Italian adoption case III

[Juliet123456]

The last thread says all I need to know about those in the system. It also the most legally dangerous thread I have ever seen on mumsnet. I hope someone has been through the posts for libel risk. It also entirely one sided and biased and makes me laugh.

The defensiveness of those involved in this area will hopefully disappear once we have the openness that JH and indeed many others are seeking and obtaining as the judges increasingly accept that it helps everyone to understand what are very difficult decisions - parents, children and lawyers and social workers and expert witnesses in this field.

It will continue to be important always to get to the facts and where possible publish the facts. I continue to believe that almost any of us could have our children removed if the state set its mind to that. If publishing more decisions and giving rights to parents and those involved and the children to write what they like on twitter, facebook and the like and to let parents and children even when separated communicate and talk about any issues they choose will help then let us hope the law continues down that course.

Of course Lake

Oh dear it's all going to kick off again

I certainly have never seen such vitriol against a poster as against JH

Maybe that's down to your relative newness as an active poster MN?

If you've come here from a tightly moderated forum I expect it is a shcok when you find yourself in an enviroment where women aren't put on the leash of saccerine niceness at the expense of debate.

PS, for the sake of your delicate sensibilities may I suggest you steer clear of any thread concerning parking spaces, the feeding of infants, mooncups and WOH v SAH.

You might want to give any thread with "KLAXON!" in it a wide berth too.

Carpe.

Maybe JH and Juliet (does she call him Romeo at home do you think?) would like to answer the constituents question earlier?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522330/Second-woman-face-forced-caesarean-High-Court-ruling.html

only the second ever? that makes no sense... tehre msut be some figures some place, how many of these occur...

the comments suggest this is "completely different" to the italian lady as this time they not removing the baby to be forcibly adopted...

juliet I think what frustrates people about JH is there does need to be reforms to the system and he is actually in a position of power to change things yet he's running round on a one man crusade on half stories.

For example BCC may not be able to provide basic children services due to cuts- is he bringing it up every week in pm's questions? If the government refuses to look at the cuts is he going to the ECHR to argue that children's right to life is being put at risk?

To a layman like me it looks like he is after personal glory and does not seem bothered about the children involved or his constituents.

Some worryingly dense comments under that report already, including people who seriously think the Italian mother was well at the time the Caesar decision was made and that it was done purely for social services' convenience.

@nennypops A lie, perpetuated on a loop, becomes a truth

@Wannastepfordwives

"To a layman like me it looks like he is after personal glory and does not seem bothered about the children involved or his constituents."

I totally agree!

I would be surprised if that were so.
It just all seems very nasty and very personal.

I just hope more and more cases where things go wrong or rights are not respected get more and more publicity.

@Juliet
This is for you:
www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/12/australia-incest-case-shocks-country

I guess that is the kind of thing that JH would like to see happening in UK because we all know that SS were there to snatch 12 children.. woah, in one go too! ;)

It just all seems very nasty and very personal

I agree. After reading the details of the cataylst that started JH's conspiracy therory, I am leaving lots of room for the possibility that his agenda is very nasty and personal.

I don't think there are any nails left for Carpe's hammer.

Going to engage with any reform suggestions on your own thread op?
Still no?

juliet I'm sorry if anything I have said about JH has caused you offence I'm just frustrated that a service in a MP's constituency is in crisis and he appears to be doing nothing and refuses to answer one of his constituents questions.

I'm beginning to become of the opinion that the government are encouraging him behind the scenes on his campaign to he doesn't shake things up and put a coherent plan forward for proper reforms and better funding

At the risk of disappearing down my own conspiracy rabbit hole, it would not surprise me if the reason the gov leaves him alone is that they wish to create and sustain public anger with current expensive system, so it can be swept away and replaced with tribunal system where decisions are rubber stamped in double quick time.

Which would be very ironic for anyone concerned that parents rights are being ignored.

How is it different? Women sectioned with serious mh issues, unable to make choices, has had previous C section. Exactly the same [baffled]

Becuase the story revealed a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, which carries perhaps the highest degree of stigma and misconprehension of all MI.

I think it goes something like this..

"PS? wow, that's proper mad and dangerous. Bipolar? On that's like Stephen Fry, Stephen shouldn't have operations he doesn't want! Wot a disgrace!"

Peope, simply do not know that a lable tells you the name, but informs them very little of the range of severity in terms of impairment at any given time, the diversity of sysmtoms in any given diagnosis or the overlap of sysmtoms in illness with different names.

People talk a lot about combatting the stigma of MI, I think that needs to begin with less famous spokeperson examples (that people confuse with "textbook case") and more effort spent on clearing up confusion of some kind of fixed "crazy" scale based on the lable applied.

Lots of women who have had one C section follow that with a natural birth so perhaps we all ought to be writing a note now whilst we are sane saying that if we lose capacity then our advance decision would be a natural birth (if that is what we would want). It is not correct that once a C section always a C section although you could always find a doctor prepared to say C sections are always safest even though that is not necessarily so.

Carpe The amount of ignorance of MH issues is astounding, especially the amount of people who seem to not want to learn about them!

Juliet She'd already had 2 c-sections, the more c-sections the higher the risk, and I assume the doctors would have access to all her medical records in order to judge the actual risk in her specific case.

@Juliet what does that mean? Or what does it have to do with the rest?

Might I have been so stupid to believe that the c-section part was already over?

In case of paranoid schizophrenia I wouldn't allow a natural birth at all... You might be joking!

@MurderofGoths

Totally agree.
There have not been a single poster, anywhere, who linked even one of the many psychiatric blogs explaining any of these disorders in detail... Nope, everyone is just 'assuming'. This is the assuming century, I guess.
If I was about to write one of my essays as these journalists write their articles, I would have failed all my exams

Differences between the 2 cases, things that jumped out at me when reading (please correct me if im wrong)

There seemed to be more details released in this case, maybe due to the public reaction to the last case?

They state woman will be given the chance to give birth naturally and c/s will only be used in life/death situation and give the medical reason why this might become an emergency. This wasn't done with last case.

They state woman has 'severe' mental health issues and give diagnosis. This wasn't done, it was reported as a 'panic attack'

They state that all medical team and psychiatrists involved in her care were in agreement. I don't think they mentioned this in last case.

No mention of SS involvement or any other motivation other than mothers health.

No mention of interim order to remove baby once born or adoption

This is the danger with conspiracy theories. We end up distrusting all professionals, second guessing their decisions, insisting on making our own which may be based on panic or misinformation.

Yes it is perfectly possible to have VBAC but in this case a group of doctors and mental health professionals took the view the risk was too high for this particular woman.

You may disagree with this decision but is anyone seriously suggesting it was a decision made without consideration of what was best for this woman?