To ask where is the moral outrage now?(70 Posts)
A woman gets forcibly sedated, a caesarian against her consent and her baby taken away - and its not even a top story on the Mail, here or anywhere? How can this possibly be legal?!
Mental health services in this country are an absolute disgrace. Having known people who have gone through the 'system', imo many those mental health 'professionals' abuse their position of power, show little care towards patients well being, use excessive force and are just generally unkind and unpleasant. And don't get me started on social workers.
I am angry for her - I can't think of any situation in which abuse of this kind can be justified? And yet Nigella's thread on here got thousands of comments here and on the Mail. Are we selective about which type of abuse we get angry about?
I was professionally on the periphery of a case like this just over 10 years ago. It was tragic, and extremely upsetting for everyone involved.
However, when the facts of the case were explained to me, I could clearly see the need for it, traumatic though it was, for the welfare of both the mother and the baby.
I have to say, I don't hold sway with the notion that SWs and others involved in family courts are committing injustices day in day out. The reason why family proceedings cannot be reported is to protect the confidentiality of those involved, not to protect the actions of the people involved in the decision making.
I have to say, I feel very sorry for SWs. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.
I wonder if it is possible the poor Mum needed such strong meds for her bipolar breakdown that the baby would have to be delivered immediately for it's own safety.
Pure speculation of course.
A very very sad situation, hope it gets worked out as well as possible in the circumstances.
I guess I'm not getting massively invested in this story because we have so few facts. Although I'm no fan of social workers, I do dislike this type of newspaper report where the paper is cold- bloodedly taking advantage of the fact hat the social workers and medics are prevented from giving the other side of the story.
I don't feel able to get worked up about this when I am so blatantly being given such a one-sided picture. You write, for instance, about the mother having a C section against her will as if that were automatically outrageous. But it seems to me that that would only have happened as a last resort, after very careful consideration, and because the mother's life was in danger. If we could be told more about the basis of this decision I would feel much better equipped to form a reliable opinion than I am now.
There are THREE threads on this case on the first page of Active Conversations.
Which is why I am a bit puzzled as to why you think no one cares as much as you do.
Lol at you accusing me of making lots of presumptions.
"All I am asking is whether people have selective moral outrage?"
I'll be waiting for your outraged thread about the Mind link I posted earlier then.. because you obviously wouldn't have selective moral outrage would you..
MrsDeVere Lot's of presumptions there, I didn't say of those things
RedLondonBus Maybe OP wasn't very clear, I was just surprised at the time there wasn't that much going on MN about it and why that may be
BoffinMum - Agreed, without full facts it's difficult to form an opinion or any type of meaningful conclusion. Obviously doesn't stop most of us posting on threads, was just wondering why people might refrain from posting for that reason
Personally I feel we don't know all the facts, so it's hard to have an informed opinion. But if someone with a serious mental health condition threatened to stab their stomach, say, and kill the baby in utero just before birth, I can imagine a situation where health professionals would feel the need to step in.
op,read your opening post again? you were posting about this case and not asking about how we react to news stories as you are now stating!
You seem to thinking that if someone thinks Nigella Lawson is being screwed over they must care nothing for the woman in this case.
That everyone is a huge Nigella fan
That people are ignorant of MH issues
None of the above are true. This site has thousands and thousands of posters.
I haven't been on a Nigella thread.
I have briefly posted on a thread about this case.
I know a lot about MH issues.
I also know that if you met my DS's birth mother she would tell you that her child was stolen from her by SS (and me) because she forgot to write down one of his feeds in a book.
I don't give a damn about 90% of the things other people get het up about (& especially nothing to do with Nigella Lawson). I think maybe I only care about stuff where my decision might make a difference, or sometimes where I made a totally minority decision & I'm STILL convinced it was a reasonable one.
I think maybe other people enjoy outrage? Is it cathartic in some way? Or an avoidance activity about all the stuff you can't fix in own life?
The woman with forced CS: I think even if you're prone to outrage, too many of us are thinking that's so extreme that there must be a huge amount we can't know, so many are waiting to pass judgement.
True. But sometimes people ring true as they go through a thread, and sometimes not.
But when talking about something in the media for example, we only have journalists to go by.
I for instance dont always go on a thread if someone is talking about a friend, be it a relationship or a different problem a friend has. Because , with the best will in the world, a poster is not going to know everything there is to know about their friend's situation.
Golddigger Agreed, we can never fully know the topic matter. Unfortunately, that goes for nearly all the threads on this board - we can never truly know the facts, and there may never be one universal truth agreed by everyone.
I don't think that stops people emotionally reacting to or getting involved in issues / threads! :P
crypes - Thanks! She has lots of fans on this boards, lots of people read her cookbooks. She's a well known brand so I guess anything she does will get more attention than the average joe with issues Lots of people got passionate and upset on her behalf on those threads, maybe her situation stuck a cord with people at some level.
