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?
jeez op,competitive outrage? it wont happen here,we are all too sensible and educated on MN!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
No need for bitchy reply
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.
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.
Well are YOU willing to see both sides of this story op?
Doesn't sound like it
You are very misguided and ill informed to boot.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
It's been/being discussed elsewhere... Other threads.... What more do you want? Some huge mumsnet campaign with you at the helm?
Again with the emotive language?
Me saying you are misguided does not mean I'm personally attacking you
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.