To ask where is the moral outrage now?

(70 Posts)
plinkyplonks Sun 01-Dec-13 11:54:51

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2516270/Pregnant-woman-unborn-baby-girl-forcibly-removed-caesarean-social-workers-obtain-court-order-suffered-mental-breakdown.html

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?

ImATotJeSuisUneTot Sun 01-Dec-13 11:57:13

There is outrage, on several threads.

There are also many posters pointing out that the Daily Mail article is highly unlikely to be giving the full and truthful story.

Heartbrokenmum73 Sun 01-Dec-13 11:57:34

You do know there's another thread running about this, don't you?

And people are upset about it.

If you'd bother your arse to go and have a look, instead of coming here and getting uppity because people aren't getting 'outraged' as quickly as you'd like, you'd see that.

LuisSuarezTeeth Sun 01-Dec-13 11:57:36

Several threads on this if you look smile

SilverApples Sun 01-Dec-13 11:59:32
SilverApples Sun 01-Dec-13 12:01:05

This is either the 3rd or 4th thread I have read on here about this this morning alone.

I've read about it on facebook and on the news.

It's out there. I don't know why you haven't come across it.

HarkTEEHeraldAngelsSing Sun 01-Dec-13 12:02:20

There's plenty of outrage. Have you actually looked for the outrage?

SilverApples Sun 01-Dec-13 12:02:21

What heartbroken said.

Also, while I agree with you that mental health services here are a mess, they are a mess mostly because they are so limited and more likely to result in people left to deal with stuff alone rather than being overzealous. Overzealous mental health care is not the biggest problem facing the mentally ill here.

scaevola Sun 01-Dec-13 12:03:20

The "In the news" thread is the most active.

uptheanty Sun 01-Dec-13 12:05:16

Just another escuse for Social Worker bashing.

Can i point out please that the poor woman who this happened to would have been under a team of expert care in the hospital.
For reasons unknown to us, the specialist doctors, cosultants etc decided to proceed with a casarean.
In order to do this they will have needed permission from a JUDGE and they will have had to present a very damming case for removal for the judge to approve.

Due to confidentiality noone involved in the case will be able to put forward any reasons to the public why this was required. The woman who had her child removed is of course free to do & say what she likes.

Social workers do not have the authority to remove children, and certainly not from a womans womb.

SW write reports and make recommendations and many many many better qualified and experienced proff make the dufficult decisions.

Here's a question. Where was the moral outrage here when Mind released figures showing that 1 in 10 have to wait over a year for help?

scaevola Sun 01-Dec-13 12:10:09

Good point, Murder.

uptheanty Sun 01-Dec-13 12:11:00

Agree murder

What i would be asking is what help is this woman receiving now?

Probably bugger all.

HarkTEEHeraldAngelsSing Sun 01-Dec-13 12:28:43

Yes, what Murder said.

perplexedpirate Sun 01-Dec-13 12:31:59

Plenty of outrage.
Also, I have good friends who work in mental health and sacrifice huge parts of their lives to it, so fuck off slagging them off, cheers very much.

gordyslovesheep Sun 01-Dec-13 12:34:23

absolutely spot on uptheanty

I am fairly outraged at the usual bashing of people trying to protect children and sad for the woman involved

ShinyBauble Sun 01-Dec-13 16:50:03

If they were concerned for her mental health before, I can't even begin to imagine what kind of state she is in now - especially if turned over to our 'wonderful' mental health services.

No wonder women on these boards are often more terrified of SS than they are of abusive partners/ex's.

plinkyplonks Sun 01-Dec-13 17:11:29

I've looked at the other threads posted... there's nowhere near the responses than to the Nigella threads or other less serious threads on AIBU.. ?

This is a huge issue, possibly breaching this woman's human rights and the abduction of a child, yet there are people here to trying to justify it as SS bashing?! We should all be angry for this woman, yet there are very few people responding to these threads. Do people actually agree with SS / courts actions or is it that people just accept this kind of thing happens? I am surprised people aren't demanding action?

