parents,

At what stage in the process was the GAL appointed?

Do the parents not have to be kept informed up until the point where their legal responsibility is removed from them?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but as I said earlier - it's better if the parents are on board with any decisions that are made in the interests of the child, but they don't necessarily have to be informed.

Evidence that parents (not suspected of abuse etc) are no longer kept informed of significant decisions made regarding their child after the nomination of a GAL please?

Keeping someone informed is not the same as getting their consent, right?

Why would they not keep the mother informed, unless there was a suspicion about her - but since the mother was trusted to take the child to Dublin, that can't be the case.

One eyed Jack · 16-06-2017 12:57AM

volchitsa wrote: »

At what stage in the process was the GAL appointed?

Do the parents not have to be kept informed up until the point where their legal responsibility is removed from them?

The GAL was appointed in the initial case when the order was made to have the child detained.

No, because the GAL as I said isn't answerable to the parents, they're answerable only to the Courts.

Evidence that parents (not suspected of abuse etc) are no longer kept informed of significant decisions made regarding their child after the nomination of a GAL please?

Given that a GAL was also appointed by the Court to represent the interests of the unborn child in this case, I'd suggest that would meet the criteria you require?

The judge said that the District Court judge [who heard the initial application] had applied all of the protective factors of the Child Care Act 1991 by appointing a GAL for the young girl. The judge also noted that a GAL had been appointed for the unborn child in accordance with the case law in the High Court. The judge finally noted that the views of the child were heard through the evidence of the GAL and the report of the GAL.

Keeping someone informed is not the same as getting their consent, right?

Right?

Why would they not keep the mother informed, unless there was a suspicion about her - but since the mother was trusted to take the child to Dublin, that can't be the case.

Unless someone was fcuking with the sat nav or she just had a very poor sense of direction, I would suggest that the mother wasn't in the driving seat when her daughter was brought to the location where she would be detained.

wonderfullife · 16-06-2017 02:51AM

volchitsa wrote: »

And as for the idea that a teenager might suddenly develop such a mental illness but that this might then just "go away" leaving no need for close psychiatric supervision in the foreseeable future is just mad, frankly.

This is factually nonsense.

"This criteria is that someone has to be suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants your detention in a hospital for assessment or treatment and that you ought to be detained in the interests of your own health, your own safety or with a view to the protection of others."

The law ^ specifically allows for people to be sectioned for assessment if the presenting psychiatrist deems it necessary.

So, yes, it's very common for someone to be sectioned and to be released within days on appeal when subsequent opinions rule out acute mental illness.

You're also factually wrong that acute mental illness doesn't just "go away".

By that I mean the following - a person could be sectioned due to acute psychosis, for example, caused by underlying bipolar/schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The episode may last minutes or hours. They can (and are) regularly discharged from Section 25 rather quickly because treating psychosis is best achieved using CBT, anti-psychosis medication and the like at home.

I.e. the acute nature of the illness subsides and treatment shifts to the home/GP/psychologist, as opposed to detention.

Look, I'm not saying this girl presented with an acute mental illness. I don't know and you don't know. You weren't sitting 4 feet from her in a chair talking to her and neither was I.

What I do know is this psychiatrist had her sectioned based not just on suicidal ideation.

Further, I see a lot of drivel being posted about what constitutes a sectionable acute mental illness. Contrary to popular belief, a person with *depression* can absolutely be sectioned under section 25, if the nature of the depression gives cause for the person's immediate well-being.

Not all suicidal people are depressed. Not all suicidal people are sectioned.

But it can and does happen on a case-by-case basis.

There's a frightening amount of armchair mental health experts diagnosing this girl from circumstantial accounts of this incident. Leave the actual diagnosing to professionals.

volchitsa · 16-06-2017 07:23AM

I think neither of the posters p above have any actual experience of dealing with mental health services.

A person isn't (supposed to to be) sectioned unless there is no alternative - and voluntary admission is one of those alternatives. So why wasn't the mother, as the person who could give consent, asked for her consent?

