Talk

Advanced search

Baby boy to be buried against his parents wishes 21 years after his death following injections

(39 Posts)
SparklyGothKat Thu 31-Jul-08 17:33:01

This is so sad

Should the council be allow to do this

lulumama Thu 31-Jul-08 17:40:37

it is very sad, but after 21 years, what is to be gained? the blood samples and bodily organs that have gone missing will not be found, surel y the baby deserves a proper burial and resting place , rather than being in a morgue and the subject of continued wrangling.

after 21 years, if answers are still not forthcoming, it might well be time to let go.

terribly sad ,i cannot imagine what the parents have gone through

psychomum5 Thu 31-Jul-08 17:41:05

.

that is so sad.

and quite horrifying that they can over-ride parents wishes like thisangry

Marne Thu 31-Jul-08 17:42:28

sad

SparklyGothKat Thu 31-Jul-08 17:43:01

I also believe that the baby deserves a proper burial. I find it so sad that he doesn't have a final resting place

wotulookinat Thu 31-Jul-08 17:44:34

I find it very shocking that the poor thing has been in a freezer for so long. Why not let him rest in peace?

lulumama Thu 31-Jul-08 17:46:31

but the parents are not going to get anywhere, after 21 years... however harsh that sounds, surely they would want their baby to be buried, have a service and headstone. i imagine they are tormented with grief and maybe the burial means they have to finally accept their child;s death. it is awful

edam Thu 31-Jul-08 17:46:31

Tragic story. I gather Action for Victims of Medical Accidents were originally supporting the father, but no longer - suggests he may not be terribly reasonable about things.

belcantavinissima Thu 31-Jul-08 17:49:16

sad. what a gorgeous baby too. so shocking this kind of thing goes on ie poss cover up. heartbreaking and tormenting for the parents sad

ExterminAitch Thu 31-Jul-08 17:51:40

i can understand, though, it's surely impossible to reconcile 'cot death' and results that showed 'blood infection'. it's not a cot death if the child had a blood infection, how can it be?

poor family, i don't think it should be taken out of their hands. it's the council wanting to save £15 a week more than wanting to see a child at rest, i'd think.

SparklyGothKat Thu 31-Jul-08 18:25:46

I am in 2 minds about this, I think the baby should be buried and have a final resting place, but I am shock that the council can overrule the parents

tiggerlovestobounce Thu 31-Jul-08 18:31:28

I doubt that this is about money. The lawers fees and the cost of buriel will be significant.

By todays standards you wouldnt get a diagnosis of cot death/sids if there was another explanation, but I dont know if that was the thinking back then.

There isnt enough information here - what is the evidence of the "blood infection" and how are they saying that relates to the vaccine?

Doesnt seem nice that this little baby has been stuck in a freezer for 21 years, but completely understandable that the parents arent able to accept their boys death.

TwoIfBySea Thu 31-Jul-08 18:31:32

It is time for the dad to let his son go. From the story it sounds as though this has torn him apart and the council should tred very carefully on how they deal with this. I can totally understand where the dad is coming from and he has obviously been fuelled by grief for so long. Terrible that there is always now going to be a question mark over how the baby died.

The wee boy has been in a mortuary for all that time - he needs peace.

SparklyGothKat Thu 31-Jul-08 18:36:33

also found this had said he was found face down on a pillow

ExterminAitch Thu 31-Jul-08 18:38:42

i think this 'peace' thing is utterly bogus, tbh. he's dead, he's frozen sinew and infected blood and has been for 20 years.

the point of burial is for the living, not the dead, to allow them to grieve and move beyond it. by forcing a burial, the council is instead heaping more pain on the parents. the council never knew this child, don't honestly tell me they care more about being truthful about his short life than his parents.

SparklyGothKat Thu 31-Jul-08 18:41:49

they won't admit it tho aitch.

lulumama Thu 31-Jul-08 18:43:16

but after 21 years, it is unlikely that any blood samples etc are going to be available to get a cause of death. so what to do? leave teh baby in a morturary for ever more? i can see both sides, but i cannot see what is to be gained by refusing the burial. they are not suddenly going to capitulate and say ,' we were wrong about teh cause of death, it was an infection', if they were, they would not still be wrangling 21 years later

no easy answer and a tragedy for all

ExterminAitch Thu 31-Jul-08 18:47:23

look, it hangs on whether there was a blood infection or not. he believes there was, presumably has tests to substantiate that. if my child died of a blood infection or something related, i wouldn't be happy to sign something saying cot death (ie cause unknown). (has the council said he's absolutely wrong about the blood infection, are they accusing him of lying or something? i've only seen these two stories).

this whole idea that someone else can say 'it's time to move on' etc is absolutely infuriating. there's a woman on here now who has stolen her dd's medical notes after she died ten years ago. clearly not knowing what happened to her child is torture for her, i've not seen anyone suggest that she should move on, quite rightly. we grieve how we grieve, we move on when it's time to.

oops Thu 31-Jul-08 18:47:29

Message withdrawn

JonahTakalua Thu 31-Jul-08 18:49:52

The decision to bury the child should be made by his family.

Not by a council.

"Last week Enfield Council, North London, used new powers to register Christopher’s death without giving a cause. It has told Mr Blum that he has until August 18 to say where he wants Christopher buried and the wording of a headstone, or the council will make the funeral arrangements itself".

Heartless.

It's not even as if the council is paying the £15 per week.

ExterminAitch Thu 31-Jul-08 18:50:39

it's not up to you, lulu. nor should it be up to the council. it's their child, let it be how they best can cope with it, and if that's by continuing to fight for what they believe is the truth about their child's death then that is imo fair enough. i just can't imagine what it would be like to sign a lie about my child.

so long as provision is made for what should happen to the body when they die, that is.

lulumama Thu 31-Jul-08 18:51:11

i see your points aitch, i really do

but the amount of time that has elapsed, if he had tests to prove it, or there were further tests that could be done, surely they would have happened by now.

maybe the parents will never move on, maybe they will., but i doubt medical science is going to give them any further answers, so how do they move forward

Upwind Thu 31-Jul-08 18:52:02

- what evidence is there of a blood infection? The Guardian does not mention it.

- why did this baby's organs go missing?

The vaccination could be entirely coincidental to the infant's death. The taxpayer is paying £15 a week to keep him in a mortuary indefinitely and it doesn't seem as though any new answers will be found. I think the council are right that Christopher Blum should now move to a final resting place, but if there is any evidence of a blood infection SIDS does not seem an appropriate formal cause of death.

jimjamshaslefttheyurt Thu 31-Jul-08 18:52:25

Agree with aitch

lulumama Thu 31-Jul-08 18:52:31

i know it is not up to me. i am just giving my thoughts.

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