Rights of the Parent vs rights of the child

Biggins · 19-11-2010 09:30PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

...Agree with your legal point, Biggins, but I disagree with the law on that.

On the second point, I think the HSE have the moral high ground.

Well, its your right to disagree on somethings.
However glad to see we both think the HSE is doing the right thing.

Hogzy · 19-11-2010 09:30PM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I never care about the parents faiths. They can believe what they want, I will respect that. But the child(ren) should not suffer. Those twins needed that blood transfusion to live. Science and religion will always be arch enemies. But having studied in a medical field and as a mother I cannot see how someone could allow their child die for anything.

And the idiocy statement is directed at ALL parents who choose anything over their child!

Agreed, i thought you were refering to their religious choices as being stupid.

@Biggins,

I cant agree. The more and more modern case law i read i see Judges weighing in the interests of the child more and more. While i agree with you that no positive legislation exists to copper fasten the childs/unmarried father's rights.
Im not saying though that the judges influence is enough. There does need to be some serious overhaul/update of Child rights legislation. Rights of the child seems to be a MASSIVE area where people are focusing their PHD's at the moment so give it another few years (and a new government) and i can see things smoothing out.

Although usually in this country the Joe Duffy callers get their issues sorted out first. It will probably take some huge injustice to a child/unmarried father to suffer before people sit up and listen.

Lab_Mouse · 19-11-2010 09:30PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Newsflash: There are precautions one can take to minimise ones risk of HIV transmission !

Thats the important word there.I wouldnt risk it.Date some one for a few weeks and then just before you hop into bed that bombshell is dropped!eh no offense but eh no.

Mike 1972 · 19-11-2010 09:32PM

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Date some one for a few weeks and then just before you hop into bed that bombshell is dropped!eh no offense but eh no.

So how do people youve been dating for a few weeks react when you insist on them going for an HIV test ?

Granted this might be a somewhat more common scenario in some countries with a higher level of HIV prevalence/awareness

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Until the kid plops out, it's her body, her choice.

Dont want to sidetrack the thread into a Pro Choice/Pro Life debate but the "Until the kid plops out" bit is a rather extreme position. When it comes to abortion most people on the pro choice side of the debate accept some kind of term limit.

southsiderosie · 19-11-2010 09:33PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Until the kid plops out, it's her body, her choice.

But the problem is the manner in which the kid "plops out" will affect its chances of catching HIV. A planned c-section lowers the chances of transmission significantly. And the HSE injunction is over the issue of treating the child once it is born.

The one thing I don't understand is, how are these injunctions actually enforced? How will they know if the woman gives the baby its medication? How will they know if she does or doesn't breastfeed?

Lab_Mouse · 19-11-2010 09:37PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So how do people youve been dating for a few weeks react when you insist on them going for an HIV test ?

Its normaly 'you can roide me now or fuk off'.

Hogzy · 19-11-2010 09:39PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Any person who chooses faith over the welfare of their child is an absolute idiot. Your comment is OTT in fairness and extremely insulting to people of any religion, any race, any sex, any nationality and any person who has the ability to string two words together.

As i said above i thought he was refering to the parents choice of religion being stupid.
In Ireland if the parents religious choices interfere with the childs life the state will step in. It has happened before in the courts.
However if the subject is relatively trivial then the courts cannot step in. For example parents refusing a PKU test on religious grounds.

Biggins · 19-11-2010 09:39PM

Hogzy wrote: »

@Biggins,

I cant agree. The more and more modern case law i read i see Judges weighing in the interests of the child more and more. While i agree with you that no positive legislation exists to copper fasten the childs/unmarried father's rights.
Im not saying though that the judges influence is enough. There does need to be some serious overhaul/update of Child rights legislation. Rights of the child seems to be a MASSIVE area where people are focusing their PHD's at the moment so give it another few years (and a new government) and i can see things smoothing out.

Although usually in this country the Joe Duffy callers get their issues sorted out first. It will probably take some huge injustice to a child/unmarried father to suffer before people sit up and listen.

I don't see where you disagree with me?