RedLondonBus Sun 01-Dec-13 17:13:44

we have a reported 'snapshot' of what actually happened. that is all. most people are sensible enough to realise this.

gordyslovesheep Sun 01-Dec-13 17:16:52

erm if the courts and social services had the facts and reached the decision they did who am I without any facts to get my knickers in twist?

Maybe they where RIGHT - now there's a thought OP

and stop using terms like 'child abduction' removing a child is a lengthy legal process but it is just that LEGAL, abduction isn't

MrsDeVere Sun 01-Dec-13 17:21:33

I don't really understand what you mean OP

There are threads everywhere. Its on FB and in the news. Its all over the place.

I think that most people understand that they can never really know what went on because of confidentiality, that the papers are going to report it in an irresponsible way and that the people involved are extremely dodgy and not likely to give a balanced view.

That is why it is hard to be totally outraged. Its like getting outraged at a FB story. You have absolutely no idea what has happened and its impossible to form a proper opinion.

Whatever happened or why, it is utterly tragic for the woman involved and I feel very very sorry for her.

pollyblue Sun 01-Dec-13 17:21:40

OP, what sort of action do you think people should be demanding?

Yes it is horrific, but upthe explains the likely background well, further up the thread. The information the public receive about cases like this is tiny.

On the face of it, I feel angry for the woman. But also I would feel angry if the professionals involved took no action, and the child was left in an unsafe/abusive situation.

Golddigger Sun 01-Dec-13 17:24:39

Looks like it hasnt been in the media long, so cant be compared to eg the Nigella story.

RedLondonBus Sun 01-Dec-13 17:28:37

jeez op,competitive outrage? it wont happen here,we are all too sensible and educated on MN!

specialsubject Sun 01-Dec-13 17:28:38

no, our mental health service isn't perfect - no system is.

but I doubt we have the whole story.

it wasn't child abduction.

I don't know what happened, but I'm not impressed with the notion that if you hear of what appears to be an atrocity you should fold your hands and trust in your betters to be doing the right thing.

That has led to some pretty bad consequences in the last century if you think about it.

uptheanty Sun 01-Dec-13 18:26:23

I should clarify that when I stated earlier upthread that there would be better qualified and experienced proffessionals making desicions, i did NOT mean better people...or my or anyone elses "betters".

I also do not advocate anyone sitting back and trusting others to make better "atrocities'.

Everyone is entitled to there own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. The facts remain the same regardless of your opinions.
We DO NOT know the facts.

I prefer to save my outrage for when I do know the full story regardless of how much emotive language is used by others.

I know this much, the woman must be suffering terribly and I really hope that she is receiving legal and mh support.

CustardOmlet Sun 01-Dec-13 18:36:37

OP, are you in a position to vouch for the woman's mental state at the time of the baby's birth/her capacity to make a sound medical decision. This is one of the reasons the Mental Capacity Act what brought in, how do you know the woman wasn't expressing extreme delusional beliefs that a natural birth would have caused her even greater mental distress?

As others have pointed out, SW's don't walk around with scalpels ready to do CS. And how about you give working in the mental health sector a go before you rip it apart based on one shitty article.

Heartbrokenmum73 Sun 01-Dec-13 18:43:04

OP, who died and decided you were in charge of what people should be outraged over? Your whole attitude towards this stinks.

Tbh, I haven't read any of the threads on it because I know it would make me angry and upset. I have enough of my own mental health issues to be getting on with at the moment, thanks, as well as stuff with my kids and other stuff to worry about. It's not down to you to come on here and start berating people for not being angry enough for your liking.

I didn't comment on any of the Nigella stuff either.

Does that even things out for me?

HappyMummyOfOne Sun 01-Dec-13 19:02:13

If a judge, SS and medical professionals all deemed this to be in the best interest of the child then what is there to be outraged about. The child is the most important person here.

Given we have a tiny piece of information, its obvious that it will be one sided. Whilst SS make a few mistakes being human, they do try their best to protect children. Most hatred for them is unjust.

