Bi-polar woman had foetus forcibly removed from womb

Femme_Fatale · 01-12-2013 06:40PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

So much for bodily integrity. So much for sovereignty. The state decides youre nuts, can lock you up without a trial, can take your children away, can force you to have surgery.

What the hell?

Ad has a one noticed? Everyone is bipolar these days, it's like it the new black.

No, "everyone" doesn't. You're not denying it exists are you?

Actually the days of people being locked up at the drop of a hat for mental illness are long gone.

Pompey Magnus · 01-12-2013 06:42PM

Candie wrote: »

I hope this lady recovers and can go on to have a normal life with her child.

If the child is up for adoption will she be able to get her child back? From the way the article is worded it seems the judge has ruled she can't have the child back even if she does make a full recovery.

01-12-2013 06:47PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

So much for bodily integrity. So much for sovereignty. The state decides youre nuts, can lock you up without a trial, can take your children away, can force you to have surgery.

What the hell?

Ad has a one noticed? Everyone is bipolar these days, it's like it the new black.

So if I decide tomorrow that it would be a really good idea to cut my leg off with a rusty hacksaw, I should be patted on the back and sent home to do it? Or should I be put in a place of safety while the medics try to treat the underlying cause of my problem, thus saving my life/leg?

We don't know anything about the case. She could have made statements about hurting herself or the child and needed to be protected from herself. We just don't know enough to make assumptions about the breakdown of the individual or the manner in which her rights were, or weren't, respected.

And 'everyone' isn't bi-polar. We hear about these things more as the stigma lessens, a good thing in my book.

Underplaying the effects of devastating mental illness serves no one. Not society, not the families of those affected, and certainly not the sufferer.

Hyperbole like being locked up without a trial because the State decides you're nuts does nothing to encourage people who need help to seek it.

This is one case. It's not a commonplace occurance, it's extreme. Extreme actions are most often prompted by extreme circumstances.

01-12-2013 06:54PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If the child is up for adoption will she be able to get her child back? From the way the article is worded it seems the judge has ruled she can't have the child back even if she does make a full recovery.

Yes, I think you're right. The risk of it happening again is the deciding factor I suppose.

I don't know much about bi-polar disorder but afaik it's controlled rather than cured, so a recovery is unlikely. If she keeps taking her medication it may be controlled but she would appear to have a record of stopping her meds.

who the fug · 01-12-2013 06:57PM

for those in the know is there any legal requirement for the state in the UK to contact next of kin, or in this case the consulate

end of the road · 01-12-2013 07:03PM

My name is URL wrote: »

The thread title might make it sound as if this was done by some sick lunatic, but that's not the case.

well in fairness that is kind of debatable, sounds like something that could have happened in the 1800s in some mad cult, whatever council is involved here should be forced to sease to exist and the judge sacked, from hearing about various cases to do with social services in britain it seems to be about egos and shock value rather then protecting children, while our social services aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination i can't imagine something happening like this in this day and age

My name is URL wrote: »

Anyone think that's all a bit fcuked up? I understand the need to protect a child/baby from a mentally unstable mother but is forcing her to undergo a c-section and then taking her child from her really going to help her in any way.. I mean they say it was 'for her own good'.. Doesn't sound like something that's going to help her mental state to me... not to mention the fact that c-sections can lead to complications during future pregnancies.

i remember a case similar to this before where a baby was removed from a mother at birth, but the social services involved was forced to return the child by the courts, i can't for the life of me remember the actual case though

clairefontaine · 01-12-2013 07:18PM

Candie wrote: »

Yes, I think you're right. The risk of it happening again is the deciding factor I suppose.

I don't know much about bi-polar disorder but afaik it's controlled rather than cured, so a recovery is unlikely. If she keeps taking her medication it may be controlled but she would appear to have a record of stopping her meds.

I currently know five parents with bi polar, two of whom are fathers.

It shocks me to think the state can take their kids off them because they have a mental illness, and with the ever expanding lists of what constitutes mental illness and disorders, people should be circumspect, especially as the family courts and their judiciary have zero accountability. They are even protected from litigation.

end of the road · 01-12-2013 07:22PM

Candie wrote: »

Yes, I think you're right. The risk of it happening again is the deciding factor I suppose.

I don't know much about bi-polar disorder but afaik it's controlled rather than cured, so a recovery is unlikely. If she keeps taking her medication it may be controlled but she would appear to have a record of stopping her meds.

so in effect this is a forced adoption? i thought that nonsense went with the magdillen laundries?

shruikan2553 · 01-12-2013 07:31PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

So much for bodily integrity. So much for sovereignty. The state decides youre nuts, can lock you up without a trial, can take your children away, can force you to have surgery.

