Bi-polar woman had foetus forcibly removed from womb

My name is URL · 01-12-2013 08:28PM

Rewind one wrote: »

Of course it does this womans pregnancy was forcefully terminated by that state,A certain group of people in ireland are fighting for the very powers needed that allow these acts to be carried out.

The precedent set here could just as easily be used to stop women from having abortions. If the judge in this case acted to protect the unborn child, then what's to stop another judge from disallowing a woman with severe mental issues from having an abortion... surely that would endanger the unborn child?

No need to use a single incident to support or argue against something completely unrelated...

up for anything · 01-12-2013 08:28PM

Rewind one wrote: »

Of course it does this womans pregnancy was forcefully terminated by that state,A certain group of people in ireland are fighting for the very powers needed that allow these acts to be carried out.

Ah so you don't want abortion to be legalised in Ireland because you're worried that the State will start forcibly removing fetuses right, left and centre? I'm still thinking ludicrous and I've been known to don a tin foil hat every so often.

Pompey Magnus · 01-12-2013 08:29PM

Candie wrote: »

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

If you feel it acceptable for organisations such as this to have this attitude then you should also be prepared to accept more and more state intervention in family life and for the criteria for what constitutes a risk to continue to be expanded so that it encompasses more and more parents.

gctest50 · 01-12-2013 08:37PM

Rewind one wrote: »

Im afraid you may well still have your tin foil hat on as you seem to be in denial about the connections here. A womans baby was forcefully removed from her body because the british government legislated for the abortion industry, capiche?

The child involved is now about 15 months ???

The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in.................

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services.html?fb

RasTa · 01-12-2013 08:37PM

Rewind one wrote: »

Im afraid you may well still have your tin foil hat on as you seem to be in denial about the connections here. A womans baby was forcefully removed from her body because the british government legislated for the abortion industry, capiche?

What has abortion got to do with this case?

Czarcasm · 01-12-2013 08:40PM

Rewind one wrote: »

Im afraid you may well still have your tin foil hat on as you seem to be in denial about the connections here. A womans baby was forcefully removed from her body because the british government legislated for the abortion industry, capiche?

No it's not capiche because that's not what happened here. There was no abortion procedure performed so your efforts are completely without merit. Comprennez-vous?

Xeyn · 01-12-2013 08:41PM

Rewind one wrote: »

Ok......your point being??

The child being alive kinda flies in the face of your suggesting that they acted with the mindset of someone who supports abortions.
This case has close to nothing to do with the abortion debate.
a. The baby was delivered alive as this was felt to be in the best interests of the child.
b. The delivery was performed without consent as the mother was deemed not to have capacity to consent -something that doesnt happen with abortions.

gctest50 · 01-12-2013 08:42PM

All the best trolls seem to have emigrated to somewhere with no internets, the ones left are just sad cases

Xeyn · 01-12-2013 08:42PM

Rewind one wrote: »

It was a termination of pregnancy. :rolleyes:

All deliveries are termination of pregnancies :rolleyes:

Czarcasm · 01-12-2013 08:46PM

Rewind one wrote: »

It was a termination of pregnancy. :rolleyes:

So you DO understand the difference between termination of a pregnancy and an abortion!

Play semantics all you like to try and link the two but pregnancies terminated by c-section have nothing to do with your trying to wedge in anything about your objection to abortion.

Tar.Aldarion · 01-12-2013 08:46PM

Most likely she was not fit to be a parent whatsover, they wouldn't just do this lightly, they would have thought the child was in immediate danger and needed to act. Only on medical recommendation would this happen, ie danger to the childs life and the parents. Should they send her back to her country? I'm not sure why they didn't. Pretty ridiculous not to contact them and let them take care of it. Did they think that the child would come to harm and they would do nothing in Italy? I guess she was talking about/already harming herself and it sounds like the breakdown was pregnancy orientated. Who knows the persons history or anything about the case from this?

However now that she seems to be better and is on medication its a bit much to put the child up for adoption because she "might have a relapse", I guess it's impossible to say anything from reading a story like that, not knowing what has happened.

up for anything · 01-12-2013 08:47PM

Rewind one wrote: »

Im afraid you may well still have your tin foil hat on as you seem to be in denial about the connections here. A womans baby was forcefully removed from her body because the british government legislated for the abortion industry, capiche?

