Agoraphobic mum-to-be forced to go to hospital for the birth

MissBarabary and if the alternative is death or serious injury to the mother?

Oh lol there were two posters and one of them was human.

Why are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person?!

'Goodness, if only someone had invested time a few pages back writing a long post about why elective dental sedation is not the same situation as this.'

You mean you and another poster that's quite odd/ funny.

Human and did you see how that poster about faced when I pointed out that the posts were inaccurate. And could potentially scare women reading.

You have no idea what I've been sedated for. I think I may have even put it on the thread. I'll check. If I did, then you're calling me an idiot without reading what I've written.

If it was you who posted those things then apologies I don't remember names and I think we are not going to agree.

I assume however you are aware that some posters on here support the idea of abortion on demand to term. I don't; I also don't support the right to insist on a "birth plan" which is irrational, illogical and dangerous to the point it might result in death or serious injury to a baby.

*And the idea that need to get a tube down to sedate someone is arse about face. The statement was to sedate someone you need to intubate and get at least one cannula in. That's not true. Statements like that can scare people reading posts for all sorts of reasons.

I've been sedated plenty of times. In no instance did they put a tube down my airway first.

When people have an anaesthetic they conk them out before intubating. Intubating a person who was conscious and aware would be extraordinarily distressing.*

Goodness, if only someone had invested time a few pages back writing a long post about why elective dental sedation is not the same situation as this.

Just had a Google. She does know- she was at the proceedings with her partner via video link.

Why is it ridiculous to think she might try something desperate? I don't get it.

If there is more info then sorry- can you point me to it?

None of us have many facts at hand about all this at all. Unless more info has been published.

The only info we have is still in the OP right?

The judge has significant stated that proportionate force can be used on a woman due to give birth.

Why do you think that with mental health issues that severe, it's somehow ridiculous to think that if she knows what's going to happen, then she may take any number of extreme actions out of desperation.

There has been no comment on the concern around suicide/ trying to induce abortion. They must be concerns.

That's because sensible people are addressing the facts at hand and not flights of fantasy.

Downwards fast I would imagine. If she does.

And yes of course force is used on people with mental health issues by various services.

There's stuff in the papers not infrequently about mistreatment, injury, death even.

How much force is appropriate on a woman who is due to give birth. And everyone is oh yeah that sounds fine.

Does the woman know about all this? Her mental health will be spuralling

Missbarbary it is misogyny to suggest that women would be getting late term abortions left right and centre.

She'd have to go to hosp for an abortion anyway so it's irrelevant here.

Not to mention difficult.

Calling someone an idiot because you disagree with them is not on.

Fishandchips the idea of using reasonable force on a woman who is due to give birth is slightly different than on people who aren't in that position.

As I'm sure your aware your ligaments in your hips loosen etc so risk of injury is higher.

There has been no comment on the concern around suicide/ trying to induce abortion. They must be concerns.

And the idea that need to get a tube down to sedate someone is arse about face. The statement was to sedate someone you need to intubate and get at least one cannula in. That's not true. Statements like that can scare people reading posts for all sorts of reasons.

I've been sedated plenty of times. In no instance did they put a tube down my airway first.

When people have an anaesthetic they conk them out before intubating. Intubating a person who was conscious and aware would be extraordinarily distressing.

I’m sorry gerbil but you’re an idiot. It’s been explained why you can’t just sedate someone in their home and then move them to hospital. If you don’t know enough about healthcare then do not speak on such matters.

Not according to the law, if I've read this thread correctly

That's correct. I assume Vivienemary meant "rights" in a moral sense, not legal. I mentioned abortion because although I support the UK current rules I do not support abortion to term so I'm very uncomfortable at the idea that the right to insist on an absurd, irrational and dangerous birth "plan" might just as well be abortion to term.

This thread isnt about abortion.

If so then although 1 support the existing UK law on abortion I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that a full term, about to be born baby's rights can be trumped by any decision of the mother, no matter how absurd, irrational or dangerous that might be.

Of course an about to be born child has rights. The right not to be born with a severe disability that could be avoided with a few medical precautions. Im glad the judge came to this decision.

Agree that the unborn child has no rights and should not be considered as it’s own entity in the judgment . It gets more complicated though if the mother is expressing a desire for a healthy baby and also for a home birth. Even if she is found not to have capacity her views should be taken into account.

Consider for example that she wants more than anything else to have a healthy baby, however she has a delusional belief that to have a healthy baby she must not leave her house. If she is found not to have capacity because perhaps she does not understand the medical information that a home birth is dangerous due to her delusion then the court must decide based on her best interests. The court should then look at what her priorities are in order to decide her best interests. Her priority is for a healthy baby therefore the court should make a decision for her that will lead to a healthy baby.

However if her priority was to stay at home whatever due to her delusion and she did not mind if this would cause her baby to die and she Underatstood that this was likely consequence of her having a home birth then it would be a lot harder to find she did not have capacity or if that she did that her best interests would be served by going into hospital.

In addition there is lots of talk about healthy babies here, but not about mums health. A home birth gone wrong is just as easily fatal for mum as it is for baby.

As well as the above it is worth mentioning that as soon as baby is born it has rights so if it was born v unwell after a difficult home birth it would be packed off in an ambulance to hospital without mum - her understanding of the likelihood of that happening and her thoughts about this would also have to factor in.

Finally although it might not feature in the judgment I really feel for the medical staff. If she has a home birth against advice will a midwife have to attend knowing it’s likely to end very badly. Putting the midwife in the position of having to attend to a birth that is likely to go wrong is so very unfair to that midwife. She (or he) may well have to watch mum and baby die knowing she could have saved them. Forceps used to be done at home for instance, there not now as it’s considered unsafe, should if needed they be offered to this lady at home even though that’s considered an unsafe practice. If something then happens would mum or baby sue because of that unsafe practice. Is the midwife going to have to deliver an ill baby and then refuse to hand it to mum to whisk it into an ambulance. Are two ambulances going to have to be on standby for this - how many other women will be harmed if multiple resources are diverted to this case?

There is a lot not being said.

For some reason the medical staff believe the best outcome will be achieved in a London hospital. That 'best outcome' will be a baby and mother who are both alive.

I grew up with an acrophobic (also alcoholic) mother and it is more complicated than not leaving home / safe space.

I am thinking about my mother here, but is she was told, "you have to go to the hospital now", even for life saving treatment, her mind would lock on to 'leaving safe space' and she would do anything to stay safe.

On the other hand knowing you have to leave at a date in the future things can be planned, how to travel there, what things to take, what will happen when you get there etc.

I'm trying to think of an analogy, maybe this. You are at the top of a 20 storey building and you are told to jump and that someone will catch you, just trust that this will happen - who is going to do that?

On the other hand if you are taken to the same rooftop and told, "in 2 months you will jump and someone will catch you", in that 2 months you go back to that roof and see that there is someone to catch you, that that person is an expert and is wearing a safety harness. You will get your own safety harness, there will be a cushion underneath both of you and another person can jump with you, it will still be a hard thing to do but would you jump?

Hopefully she will receive support towards this.

We do not know that medical staff have made an appropriate risk assessment based on the facts as presented.

Given that they've had to satisfy a judge that they have done precisely that, and have had their decision carefully scrutinised and challenged by an independent public guardian and lawyers acting for the woman in question, I think we can assume that they have.