What the hell?

Ad has a one noticed? Everyone is bipolar these days, it's like it the new black.

There are varying degrees of bipolar. There are people who can control it themselves, there are those that just need to talk to a professional, there are some that need medication and I'm sure there are some that are a danger to themselves. We dont know all the details but this is someone that is mentally unstable when off her medication and she has gone off it. If she did it again and harmed the child there would be outcry that they didn't take the child away from someone who could have harmed him/her.

My name is URL · 01-12-2013 07:32PM

Grayson wrote: »

This was a woman who was bipolar and wasn't taking her medication. She could have been a danger to herself, the child and others.

What child? Can people seriously not see the problem with and possible consequences of a judge showing jurisdiction over what is still inside of a woman's womb, based on her mental health?

Annasopra · 01-12-2013 07:34PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I currently know five parents with bi polar, two of whom are fathers.

It shocks me to think the state can take their kids off them because they have a mental illness, and with the ever expanding lists of what constitutes mental illness and disorders, people should be circumspect, especially as the family courts and their judiciary have zero accountability. They are even protected from litigation.

That's a ridiculous statement that children are taken off their parents because they have a mental illness. They are taken off them because the children are at risk!

Salt001 · 01-12-2013 07:39PM

Well I don't think we know enough to assume that the state acted out of turn. If a child was at risk then act now and sort it out later. How many cases of parents killing themselves and their children have we heard about in the last couple of years, that poor woman who threw herself off a cliff whilst eight and a half months pregnant with twins for example.
The man that killed himself and his two sons earlier this year.
The woman this week that disappeared with her children from Rosscommon, an all Ireland alert went out and they were found before anything tragic happened.

end of the road · 01-12-2013 07:44PM

they took the child out of the woman, how near the due date was the child
? sounds like a risk was taken here by doing this

01-12-2013 07:55PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I currently know five parents with bi polar, two of whom are fathers.

It shocks me to think the state can take their kids off them because they have a mental illness, and with the ever expanding lists of what constitutes mental illness and disorders, people should be circumspect, especially as the family courts and their judiciary have zero accountability. They are even protected from litigation.

There are degrees with which people are affected with bi-polar.

Kids aren't taken off their parents because their parents are ill, they are taken off parents who can't/don't care for them. The two aren't necessarily one and the same and shouldn't be conflated.

Staff who have to take decisions for people during periods where they can't MUST be protected from litigation in order to do their jobs effectively.

That's not the same as having zero accountability, which is not the case anyway.

hatrickpatrick · 01-12-2013 07:57PM

Forced invasive surgery without consent is never ok. Ever. It belongs in old stories of WWII POW camps, not in the 21st century.

Rewind one · 01-12-2013 08:00PM

This is what a lot of you people have fought for and are actively supporting,thank god the baby survived. supporting abortion and introducing the acceptance of terminations into society only leads to this kind of horrid act.

Fox_In_Socks · 01-12-2013 08:01PM

Rewind one wrote: »

This is what a lot of you people have fought for and are actively supporting,thank god the baby survived. supporting abortion and introducing the acceptance of terminations into society only leads to this kind of horrid act.

Oh oh! You've done it now!

Gatling · 01-12-2013 08:01PM

After reading this still can't understand how a judge was able to force a C section then add a caveat that the child wasn't to be returned to the mother because she can't be trusted to take her meds,

Completely discusted reading ,

Would love to know what the European court of human rights has to say about this

01-12-2013 08:03PM

end of the road wrote: »

so in effect this is a forced adoption? i thought that nonsense went with the magdillen laundries?

If the mother has impulses that put herself and/or her child in danger, I don't see any alternative.

Of course, we don't know enough to form considered opinions and all we can do is speculate.

If she's dangerously ill and the child pays the price, everyone will blame the legal system, the medics, the police, and social workers involved.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, so all they can do is act with utmost caution.

01-12-2013 08:04PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If the child is up for adoption will she be able to get her child back? From the way the article is worded it seems the judge has ruled she can't have the child back even if she does make a full recovery.

She has made one, the child is apparently 14 months now and the state refuse to give her back

Her lawyers say that she had since resumed taking her medication, and that the judge formed a favourable opinion of her. But he ruled that the child should be placed for adoption because of the risk that she might suffer a relapse.
Lawyers for the woman are demanding to know why Essex social services appear not have contacted next of kin in Italy to consult them on the case.
They are also upset that social workers insisted on placing the child in care in Britain, when there had been an offer from a family friend in America to look after her

Horrible.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't, so all they can do is act with utmost caution.