Second, mental illness doesn't just "go away" and when the symptoms do go, the person isn't just sent home "cured" - it's not like that. They have to be carefully supervised - going home could trigger the illness again. Even when it's under control - and a first attack isn't just "dealt with and out the door". Later recurrences of a diagnosed illness may be different - but this was a teenager with a first attack of an apparently serious problem. I don't believe any sensible psych unit would just let her go home with no further follow up after just a few days,

Sectioning someone, with the trauma that risks causing, only to decide a few days later, that she's ok after all and just letting her out, makes no sense at all compared to the precautions I saw being taken over a family member who was sectioned twice. One of the times was from the A&E department after a fall, and they decided they couldn't handle her, so sent her from there to a psychiatric unit (the fall was because of her manic behaviour) but we were always kept informed.

And since this was an adult it wasn't our role to give consent, but for a minor to be sectioned without the parents being informed just makes no sense to me.

One eyed Jack · 16-06-2017 07:51AM

volchitsa wrote: »

I think neither of the posters p above have any actual experience of dealing with mental health services.

...

And since this was an adult it wasn't our role to give consent, but for a minor to be sectioned without the parents being informed just makes no sense to me.

You'll make it make sense though, to fit with your beliefs, just like you did when you told neonsofa you suspect that whoever told her she should have an abortion or else she would have to give up her education... was only trying to discuss the situation logically with her!

neonsofa was there, she knows what went on and what was said to her and the way it was said to her far better than you do, well of course she does because she knows what happened whereas you took her account and put a different spin on it to fit with your own beliefs!

I'll tell you straight out I have no experience whatsoever of attempting to "discuss the situation logically" with a child or a woman experiencing crisis pregnancy. I have plenty of experience supporting them in whatever decisions they themselves make about their future though, because that's what support means, not foisting your own ideology on someone leaving them feeling even less in control and more uncertain and fearful of their future.

I don't even declare anything triumphantly.

volchitsa · 16-06-2017 08:02AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You'll make it make sense though, to fit with your beliefs, just like you did when you told neonsofa you suspect that whoever told her she should have an abortion or else she would have to give up her education... was only trying to discuss the situation logically with her!

neonsofa was there, she knows what went on and what was said to her and the way it was said to her far better than you do, well of course she does because she knows what happened whereas you took her account and put a different spin on it to fit with your own beliefs!

I'll tell you straight out I have no experience whatsoever of attempting to "discuss the situation logically" with a child or a woman experiencing crisis pregnancy. I have plenty of experience supporting them in whatever decisions they themselves make about their future though, because that's what support means, not foisting your own ideology on someone leaving them feeling even less in control and more uncertain and fearful of their future.

I don't even declare anything triumphantly.

Neonsofa said she was "a young teenager bringing up a baby" : 13 or 14 year olds are grand to be bringing up babies now are they? If she'd decided she wanted to leave school would a sensible person "support her in her decision" without pointing out the consequences? Really? There's a reason why young teenagers don't get to make life changing decisions all by themselves.

But suddenly because it's a pregnancy, everything changes - but the person doesn't change, so you're simply applying your beliefs around fertilization being a new person (which is basically a religious belief, just to get back to your claim earlier that I was having a go at religion) and not treating this as you would any other life changing decision the child wanted to make.

But that's just your belief, nothing else. So no, you would not be supporting her properly IMO.

And as for the claim that this incitement is "support", it's further undermined by the fact that you're discussing it as part of your defence of a pregnant child having been sectioned without her next of kin even being informed, and that child turning out not to be mentally ill at all. IOW, your belief is that pretty much anything can be done to keep the child pregnant, but you want to pretend that manipulating her into agreeing to do so is "support". It isn't

gctest50 · 16-06-2017 08:13AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.......I have plenty of experience supporting them in whatever decisions they themselves make about their future though, .

plenty ?

Once ? Twice ? plenty?

neonsofa · 16-06-2017 08:13AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You'll make it make sense though, to fit with your beliefs, just like you did when you told neonsofa you suspect that whoever told her she should have an abortion or else she would have to give up her education... was only trying to discuss the situation logically with her!

neonsofa was there, she knows what went on and what was said to her and the way it was said to her far better than you do, well of course she does because she knows what happened whereas you took her account and put a different spin on it to fit with your own beliefs!

I'll tell you straight out I have no experience whatsoever of attempting to "discuss the situation logically" with a child or a woman experiencing crisis pregnancy. I have plenty of experience supporting them in whatever decisions they themselves make about their future though, because that's what support means, not foisting your own ideology on someone leaving them feeling even less in control and more uncertain and fearful of their future.