Truly, you would not believe the lengths some people will go to to hide the truth.
People's perceptions are not slways the truth.
This is why you're misinformed op.
If you we're privvy to details of child protection cases your view would be different.
I prefer to be concerned that the mother is getting the help she needs now and save clutching at my pearls for when I have more facts.
RedLondonBus - Because I don't want to discuss the subject matter itself - I want to discuss people's reactions to it? What provokes people to get really involved in a subject matter? Is it personal experience or something else? There are are such a wide range of issues brought up by the subject matter that I couldn't help feel angry, helpless - lots of other emotions. I looked at the other threads created and the response to them, I saw some balanced posts, some people angry, some people saying that SS must have had a reason etc... On some topic matters people just had blind rage, like it affects something deep to their core and they demand action.
I guess on the Nigella thread it was because it was about domestic abuse, and as lots of people on this board have been subjected to domestic abuse that resonated enough for people to want action to be taken against Saachi. Or like on the Relationship boards where people use very strong language to advice actions on situations where they only have one selected side of the story.
But on mental health issues, there usually is a muted response. There is still a massive stigma attached to mental health issues. As if people who have mental health issues are incapable of bringing up children, are not capable of living normal lives, not capable of being productive members of society. When cases come into the media, there is a sense of trust in SS that they must be taking the right action, there must be a reason why this happened. But what if there isn't? What if the courts and SS are wrong in this instance? Are we just making excuses and denying the fact things can and do go wrong in social services and mental health provision?
That's why i asked why people didn't seem (in my opinion) to be really fired up about this issue compared to some of the others I've seen?
There are some that work for SS on here, not that many I dont think. But they seem reasonable to me on the whole.
There are undoubtedly posters who work for the NHS. It is a big organisation.
This site is now huge though. So there are vast numbers of people on mumsnet.
For me, I have been on a few ss threads. But I eventually realised that who am I to assume I know everything.
Or anywhere near what the people involved know?
I will give you an example. Last week there was a thread about a couple who fled to Ireland, And got fed up and came back again. On the face of the thread about them, it looked like they shouldn't have felt the need to flee[I think she had mild special needs, if I remember correctly] And there was a nice picture of them.
But then someone said that he looked at a lot of porn.
I dont knwo the ins and outs, but at that point I stopped posting. At that point, I realised that really I didnt know the first thing about them both.
Nigella has sold millions of books and that's why she's a multi millionaire , she has a huge following and that's why threads about her have so much response, I find it inexplicable too that people find it easier to argue her case than anything else, but that is the Domestic Goddess.
but there are 'meaningful discussions' on the other (numerous) threads!!! why didn't you join them?
RedLondonBus - I undestand this. I simply asking why it didn't seem to be hitting a nerve with people with people demanding action as there has been on issues. Maybe it's because people haven't had much dealing SS? Or that there are a lot of people who work for SS or the NHS who post on here? Who knows, that's why I was asking!
Can I give you another piece of advice?
Deal with these points individually as you go through a thread.
Else it just becomes too much for most people would have thought, to deal with.
In other words you need to do the opposite of what most people do on here. You need to dripfeed.
I understand what you are saying a bit as regards, if there is a thread in relationships, the common stance is to take the op's word for it.
But ss cases put into the media are not a thread on here in relationships.
There will have been many many parties involved, and they will all have a different story to tell.
And it is all very legal.
Why do you think you're the only person having a meaningful discussion?
We are also, we just don't all agree with you.
And I know plenty people who've had lots of experiences in different services, it has absalutely no bearing on this case or any other.
Golddigger I am calm, once again because I have a different opinion to people here people want to label or judge. That's sad. It seems people aren't willing to have a constructive discussion about this without getting personal.
That's a shame.
Re SS being abusers, what I mean is that when there is a thread where the OP says my husband/partner does X - the presumption is that the OP is telling the truth and that the side of the story being presented is the correct one. Those who disagree with that view point normally get labelled as defending an 'abuser' etc. It happened on the Saachi thread, but also on individual threads on AIBU where people disagreed with the mainstream view.
Someone (likely the woman's family, but who knows) has brought this story to the attention of the media. We don't know where the truth is because we are not possession of all the facts. Those that are available are selective for legal/other reasons. What we do know is that a woman was sedated, had a caesarian against her will and the baby was taken away. We also know that SS went to court for this action to happen. We know the woman had a mental breakdown and sectioned.
I know people who have been sectioned but shouldnt have been (appealed, got medical assiistance - they were severely hydrated, put on a drip and recovered!!), people who should have been sectioned but weren't, should have been sectioned and were correctly sectioned. Just because someone is sectioned doesn't mean that they are incapable of having a child naturally - those last two facts alone doesn't mean that the actions SS and courts took is the right one.
We have no idea whether this is right or wrong action or not. I just think it's a shame that cases such as this don't shake the public consciousness enough to have a meaningful discussion about our attitudes and support of people with mental health issues in this country.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.