I agree with what you've said above!

I am/was saying that proper clarifications by now should be laid down within law so that these such occasions should not have to arise and a rush to courts happen.
If the legal guidelines were already sorted or even better defined, the matters would be taken out of the daily/weekly/etc judges hands and out of further PHD heads consecutively also.
A similar (or this matter) would have been sorted much easier earlier - and probably with less public/media attention too.

(You get my 17,000 post by the way!)

Mike 1972 · 19-11-2010 09:42PM

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Its normaly 'you can roide me now or fuk off'.

And you normally/always pick the latter option right ?

Donkey Oaty · 19-11-2010 09:43PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Dont want to sidetrack the thread into a Pro Choice/Pro Life debate but the "Until the kid plops out" bit is a rather extreme position. When it comes to abortion most people on the pro choice side of the debate accept some kind of term limit.

It's an important point, Mike, and it deserves discussion - another thread, perhaps?

Hogzy · 19-11-2010 09:44PM

Biggins wrote: »

I don't see where you disagree with me?
I agree with what you've said above!

Read over your post again. Misread it the first time. I though you were saying that NOTHING was being done for childrens rights. I was merely pointing out that nothing is going on at Governmental level but elsewhere there is progress.

(You get my 17,000 post by the way!)

Honoured :pac:

Donkey Oaty · 19-11-2010 09:47PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

But the problem is the manner in which the kid "plops out" will affect its chances of catching HIV. A planned c-section lowers the chances of transmission significantly. And the HSE injunction is over the issue of treating the child once it is born.

The one thing I don't understand is, how are these injunctions actually enforced? How will they know if the woman gives the baby its medication? How will they know if she does or doesn't breastfeed?

My concern is with the rights of the mother before she gives birth, which - by definition - cease to exist once the baby is born.

The "plops out" terminology was a bit flippant and crass, and sorry if it lowered the tone of what is a very serious issue.

wolfpawnat · 19-11-2010 09:52PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Wolf, you are talking about two different scenarios. In the first case, I would argue that the woman should have 100% say, but not in the second case.

Tragic and difficult cases all round, and my heart goes out to anyone who has to make these decisions.

How are they 2 different scenarios

In both cases they are choosing something they believe themselves (be it religion or bad internet bs) over the lives of the lives of their children!

Donkey Oaty · 19-11-2010 09:58PM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

How are they 2 different scenarios

In both cases they are choosing something they believe themselves (be it religion or bad internet bs) over the lives of the lives of their children!

I see your point, but the first case has an impact on the mother's body and the second case doesn't.

southsiderosie · 19-11-2010 10:04PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

My concern is with the rights of the mother before she gives birth, which - by definition - cease to exist once the baby is born.

The "plops out" terminology was a bit flippant and crass, and sorry if it lowered the tone of what is a very serious issue.

Well I see two issues.

First, the actual act of childbirth - whose rights are paramount then? In normal situations, often the doctor will make the call to have a c-section, even if the mother wanted a natural birth, if there is a potential health risk to the child (breeched, cord wrapped around its neck, etc). So in this case, I think it is clear that, given precedent, the doctors have a right to demand a c-section. But I think the issue here is that the woman won't schedule it, and once the baby sets itself in motion, all bets are off. I can't see the state arresting the mother and taking her to the maternity ward, so what are the other options?

As for the rights of the mother, I think that the government can make a strong claim that HIV-positive women who become pregnant forfeit some of their individual health rights because of their status. But that is a slippery slope: where do we draw the line? What about women with other serious diseases, or couples who have a risk of transmitting genetic disorders to their children? One would home that people would use common sense, but as this case shows, not everyone has it.

wolfpawnat · 19-11-2010 10:11PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I see your point, but the first case has an impact on the mother's body and the second case doesn't.

Well c-sections are common place in the modern world, ANY high risk pregnancy is usually a section, HIV positive patients fall into this category. It is best for mum and baby. HIV patients are more likely to catch infections as a result of a less able immune system.