MrsDeVere Sun 01-Dec-13 19:19:34

I want to clarify that I am totally ready to be outraged and to do whatever I can if this story is as straightforward as Mr H would have us believe.

I mean that sincerely.

Unfortunately the very fact he is involved makes me wary.

I find it very hard to believe that this whole train of events is down to a panic attack.

mistermakersgloopyglue Sun 01-Dec-13 19:27:48

As everyone else has said, there are several threads running on this today - it is very strange and quite disturbing, whatever the backstory.

FFS this thread is like the poster on one of the Glasgow threads getting pissy because there was apparently no thread in Chat about it (there was, she just hadn't looked for it). Implying that no one outside of Scotland cares about what happens elsewhere...

plinkyplonks Sun 01-Dec-13 19:54:14

No need for bitchy reply smile

All I am asking is whether people have selective moral outrage?

I say this because there are threads where people don't give either side the benefit of the doubt i.e. Saachi v Nigella. or when OP posts for advice there is a presumption that the side of the story being told is the true version of the story.

Just wondering where that benefit of the doubt is coming from, given that it is given so selectively. And if the side of the story been presented is true, why there are not people shouting on here that SS and courts are abusers/enabling abusers? I am just using logic used on other threads against people attempting to present both sides of an argument.

In terms of 'not morally outraged enough' - it's more about our rights as women v powers of state? Are you totally comfortable with courts (often in secret, gagging parties from talking about it) making these kinds of decisions? Are women aware that SS and courts have these kinds of powers? Never mind the discussion on whether they should have these powers, what it means for people who have mental health problems and post natal depression -whether they would feel comfortable seeking help now? Lots of important questions and discussions that perhaps we should be having but aren't?

Finally, as for all MN having the 'intelligence' to see both sides of the story, unfortunately just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean they are willing to see both sides of the story.

Golddigger Sun 01-Dec-13 20:00:46

I think there are about 10 points in your last post that you could make 10 threads out of.
Why not start threads about them 1 at a time.

Are you a new poster btw?
Lots of time to start a bunch of threads.

Shall I start with the Nigella and Saatchi part
There are several threads on them, and if you read them all carefully, you will see that just about every concievable angle has been discussed. but over the space of about a week.
And there were also several threads a few weeks ago, again, several angles.

RedLondonBus Sun 01-Dec-13 20:00:47

Well are YOU willing to see both sides of this story op?

Doesn't sound like it

uptheanty Sun 01-Dec-13 20:06:08

op
You are very misguided and ill informed to boot.

YABVU

I feel it is people who harbour opinions like you and scaremonger who make it scarey for vulnerable women to access services.

I also take umbridge with SS being called child abusers and or enablers.

I can assure you that neither I nor anyone I work with abuse children.

Preciousbane Sun 01-Dec-13 20:20:08

I feel sorry for this woman that was so ill she had to be sectioned under the MH act. Do you have any idea how unwell people have to be? Have you ever had anything to do with people with severe MH conditions? My dsis has bipolar at the severe end of this condition and she has been sectioned a number of times. She does not like being sectioned but she would have died years ago if she hadn't been.

MandatoryMongoose Sun 01-Dec-13 20:22:52

I work in MH services. I get very very poorly paid for long hours, often with no breaks and regularly get assaulted. I'm a very nice person - ask any of the people I've worked with (clients or colleagues).

Apart from when I see posts like this OPs, full of vitriol for social workers, nurses, support workers, 99% of whom do their absolutely bloody best, day in day out in jobs that are so important and really undervalued. They often work in crap conditions, trying to do 3 peoples jobs because funding and therefore staffing levels are so poor.

Then, i'm not so nice. It makes me feel a bit stabby angry

So, there's my outrage OP, it's directed at you. I don't know enough about this woman's case to comment on that.

plinkyplonks Sun 01-Dec-13 20:47:13

Ah yes, I didn't see both sides of a story thats why I created a AIBU threads to discuss it (because there are two sides to the story?!)

Furthermore, because I have a different opinion to you, I must:

a. be misguided
b. be new
c. not understand MN
d. hate all sections of people I have ever met?

