Child taken by from womb by forced C/S for social services! II

[saragossa2010]

As the other is full.
There are far too many cases where the authorities rush to remove children and do not give both parents and wider family a say. Adoption is rushed through.
The fact a senior family judge is insisting he is involved in the rest of this case is a good thing and the more cases like this which receive publicity the better.

The point is it is like justice in China and Russia. If it's secret then those involved cannot justify themselves. If we have more in the public domain that is a greater good than any risk from disclosure to the children and parents involved. it is why open justice and published judgments and rights for all those involved in child disputes to use twitter, blogs and emails and no stifling of free speech.

Thankfully things are all moving this way and we lucky to have people like JM and C Booker to give publicity to the issues which need much wider debate. I would imagine most social workers and lawyers involved in this area are very happy that the issues get more public debate not less. Most professions would.

Ok - I've had enough of the rudeness on this thread, I'm not trying to 'besmirch' anyone.

It's impossible to debate and discuss on this thread without being ascribed views I do not hold.

Don't bother replying to me - it won't be read.

Seven hours after the transcript of the Court of Protection case, Mail Online is still not mentioning it. What a surprise. In the meantime, they are still allowing moderated comments through from people who have swallowed their lies, some of whom are genuinely worried that they too might lose their children to evil social workers at the drop of a hat. And they wonder why people think they should be regulated.

No one has been rude to you.

Maybe challenged your assumptions and the conclusions you drew from them, even in the face of more information that refuted those assumptions.

I can't actually work out what your position is.

But I daresay we shall never know. As you will not reply.

You need to learn the basic precepts of debate.

A disagreement with your position is not a personal attack.

HTH.

\link{http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2518417/Alessandra-Pacchieri--I-feel-baby-kicking-inside-I-crying-I-begged-cut-open.html\it bears so little relation to the reported facts it's laughable}

I have to say that several times throughout this discussion the conspiracy theorists have been asked why on earth so many completely separate professionals would have risked their careers by the thoroughly dishonest and/or negligent acts attributed to them. Not once have we been favoured with an answer. Perhaps Mr Hemming might care to tell us his mad conspiracy theories about this.

Maybe we should ask claig

They aren't stupid. most of the allegations are made as 'quotes' from the mother.

Mind you, does say she was apparently informed of the c-section. So blows that theory out of the water.

LH must just to be too busy to get back to us.

I note that the Mail is refusing to allow comments on that pack of lies "for legal reasons". There are no conceivable legal reasons now that all the details are all in the open. So you have to suspect that the real reason is that they don't want a load of comments pointing out that the thing is largely fiction.

The Mail has been despicable for a long, long time, but I really think it has hit a new low this time.

I feel for the mother but that article is just terrible journalism

The DM can say whatever they like. They've printed crazy lies about people in the past and basically completely gotten away with it

The Daily Mail are a fucking disgrace.

I would go so far as to say that their slanted, barely truthful, reporting of this case is abusive to the mother involved.

I wish her peace, I truly do - but she won't get it when she's got a national newspaper willing to use her in this despicable way. Because that's what they are doing - they are using her to get clicks from the clueless, outraged majority.

They KNOW that SS, the courts & the health professionals have no right of reply here. So they can basically say whatever the fuck they like.....and if challenged will simply say that they are putting the mother's side of the story.

It's a distressing case, but I think the right decisions were made & they were made with heavy hearts because in spite of what the DM & it's hard-of-thinking readership likes to think, professionals in this country do care very deeply.

Am I missing something here?

I really don't understand your comments.

As far as I can see, even from the account given in the adoption judgement, this woman was subject to state assault. I do not understand what the argument was for a cs. Can anyone explain that? She'd already been sectioned for 5 months. She'd refused medication (which by the way probably wouldn't be lithium - there are some far better anti-pyschotics now) for a very good RATIONAL reason - she quite rightly judged that the medication would harm the foetus.

But why would that mean that she should have cs 4 days before her due date?

Why would anyone else think it their right to take control of another person's body? In what society is that okay?

subject to a state assault?

In what universe?

2 previous CSs not a good enough reason for a 3rd? (speaking as one who's had 4)

There is a brilliant picture doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment. It's different scenarios of people with physical illnesses and someone repeating the stupid things that those of us with hidden illnesses/ disabilities/ mental illnesses get told and how ridiculous it sounds like that. (Always sounds ridiculous, but even more so when you can see the illness)

I think this is the problem, we don't see it in the same way. If this woman had been injured, say, in a car crash and was in a coma when she got to term, we would have no issue with her having a caesarean and not being told. Effectively she was! She was not present in her brain at that time but her body was still switched on reacting in a way that she would not behave if she was there. She wasn't there to ask, she wasn't there to discuss it with. They had to deal with the way her body was behaving in the best way they could at the time.

oh, actually, can't be bothered to engage.

Except to say if the mother had agreed to another c section, what would have been the point of going to court to get one sanctioned?

Really? what would have been the point?

You really think that some one in severe mental decline can decide what medication is appropriate? We don't know what was discussed.

As discussed earlier, the mother is free at any time to release the full records of her care while under the care of the state.

I look forward to it. If only to silence you conspiracy mongers. Oh, except I don't think your opinions are worth a damn, so why placate the arm chair detractors?

Its ok in a society which recognises a mentally ill person shouldn't be put at risk due to decisions (or lack there of) made whilst they're in the midst of paranoid delusions....

I'd turn it around on you and ask in what sort of society is it ok for mentally ill people to basically be told tough, and treat them like they are behaving rationally.

Does that mean the lady and baby might have died, Maryz?

Just checking. In words of as few syllables as I can muster.