Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

to think you don't go on holiday whilst having a high risk pregnancy and without adequate insurance

707 replies

Defenderwife · 04/10/2015 10:57

Woman gives birth after food poisoning whilst on holiday in the Dominic Republic.

She had a cervical cerclage so knew she had a high risk pregnancy.

Her insurance didn't cover her entire pregnancy.

They are now stranded with a premature baby in a foreign country with no financial help and are relying on donations and GoFundMe.

I have made a donation but inside I feel almost angry. Why on earth have they let themselves be in this situation? That poor poor child.

OP posts:
Only1scoop · 06/10/2015 08:21

It's been updated and the mother speaks of some of the donated money going to the hospital where the baby is now ....if the insurance company pay out.

Jeff ....They don't intend to refund the money but to donate it to the hospital. They haven't put a stop to the funding page ....but at least she has made it clear that the insurance company may pay out.

She also clarifies that the time difference part was something they presumed was causing a delay and not factual.

Only1scoop · 06/10/2015 08:23

I meant the term of gestation rather than 'time difference'.

multivac · 06/10/2015 08:56

I'm aware of that, JeffsanArsehole. I'm assuming it's not ok to call someone 'scum', either (and on considerably less evidence, by the way).

JeffsanArsehole · 06/10/2015 09:03

Yes, the difference is that they're not a poster on here. Personal attacks are not allowed to be directed to posters on here not randoms in the media.

multivac · 06/10/2015 09:08

Ah, ok. Fill your boots then - continue calling this couple, whom you have never met, and about whom you know nothing apart from the very real fact that they have a very sick baby in hospital at the moment, "scum" and "thieves". And I will keep my opinion on what this says about you as a human being to myself, because being a member of mumsnet means you don't have to hear such mean nastiness. Makes sense.

LolLolLoLol · 06/10/2015 09:27

You have to feel sorry for the family - I've lived in a 3rd world county with a similar two tier health care with the 'bottom' public layer being mostly awful and the 'top' private layer being very swish indeed.
I'm not surprised that there was a lot of confusion. It must have been so stressful.

I'm glad the GFM page has been updated. I actually think it will encourage more people to donate.

JeffsanArsehole · 06/10/2015 09:28

I didn't call them 'scum or thieves' - just said they would be if they didn't return the money

You think it's ok for them to keep the money? Or claim they donated it like the last lot?

Obviously they're not thieving scum if they return or donate the money

You do realise that the last lot kept the money?

multivac · 06/10/2015 09:33

No, JeffsanArsehole that is not what you said. If that's what you meant to say, then that's what you should have typed. Instead, you said they are scum and thieves, and would remain so until the money was returned/donated - which you also insisted the couple absolutely would not do (you know them so well).

Do you see the difference? I imagine not, given that you also can't tell the difference between one Daily Mail story that happens to feature a premature baby and a crowdfunding campaign and another. They all look alike to you, eh?

JeffsanArsehole · 06/10/2015 09:35

I don't routinely call people I don't know names. It's bloody clear I mean if they don't return the money

I don't know them at all, the last two cases I've read like this they didn't return the money.

I notice you haven't bothered answering the question about whether you think they should keep the unwarranted money since the insurance company say they're covered.

multivac · 06/10/2015 09:39

And when you said that they definitely won't return the money, what did you mean by that?

JeffsanArsehole · 06/10/2015 09:41

Because the others didn't. Like I said.

You really think they will return or donate the entire sum?

The last lot deliberately kept the sum of the donation secret, probably to avoid questioning.

multivac · 06/10/2015 09:44

Also, the insurance company has not yet confirmed the cover. It has, for example, imposed conditions on any payout, including that Evie not be moved from the hospital she is currently in. It's lovely that everyone is taking the official statement from the company as proof that the couple now has absolutely nothing to worry about - it shows a touching faith in the insurance industry, especially when set against what mumsnetters people seem to feel is the default setting for individual human beings facing a crisis.

multivac · 06/10/2015 09:45

I love the way you keep referring to "the last lot". It's cute.

JeffsanArsehole · 06/10/2015 09:51

If that's what the insurance company have said about not moving the baby, it's normal

Obviously it's the parents preference that the baby is flown back but if the facilities are adequate the insurance company don't have to

They've presumably deemed them adequate

Maryz · 06/10/2015 09:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

multivac · 06/10/2015 09:57

No, not 'not flown back'. Not moved to a private hospital.

JeffsanArsehole · 06/10/2015 09:59

Yes, that's still a preference. The insurance company don't have to transfer the baby to a private hospital, they think the public hospital is new etc according to that statement

multivac · 06/10/2015 09:59

I have no problem with questioning, Maryz. I have said several times that I have not donated, because I am waiting for verifiable facts.

I find the personal abuse directed at this couple, however, and the assumptions being made about them (including that they are 'scum', 'thieves', 'stupid', 'thick', 'selfish' and even racist)... distasteful. And rather stupid.

LolLolLoLol · 06/10/2015 10:02

The lady that asked for her money back did so after the insurance had confirmed that they would pay but before there were any updates on the Facebook page or the GFM page.

It did take a long time before there were and updates.

I presume she used her real name which was a bit of a mistake Confused

Maryz · 06/10/2015 10:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AbbeyRoadCrossing · 06/10/2015 10:06

They should refund anyone that wants to without anyone abusing them, or donate all of the money. Hopefully they will do as promised. Although legally they don't have to, which always seems to surprise donors. You're not donating to a charity, it's the equivalent of giving someone a fiver, they can legally do what they like with it.

Between 1 in 8 to 1 in 10 babies are premature, and I'm one of those parents. Each to their own but I don't personally pick one couple out of the 15 million premature babies born worldwide to donate to. It's a sad situation and must be worrying but so are millions of others most of which don't have healthcare.

Registered charities are regulated so if you want your money to go to a certain neonatal unit for example, donate directly. Giving it to someone to donate for you adds a level of risk, and 2 sets of fees on the money.

multivac · 06/10/2015 10:06

I have read my own posts. I always do, before and after posting - doesn't everyone?

The only thing I have posted that could be construed as 'personal abuse' is the comment '...and what would stop you being a dick?' directed at the poster who thinks this couple is 'scum'.

Am happy to stand by that, whether it's deleted or not.

And I disagree that I haven't engaged in conversation or debate. It's because I have questioned assumptions (or 'picked holes in other people's posts', if that's what you prefer to call it) that some knickers appear to be getting a little twisted.

Sansoora · 06/10/2015 10:10

Given the wide spread corruption in places like the Domincan Republic I think donating items the hospital may needs is a better way to spend the money people have donated.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 06/10/2015 10:13

I believe the parents and their little girl are in a hellish situation
I believe the insurers may have been less responsive when not in the spotlight
I believe some of the parents' comments can reasonably be considered misleading
I believe the £73k raised would be well spent if donated to the hospitals
I do not believe that £73k (or even the vast majority) will in fact be donated

LibrariesGaveUsP0wer · 06/10/2015 10:17

Well, of course, even if they donate it all , go fund me will have taken a hefty cut. So it is a very inefficient way to let a charitable fund accrue. There is no good reason for not pausing donations.