The placenta can tear apart in the uterus, if it does not all come out in the after birth the mother would be dead in days! In a c-section it is a sterile procedure and the whole placenta can be removed safely leaving the mother in a safer position too. And as regards the scar, a scar on the stomach, it is easier to look after than scars below

Donkey Oaty · 19-11-2010 10:14PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well I see two issues.

First, the actual act of childbirth - whose rights are paramount then? In normal situations, often the doctor will make the call to have a c-section, even if the mother wanted a natural birth, if there is a potential health risk to the child (breeched, cord wrapped around its neck, etc). So in this case, I think it is clear that, given precedent, the doctors have a right to demand a c-section. But I think the issue here is that the woman won't schedule it, and once the baby sets itself in motion, all bets are off. I can't see the state arresting the mother and taking her to the maternity ward, so what are the other options?

As for the rights of the mother, I think that the government can make a strong claim that HIV-positive women who become pregnant forfeit some of their individual health rights because of their status. But that is a slippery slope: where do we draw the line? What about women with other serious diseases, or couples who have a risk of transmitting genetic disorders to their children? One would home that people would use common sense, but as this case shows, not everyone has it.

Very interesting point you make in the first para - I wasn't aware that doctors could reduce the risks to the about-to-be-born child by overriding the mother's wishes for giving birth.

I totally agree with sentiments of your last sentence, and it's the problem for all government legislation and guidelines on these issues: where to intervene?

Donkey Oaty · 19-11-2010 10:17PM

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Well c-sections are common place in the modern world, ANY high risk pregnancy is usually a section, HIV positive patients fall into this category. It is best for mum and baby. HIV patients are more likely to catch infections as a result of a less able immune system.

The placenta can tear apart in the uterus, if it does not all come out in the after birth the mother would be dead in days! In a c-section it is a sterile procedure and the whole placenta can be removed safely leaving the mother in a safer position too. And as regards the scar, a scar on the stomach, it is easier to look after than scars below

I don't disagree with what you say.

I just think that a patient/mother should be allowed to refuse treatment if that is what they want.

Chuchoter · 19-11-2010 10:23PM

Abortion debate and rights to your body have no place in this argument. She did not have an abortion. She has carried it to term and is now refusing to keep it safe for no obvious reason. It is not like they are asking her to cut off her arm, they are asking her for routine surgery.

Biggins · 19-11-2010 10:26PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I just think that a patient/mother should be allowed to refuse treatment if that is what they want.

I would agree with you also on that point - however - and I just mention this for further consideration, I think the mental capabilities of the parent involved should also be taken into account.

I'm absolutely not saying that in this case the mother is stupid but she MIGHT be of poor mental condition as to be perceived (by professional others alone) to be making some wrong decisions.
Decisions that on the whole other mothers would differ from and more likely agree was in the better interests of the child.

I don't know the finer details of this case as I'm sure some/a lot(?) are being held back for good reasons(s), I only mention the above as just one possibility.
I'm sure there are others.

Donkey Oaty · 19-11-2010 10:32PM

Biggins wrote: »

I would agree with you also on that point - however - and I just mention this for further consideration, I think the mental capabilities of the parent involved should also be taken into account.

Yes - that could well be part of the case.

If they decide she is incapable of making rational decisions, they can carry out procedures for the good of her health which in mental health terms no doubt will include what is best for the baby.

Chuchoter · 19-11-2010 10:32PM

Biggins wrote: »

I would agree with you also on that point - however - and I just mention this for further consideration, I think the mental capabilities of the parent involved should also be taken into account.

I'm absolutely not saying that in this case the mother is stupid but she MIGHT be of poor mental condition as to be perceived (by professional others alone) to be making some wrong decisions.
Decisions that on the whole other mothers would differ from and more likely agree was in the better interests of the child.

I don't know the finer details of this case as I'm sure some/a lot(?) are being held back for good reasons(s), I only mention the above as just one possibility.
I'm sure there are others.

Exactly, for instance schizophrenic mothers can be brought under the control of the court if they are pregnant and no co-operating. It came up in Health Sciences recently.