Capiche.. my patronised arse! Perhaps if you type slower and louder I might understand what you are trying to say.

There is a difference between the type of termination of pregnancy that you are referring to and to a Caesarean section.

Xeyn · 01-12-2013 08:47PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

So you DO understand the difference between termination of a pregnancy and an abortion!

Play semantics all you like to try and link the two but pregnancies terminated by c-section have nothing to do with your trying to wedge in anything about your objection to abortion.

I think we are playing into his/her hand to derail the thread towards his purposeful agenda.

the_syco · 01-12-2013 08:53PM

From reading the article, it may have been unknown that she was bi-polar at the time. So the panic attack plus whatever symptoms of bi-polar she displayed may have caused the Essex court to question her sanity. However, not contacting the next of kin for the 5 weeks that she was held against her will in the lunatic asylum shows that they just didn't give a f**k about her rights :mad:

Candie wrote: »

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

If this was the case, why wait 5 weeks? It's almost a case of "lets take the baby out before we let her go"!

clairefontaine · 01-12-2013 08:58PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

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.

I know in the southeast judges have forced sterilisation as well as implants on mothers charged with child abuse.

That is controversial in and of itself,but to force a c-section on a woman and remove a child that has not even been born yet, with no child abuse charges seems beyond acceptible.

Problem in both countries in a system where there is no judicial accountibility.

Xeyn · 01-12-2013 09:00PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I know in the southeast judges have forced sterilisation as well as implants on mothers charged with child abuse.

That is controversial in and of itself,but to force a c-section on a woman and remove a child that has not even been born yet, with no child abuse charges seems beyond acceptible.

Problem in both countries in a system where there is no judicial accountibility.

You seem to be taking a fairly hard line without any details of the index case?

clairefontaine · 01-12-2013 09:02PM

Candie wrote: »

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.

So if you're pregnant with no child abuse charges or history, the courts can force you to have invasive surgery, putting you at risk, rip open your womb, taking away all your rights, and remove your child from your care without a conviction.

Xeyn · 01-12-2013 09:04PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

So if you're pregnant with no child abuse charges or history, the courts can force you to have invasive surgery, putting you at risk, rip open your womb, taking away all your rights, and remove your child from your care without a conviction.

Someone doent have to have a criminal record to be deemed
a) unfit to make competent decisions about themselves or their offspring/unborn children.
b) a danger to themselves or their child.

clairefontaine · 01-12-2013 09:06PM

Xeyn wrote: »

Someone doent have to have a criminal record to be deemed
a) unfit to make competent decisions about themselves or their offspring/unborn children.
b) a danger to themselves or their child.

Evidently.

Czarcasm · 01-12-2013 09:13PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

So if you're pregnant with no child abuse charges or history, the courts can force you to have invasive surgery, putting you at risk, rip open your womb, taking away all your rights, and remove your child from your care without a conviction.

I would have to say it would depend on the circumstances of the case. Emotive language like "ripping open wombs" and so on doesn't help, and because we have no other details of the case besides the fact that the woman has a history of mental illness, it's impossible to make any sort of judgement call on the rights or wrongs without being privy to the full facts of the case.

I have been in certain situations where I felt children were being separated from their parents would do more harm than good, or where I felt that an intellectually disabled person was being treated unconscionably, but, I'm not qualified in any capacity to make those kind of judgement calls, and so I have to defer to the better and more impartial judgement of those who ARE qualified to make those calls.

I might not see it as right, but those who are more qualified and have far more experience in the area are in a much better position to judge what's right for the person than I am.

01-12-2013 09:13PM

bluewolf wrote: »

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.

You could call it imprisoned and drugged up, or you could call it hospitalised and medicated. What do you suggest they do with someone who's a danger to themselves or others? Let them hurt themselves or treat them? Perhaps instead of stealing the baby, they saved it. We don't know enough about the circumstances to make that call.

Perhaps the baby wasn't returned to Italy because it was born in the UK and was thus a UK ciitizen?

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If you feel it acceptable for organisations such as this to have this attitude then you should also be prepared to accept more and more state intervention in family life and for the criteria for what constitutes a risk to continue to be expanded so that it encompasses more and more parents.