Which is a shame as personal attacks and slurs are pretty unnecessary on this board, real life or anywhere really sad

I am just asking questions - but they are all linked to the main one, whether people are selective with their moral outrage? I have read the other threads on this? I have read the Nigella ones and countless other threads on imo trivial matters that gather huge amount of responses (an indication of people's interest and time investment in the topic matter) but this topic doesn't seem to get as much interest. For me, that's interesting because there are lots of very important sub subject matters this case brings up i.e. human rights, social services, court powers etc. Maybe people are more interested in whether it's annoying people use "there" or "their", mother in law problems or relationship problems? Who am I to judge what other people find important? it's just trying to understand why this subject isn't bringing in the responses such a controversial matter I expected?

I have had to deal with MH services for years due to family members. i have seen a wide spectrum of professionals both medical and mental in the pursuit of helping my family members. Those I met ranged from the helpful to the abusive, with very little consistency. I have family members who have worked for SS, I have heard of their experiences and the challenges they have to face. My experience of SS and MH professionals has been scary. My experience has been over a decade, it's not necessarily the whole picture because I will never meet every health care professional the NHS employ.

RedLondonBus Sun 01-Dec-13 20:51:25

It's been/being discussed elsewhere... Other threads.... What more do you want? Some huge mumsnet campaign with you at the helm?

uptheanty Sun 01-Dec-13 20:56:33

Again with the emotive language?

Me saying you are misguided does not mean I'm personally attacking you confused

And belittling other users use of Mumsnet isn't very nice. Some of us don't come on here to express "moral outrage" at "atrocities". Some of us enjoy lighthearted threads, that doesn't make us any less of a person than you.

Golddigger Sun 01-Dec-13 20:56:47

op. You will find that you will not further any cause you put forward if
a.you are immediately full of outrage
b.you post long windy posts
c.you never calm down

No matter what the cause, you need to learn to be calm.
Else it really doesnt work

Unless it really is all to do with your feeling mad, and not to do with the cause at all?
In which case carry on as you were.

Jomato Sun 01-Dec-13 21:01:18

Arrrgghhhh. That is all.

plinkyplonks Sun 01-Dec-13 21:03:47

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.

plinkyplonks Sun 01-Dec-13 21:06:43

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.

uptheanty Sun 01-Dec-13 21:08:34

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 Sun 01-Dec-13 21:09:12

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.

plinkyplonks Sun 01-Dec-13 21:09:29

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!

RedLondonBus Sun 01-Dec-13 21:09:48

but there are 'meaningful discussions' on the other (numerous) threads!!! why didn't you join them?

crypes Sun 01-Dec-13 21:16:00

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.

Golddigger Sun 01-Dec-13 21:17:41

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.

Golddigger Sun 01-Dec-13 21:19:38

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.

plinkyplonks Sun 01-Dec-13 21:24:18

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?

uptheanty Sun 01-Dec-13 21:24:41

^ that^

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.

plinkyplonks Sun 01-Dec-13 21:28:31

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 smile Lots of people got passionate and upset on her behalf on those threads, maybe her situation stuck a cord with people at some level.

plinkyplonks Sun 01-Dec-13 21:34:31

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

Golddigger Sun 01-Dec-13 21:41:56

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.

lljkk Sun 01-Dec-13 21:45:46

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.

MrsDeVere Sun 01-Dec-13 21:47:18

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.

RedLondonBus Sun 01-Dec-13 21:47:54

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!

BoffinMum Sun 01-Dec-13 21:47:58

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.

plinkyplonks Sun 01-Dec-13 22:07:18

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 smile

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 smile

"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 Sun 01-Dec-13 22:21:14

Lol at you accusing me of making lots of presumptions.

MrsDeVere Sun 01-Dec-13 22:25:20

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.

nennypops Mon 02-Dec-13 00:26:45

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.

Emmallie Mon 02-Dec-13 00:41:02

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.

BerylStreep Sun 08-Dec-13 21:16:27

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.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now