Terry · 19-11-2010 10:36PM

Hogzy wrote: »

Its not because of the parents idiocy. Its because of their religious choices. Your comment is OTT in fairness and extremely insulting to people who choose that faith.

EDIT: Im refering to J. Witnesses refusing a blood transfusion.

When it comes to faith, I'm of the opinion that sane government legislation should over-rule any archaic belief system.
Religion has no place in government, or in medical treatment for that matter.

Mike 1972 · 19-11-2010 10:44PM

Terry wrote: »

When it comes to faith, I'm of the opinion that sane government legislation should over-rule any archaic belief system.
Religion has no place in government, or in medical treatment for that matter.

Id agree with you to a point anyway.

If an otherwise mentally competent adult is determined to endanger their own health/life with their own stupidity than nobody has any business stopping them but it doesnt give them the right to endanger their children/other family members.

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

who the fuk would ride someone with hiv?

To be fair becoming sexually involved with someone I knew to be HIV positive is something I would be highly wary about doing but Im not going to pass judgment on someone else who does so having clued themselves in on the levels of risk and means of minimising same.

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

It's an important point, Mike, and it deserves discussion - another thread, perhaps?

Pro life/choice threads have a frequent tendency to quickly develop into a trainwreck so depending on my mood and how it goes Ill probably stay on the sidelines.

Donkey Oaty · 19-11-2010 10:52PM

Sorry, but I've misunderstood some parts of the story, and I think some other people have as well.

Here's how I see it now.

Lady is going to have baby.

HSE thinks certain ARV drugs are good for her baby, and they'll give them to the baby once it is born.

Lady disagrees, and goes to court for the right for her kid not to be given the drugs.

Meanwhile, doctors say it's in the baby's best interests to be born by elective Ceaesarean on Monday.

Lady does not agree to that, but says she'll have it next Friday - giving the court time to decide whether or not the ARV drugs have to be administered.

One way or another, the baby will be born - but without the drugs, the HSE say the baby is likely to have HIV.

The question is, does the lady have the right to refuse to have a Ceasarean on Monday? I can see why she shouldn't refuse, but the question is whether she should be forced to have it.

southsiderosie · 19-11-2010 10:55PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Id agree with you to a point anyway.

If an otherwise mentally competent adult is determined to endanger their own health/life with their own stupidity than nobody has any business stopping them but it doesnt give them the right to endanger their children/other family members.

So should it be mandatory for HIV-positive women to take anti-retroviral drugs while pregnant? They reduce the odds of transmission.

Mike 1972 · 19-11-2010 10:58PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Meanwhile, doctors say it's in the baby's best interests to be born by elective Ceaesarean on Monday.......Lady does not agree to that, but says she'll have it next Friday

Pregnant women know a week in advance when theyre going into labour

southsiderosie · 19-11-2010 11:05PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Pregnant women know a week in advance when theyre going into labour

If you know you are having a c-section, doctors will schedule it.

Donkey Oaty · 19-11-2010 11:06PM

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Pregnant women know a week in advance when theyre going into labour

Not in my experience - but I take your word for it!

The Irish Times only tells us that the mother-to-be is:

is in the latter stages of pregnancy

...but the doctors think it is the best interests of the child if a ceaesarian is done on Monday.

Monday was already a “compromise” date and, “on balance, this baby can’t wait,” she added.

Terry · 19-11-2010 11:11PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

So should it be mandatory for HIV-positive women to take anti-retroviral drugs while pregnant? They reduce the odds of transmission.

Without a doubt.
Bringing a child into the world with the knowledge that it will be dependant on medication for the rest of its life is cruel and selfish.

I'm not talking eugenics here. I'm not suggesting for one second that people only have children who will live to be 100 and never get cancer, or be born autistic or anything of the sort.
My point is that HIV is a known quantity, and if someone with HIV wants to have a child, then every precaution should be taken to ensure that the child is not born with HIV.

I have no doubt that the parents of a child with HIV will love their child, but if the child can be prevented from contracting it, then every effort must be made to ensure that the child is born free of this illness.

Rights of the Parent vs rights of the child

Comments