Keeping her imprisoned and drugged up and undergoing invasive surgery does not appear cautious to me
Refusing to even let the baby be returned to italy, no, she has to be stolen and kept in a different country.

Czarcasm · 01-12-2013 08:05PM

Rewind one wrote: »

This is what a lot of you people have fought for and are actively supporting,thank god the baby survived. supporting abortion and introducing the acceptance of terminations into society only leads to this kind of horrid act.

Who are "you people" exactly?

The surgeons were not trying to perform an abortion so your soapboxing is completely misguided.

Xeyn · 01-12-2013 08:06PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Forced invasive surgery without consent is never ok. Ever. It belongs in old stories of WWII POW camps, not in the 21st century.

Completely untrue.
If someone does not have capacity to consent and if it is their best interests then it is negligent not to act in the interests of parties concerned. Someone has to take responsibility and that responsibility is neithe given lightly nor taken lightly.

Killer Wench · 01-12-2013 08:06PM

My name is URL wrote: »

What child? Can people seriously not see the problem with and possible consequences of a judge showing jurisdiction over what is still inside of a woman's womb, based on her mental health?

I guess that I shouldn't be surprised. Here in the States, the state governments implemented forced sterilization on people with disabilities, particularly mental illnesses. Of course, that was in addition to Black and Native women who were forcibly sterilized.

But it is a scary precedent. I understand the doctrine of Parens Patriae, but this seems to go way beyond the pale.

Ilyana 2.0 · 01-12-2013 08:06PM

Candie wrote: »

Staff who have to take decisions for people during periods where they can't MUST be protected from litigation in order to do their jobs effectively.

That's not the same as having zero accountability, which is not the case anyway.

This is true, the British Social Services have often been sued in the past for failing to remove children from their parents when they were in danger, and also for placing children in very unsuitable homes where further harm has come to them.

The Social Services have to tread very carefully in their work. Although it's certainly a horrible situation for this woman, we really can't assume that any decision taken was done so recklessly. Nor can we assume that they did the right thing either, until more details emerge.

Killer Wench · 01-12-2013 08:09PM

Ilyana 2.0 wrote: »

This is true, the British Social Services have often been sued in the past for failing to remove children from their parents when they were in danger, and also for placing children in very unsuitable homes where further harm has come to them.

The Social Services have to tread very carefully in their work. Although it's certainly a horrible situation for this woman, we really can't assume that any decision taken was done so recklessly. Nor can we assume that they did the right thing either, until more details emerge.

I understand that it might have been best to remove custody of the child from the mother. But, I can't wrap my head around expediting the birthing process just to do so.

Ilyana 2.0 · 01-12-2013 08:10PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

I understand that it might have been best to remove custody of the child from the mother. But, I can't wrap my head around expediting the birthing process just to do so.

Neither can I, to be honest. Maybe they weren't able to keep her sectioned long enough for the labour to occur naturally, or something. It's a really strange situation.

Xeyn · 01-12-2013 08:11PM

Rewind one wrote: »

I mean the people that blindly fight for abortion/termination of pregnancy,as these kind of situations always arise from that mindset and industry.

What 'industry' are you referring to?

Pompey Magnus · 01-12-2013 08:12PM

For a Government MP to talk about the family courts as engaging in corrupt practices and human rights abuse I wonder if it is as deserving of the unquestioning trust that some seem to be affording it?

up for anything · 01-12-2013 08:17PM

Rewind one wrote: »

This is what a lot of you people have fought for and are actively supporting,thank god the baby survived. supporting abortion and introducing the acceptance of terminations into society only leads to this kind of horrid act.

Rewind one wrote: »

I mean the people that blindly fight for abortion/termination of pregnancy,as these kind of situations always arise from that mindset and industry.

Rewind one wrote: »

When a country makes laws to protect the abortion industry and portray terminations of pregnancy as acceptable these kind of situations will arise.

this very scenario will soon be acceptable in ireland.

I find this train of thought ludicrous and it has nothing to to do with with the subject of this thread. :rolleyes:

Xeyn · 01-12-2013 08:23PM

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

For a Government MP to talk about the family courts as engaging in corrupt practices and human rights abuse I wonder if it is as deserving of the unquestioning trust that some seem to be affording it?

Because we all know MPs are the ideal moral compass. The MP knows as much about the details of this case as we do. They just respond to complaints of the general public like those of this forum.

Bi-polar woman had foetus forcibly removed from womb

Comments