We just don't know enough about the situation to make those calls. I don't know enough from a newspaper article to extrapolate that the State will wiggle a tentacle through the letterbox of every family home.

We just don't know enough about what happened and how ill the woman was or is, how likely a relapse is, how much harm she was in danger of doing to herself or others, or how much the authorities knew about her identity, or how much she did or didn't want her family informed, or how close to term her pregnancy was, what prompted her breakdown, how much her condition did, or did not, deteriorate after her initial panic attack. All those variables might paint a very different picture.

dharma200 · 01-12-2013 09:17PM

Candie wrote: »

You could call it imprisoned and drugged up, or you could call it hospitalised and medicated. What do you suggest they do with someone who's a danger to themselves or others? Let them hurt themselves or treat them? Perhaps instead of stealing the baby, they saved it. We don't know enough about the circumstances to make that call.

Perhaps the baby wasn't returned to Italy because it was born in the UK and was thus a UK ciitizen?

We just don't know enough about the situation to make those calls. I don't know enough from a newspaper article to extrapolate that the State will wiggle a tentacle through the letterbox of every family home.

We just don't know enough about what happened and how ill the woman was or is, how likely a relapse is, how much harm she was in danger of doing to herself or others, or how much the authorities knew about her identity, or how much she did or didn't want her family informed, or how close to term her pregnancy was, what prompted her breakdown, how much her condition did, or did not, deteriorate after her initial panic attack. All those variables might paint a very different picture.

No, but what we do know is that the woman was forced to have a cesarean. We do know her new born baby was removed, we do now know she has made a recovery, she had forged a good relationship with the courts and judge, wh still see it fit to have the child adopted in Britain.
There is no amount of 'we do t know the full story' to justify anyone, unless brain dead or comatose, to be forced to have a cesarean so the authorities can seize the baby.
That we know. Or any sane human being knows.

snubbleste · 01-12-2013 09:18PM

Sure here, we condemn women to death instead of aborting a foetus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
And we snatch children from their Roma parents if they have a different hair colour
Are we really better than in the UK?

01-12-2013 09:19PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

So if you're pregnant with no child abuse charges or history, the courts can force you to have invasive surgery, putting you at risk, rip open your womb, taking away all your rights, and remove your child from your care without a conviction.

Or if you're dangerously ill and likely to cause grievous damage to yourself or others and are in need of urgent medical treatment, your doctors will try to make the best calls they can in the absence of your ability to give considered consent.

It's a horrible situation. She's undergone a serious operation and had her child removed from her care. The alternative might well have been two dead people, or more.

I'm pretty sure no ripping was done, but hyperbole seems to be the order of the day.

01-12-2013 09:25PM

dharma200 wrote: »

No, but what we do know is that the woman was forced to have a cesarean. We do know her new born baby was removed, we do now know she has made a recovery, she had forged a good relationship with the courts and judge, wh still see it fit to have the child adopted in Britain.
There is no amount of 'we do t know the full story' to justify anyone, unless brain dead or comatose, to be forced to have a cesarean so the authorities can seize the baby.
That we know. Or any sane human being knows.

The woman is apparently at risk of a relapse.

Who do we get to blame if the child comes to harm if returned to her?

Oh, thats right. The same people we're blaming now for not returning it to her.

A lot of sane people will reserve judgement of any given situation until all the facts are at hand. That's not the case at the moment, so I'll decline to jump on the hysterical bandwagon.

end of the road · 01-12-2013 09:28PM

ripping children out of wombs is never exceptable, this social services is a shambles in my opinion and should be disbanded along with the council in question, no so called "facts" will convince me that ripping children out of wombs is right, but as a british social service have gone that far its only a matter of what will come next, a forced abortion maybe? this has set a very very dangerous precedent, britain is becoming more fascist by the day

Femme_Fatale · 01-12-2013 09:32PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Jesus f*cking CHRIST :eek: :eek: :eek:

Is there anyone who still doesn't believe that the UK is fast becoming an utterly dystopian society?

I don't "still" believe it because I don't fall hook, line and sinker for ridiculous hyperbole. People who say Britain is like 1984 obviously haven't read that book, and should perhaps learn about North Korea and red China in order to find out what an actual controlling regime is like.