I don't even declare anything triumphantly.

Tbh OEJ, for that poster it was completely within the realms of possibility for a Catholic person to try and coerce a vulnerable girl to keep a baby, but when she was presented with the fact that a pro choice person did exactly the same thing but on the opposite side, suddenly the legalities of such were brought into question, and it was assumed that I was the one not understanding what was said or who felt pressure, and that the person was "trying to speak logically" to me, and that I shouldn't have actually been raising a baby because "statistically" that won't be the right choice.

So much for choice right?! Isn't being pro choice supposed to be about respecting the pregnant persons choice, respecting that they know their own bodies, respecting that they are capable of deciding what is best for themselves (or in the case of younger people, with the help-not coercion- of a mature support network). So why suddenly when my choice was to keep the baby, that respect is suddenly not warranted and anybody trying to impose their own believes is viewed to be "talking logically to me" and trying to help me make the right choice "statistically". You could equally apply those to the catholic person discussing the abortion and the realities of such with a girl who then decides to continue with the pregnancy, but that poster deemed that to be unacceptable- which I agree it would be.

volchitsa · 16-06-2017 08:29AM

neonsofa wrote: »

Tbh OEJ, for that poster it was completely within the realms of possibility for a Catholic person to try and coerce a vulnerable girl to keep a baby, but when she was presented with the fact that a pro choice person did exactly the same thing but on the opposite side, suddenly the legalities of such were brought into question, and it was assumed that I was the one not understanding what was said or who felt pressure, and that the person was "trying to speak logically" to me, and that I shouldn't have actually been raising a baby because "statistically" that won't be the right choice.

So much for choice right?! Isn't being pro choice supposed to be about respecting the pregnant persons choice, respecting that they know their own bodies, respecting that they are capable of deciding what is best for themselves (or in the case of younger people, with the help-not coercion- of a mature support network). So why suddenly when my choice was to keep the baby, that respect is suddenly not warranted and anybody trying to impose their own believes is viewed to be "talking logically to me" and trying to help me make the right choice "statistically". You could equally apply those to the catholic person discussing the abortion and the realities of such with a girl who then decides to continue with the pregnancy, but that poster deemed that to be unacceptable- which I agree it would be.

Not sure if you mean me there, but just to be quite clear, I completely agree that a pregnant woman who wants to continue her pregnancy should be supported in that choice, no question.

Where there is a question is with young teenagers ie children under the age of consent to have sex and not judged old enough to make major decisions about their lives.

Now (and it's shocking to have to say this, but given that we're discussing a girl who was sectioned, most likely abusively) with the proviso that I'd never want to see that leading to physical coercion of any sort, I don't see any real difference in a decision about a pregnancy as I would about any other such decision. There may be cases when it's the right decision, but those are the exception, not the rule.

If a young teen wished to get married or to leave school to go travelling, or to drink herself to oblivion every night, the role of the adults around her is not to say "Off you go then, I'll support you." The only reason pregnancy is treated differently in Ireland is because of traditional Prolife views about the fetus.

neonsofa · 16-06-2017 08:41AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure if you mean me there, but just to be quite clear, I completely agree that a pregnant woman who wants to continue her pregnancy should be supported in that choice, no question.

Where there is a question is with young teenagers ie children under the age of consent to have sex and not judged old enough to make major decisions about their lives.

Now (and it's shocking to have to say this, but given that we're discussing a girl who was sectioned, most likely abusively) with the proviso that I'd never want to see that leading to physical coercion of any sort, I don't see any real difference in a decision about a pregnancy as I would about any other such decision. There may be cases when it's the right decision, but those are the exception, not the rule.

If a young teen wished to get married or to leave school to go travelling, or to drink herself to oblivion every night, the role of the adults around her is not to say "Off you go then, I'll support you." The only reason pregnancy is treated differently in Ireland is because of traditional Prolife views about the fetus.

Traditional pro life views about the fetus? I'm pro choice and anti church. I am advocating pro choice views, not just when I view the choice as the right one-"statistically"- but when it is the choice of the person experiencing the pregnancy.

Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Comments