Killer Wench wrote: »

All of this was triggered over a panic attack?

"All"? No. As was plainly said.

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?

Of course they can - I think it's horrendously gruesome and a big part of me is wondering why the **** did they have to resort to such an extreme measure.
On the other hand though, when I actually think it through, no matter what the hyperbole merchants here say (and some of them I'm quite surprised at - it's pretty out of character; others are the usual suspects though) Britain is not a brutal society where babies are ripped from wombs for minor transgressions, people are not punished for mental illness anymore - intervention is only made when they are a danger to themselves or others (if anything, in Britain - like Ireland, it is very hard to section someone).
Some serious bullsh1t being made up on this thread - and comparisons with societies where forced sterilisation was the order of the day, are moot. Britain is not such a society.

How can people be such experts when they don't know the full details of the case and when the High Court granted this, as well as the Italian authorities? Answer: It isn't because they're all a bunch of fascists, as some people like to pretend.

Britain also gets slated for being too "peeceeee" - surely a PC society is one that would avoid such a measure unless it really had to take it. Social services and mental health services also have to comply with extremely strict regulations before they can intervene, for which they are criticised - yet suddenly now they're monsters who abort babies and punish mentally ill people at the drop of a hat.
Some of you don't know what the hell you're even giving out about. The bottom line is, they would not do something as extreme, without an equally extreme cause.

Rewind one wrote: »

Im out of this thread,typical i made a true and valid link,yet when i got the better of you i have been called a troll and talked about from all sides,i have seen some of you posters do this in the past to people you disagree with, its disgraceful.

You got the better of nobody, others got the better of you. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, push your agenda elsewhere p'haps.

Neyite · 01-12-2013 10:09PM

Rewind one wrote: »

It was a termination of pregnancy. :rolleyes:

A C-section is a delivery of a baby.

A termination is very very different.

gctest50 · 01-12-2013 10:27PM

snubbleste wrote: »

..............
Are we really better than in the UK?

That's a bit like asking would you prefer HIV or leukaemia?

Grayson · 01-12-2013 10:31PM

bluewolf wrote: »

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

Because the woman is unable to care for the child. She was still deemed mentally unstable. The main gist of the woman's lawyer argument was that they felt the baby should have been placed with a family friend in america. Like any country was going send a helpless child off to a country they will have no control over. There'd be nothing stopping the friend from just handing the baby over to a woman they deem unsound.

There are two options here.

1) This woman was so mentally unsound that they had to drug her to perform a c section. Childbirth is pretty nasty. It's safer today because of medicine but it's still dangerous. Having a woman who's unwilling or unable to participate in the birthing process is dangerous to both her and the child. That's pretty damn unsound.

2) They woman wasn't mentally unsound.

For some reason you seem to believe 2. Despite the fact that the police had to bring her to a psychiatric hospital. Despite the fact that she was held there for weeks. Despite the fact that the hospital had to go to the high court. Where's your evidence that the woman was able to do give birth and take the baby home? Since you don't have any I can only assume it doesn't matter what her state of mind was.
According to you they should have allowed her to give birth. Or maybe you favour a 8.5 month abortion. Then if she gives birth, they should give the baby to the crazy woman. What could go wrong there?

Quit with your arrogant outrage. It's obvious you don't give a damn about the woman or the child. You'd be happy to give the child to a woman who's crazy just to satisfy your stupid principles.

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'm pro choice but at 8.9999 months of pregnancy I believe that's a baby. And it's not like they can pause the pregnancy until the woman's able to have the child. The labour was going to happen and at that point they would have had a more dangerous situation, that's why they did it.

As for everyone who keeps harping on about consent..., if you were an an accident and unconscious, should the hospital wait until you wake up before they perform surgery? If you were incoherent from a concussion, should they wait until you become more coherent? I mean you're not giving consent so why should they do what's best for you.

What about people with sever mental disabilities? Should we wait for someone with a mental age of 3 to give permission for a procedure? Or should we just watch them die.

It's perfectly permissible to make decisions on the behalf of someone who's deemed incapable of making the decision themselves. In fact it'd be inhuman, uncaring and brutal not to. You'd have to really not care about them at all.

Bi-polar woman had foetus forcibly removed from womb

Comments