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.

Claw - this most recent case, it says her two other children are in care.

I am afraid that without doubt care proceedings will follow for this baby.

Lake On another forum I tried linking to the description of Bipolar on the Mind website (figured it was written simply and would be hard to misinterpret), it got totally ignored in favour of comments like "oh well I get mood swings sometimes".

You'd think people would be more willing to at least think about what it might entail wouldn't you?

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

Everybody has the right to give or deny consent to an invasive procedure. In a birth context, they can't so much as stick a needle in you unless you consent. Nor do internal exams. Nor make you wear a monitor. You get to choose and as long as there is no overwelmingly obvious symtoms of a mental illness with a history o top, nobody is going to run off to try and find a judge who will allow medical professionals to make ypur medical decsions fo you.

Given how much it costs, how much evidence is required and how diffiuclt it is to get a court judgement that agrees a person does not have the capsity for informed consent..... the only place where you'd need to write a note declaring your sanity to ward off unconsented to c-sections... is in your immagination.

Sorry my last post on assumption he father is out of the picture which could be completely wrong assumption.

But if no family members can step up LA will have to get a care order to share parental responsibility

MurderofGoths
On another forum I tried linking to the description of Bipolar on the Mind website (figured it was written simply and would be hard to misinterpret), it got totally ignored in favour of comments like "oh well I get mood swings sometimes".

Good gracious!!! Yep, they are exactly the same!!

One thing I learnt looking at all the comments online in the last week is that many people are totally ignorant about...everything! From mental illnesses, to geography... how to back up your perspective on a topic using evidence and facts....

In one posts there was such a rose-coloured description of Italy that I questioned my own sanity.. Wow, come again... what am I doing here in UK, I left heaven behind... Absurd

So CV someone who thinks they are sane but fears the authorities will not agree and wants to avoid a C section needs to give birth alone by way of a freebirth then are we saying?

I am very afraid some vulnerable women may choose to do exactly that, given irresponsible scaremongering of JH, Booker et al.

"So CV someone who thinks they are sane but fears the authorities will not agree and wants to avoid a C section needs to give birth alone by way of a freebirth then are we saying?"

And maybe risking her life in the attempt. Why can't we progress in life without going backwards?

t 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

The data is of more importance than any given doctor's opinion.

Women with serious mental illness who go through labour have a far higher C-sec rate even when it is not a case of VBAC. They may not recognise that labour has started, they may become highly agitated during labpur, they may be in a state whereby monitoring mother and baby's vitals or progression are not possible. Now add that to the additional risks of VBAC where monitoring and co-operation between labouring woman and doctor is vital so action can be taken swiftly if rupture occurs..

Doctor's in Britian may be VBAC firendly despite the additional risk of uterine rupture when the birth is in a medical setting able to deal in an emergency, where the patient has capcity. Any doctor who wants to ignore the data and feels "let's suck it and see" is equally apllicable to a woman in florid psycosis with paranoid intrusive thoughs ..... probably didn't pay attention on their psych rotation when in training.

She might have given birth vaginally without rupture, the baby might have been born fine and well thanks to intervention even if she had ruptured. But given how she was incaperble of giving informed consent it behoves those charged with her best interests to minimse the risks to her and her baby.

And that is what they did.

They chose to minimise the risks to her and her child.

It just all seems very nasty and very personal.

Juliet, why are you so studiously ignoring everything that has gone before on this thread? Tell me, have you really not noticed the way JH keeps ignoring any questions the answer to which might be awkward for him? Are you really happy that he characterised the original case as social services getting an order for a Caesarian for their own convenience when he knew that to be incorrect? Does it not worry you in the least that he has put the Italian mother into a dreadful position that will endanger her health, and that he is ignoring the welfare of her child?

claw2:
Differences between the 2 cases, things that jumped out at me when reading (please correct me if im wrong)

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.

I think in the last case the evidence was that she might not tell the doctors if she went into labour or if she had symptoms indicating the possibility of uterine rupture. Also I suspect they were taking into account that an elective Caesarian is a lot safer than an emergency Caesarian after labour has started.

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

It was established at a very early stage that that "panic attack" was a myth, and that she was having a full-blown manic episode. The "panic attack" idea seems to have originated with the Italian lawyer, but given that he made out that she had the Caesar 4 weeks early when even she said it was 4 days early, he's clearly pretty careless with his facts.

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.

My recollection is that it was clear that they were in agreement as to the need for a Caesarian.

Carpe hits the nail on the head yet again - well done. The issue seems now to be about mental illness and the need for C sections. Juliet you wonder why the Italian woman was forced to have a C section. All C sections (as in this case) are made on the basis of clinical need and because in the Italian case the mother was sectioned under the terms of the Mental Health Act the medics took the view that a C section was the safest way of her giving birth and this was upheld by the Court of Protection.

Maybe Juliet you have never seen someone who is the grip of a psychotic illness (and there are many such mental illnesses) but I have. Patients who are suffering from psychosis are out of touch with reality - they often don't know where they are, they need to be fed because they have stopped eating, sometimes they make bizarre comments and many attempt to remove clothing or urinate on the floor, but above all they are confused totally confused and distressed and this shows in their face and body language as they may wonder aimlessly about in an attempt to make sense of what is happening to them. Needless to say this is very distressing for the patient and to other patients too as any attempt to show empathy can be met with suspicion which is another symptom of a psychotic illness.

How anyone imagines that a woman in this psychotic state can endure endless hours of labour and understand and accept the advice given by the midwives attending her is beyond my understanding. The issue of whether she could have had a vaginal birth after two C section is something of a red herring, as I am sure that the decision was made on the basis of the mother's state of mind. The medics have a duty of care to the mother and baby and in the Italian mother's case the decision was made that the safest way or the mother and baby was by a C section and this was upheld by the Court of Protection.

The only reason JH drew attention to this was because the child would not have been safe in the care of the mother and there was no-one in the extended family including the father who was willing to be considered to care for the child and so the care plan was for adoption or as JH would have it forced adoption

Had the mother undergone a C section and was allowed to stay in the UK with her baby or returned to Italy with her baby JH would have had no interest in the story because it wouldn't have fitted* with his conspiracy theory

I don't think you are going to change your view as many posters have patiently tried to explain our position and our frustration with an MP who tells scurrilous lies and then refuses to respond to issues that are raised with him, attempts to prove his points which fail to do so, and in short must think we are all suffer from the same kind of irrational thought processes that he himself does. Many of us have encountered him on other threads (always about the same issue) and he always behaves in the same way, tells lies, fails to respond to any issues put to him, attempts to prove his point which always fails and then pops up with a random comment that has no meaning.

He has no regard for children who might be abused and neglected and this is beyond shocking. All he wants to do is try to find stories that he thinks fits with his conspiracy theory.

Incidentally Juliet have you read any of the numerous links posted on this thread that demonstrate how JH has been severely criticised by High Court Judges, and matters relating to his personal life. Have you - anyway I'm not going to waste any more time on you as I think you have more invested in believing JH for reasons best known to yourself.

I'm a bit confused about the 2nd case - sounds like the Italian case doesn't it...........?

NanaNina
Had the mother undergone a C section and was allowed to stay in the UK with her baby or returned to Italy with her baby JH would have had no interest in the story because it wouldn't have fitted with his conspiracy theory

You summed it up so perfectly!!

He has no regard for children who might be abused and neglected and this is beyond shocking.

It is. And it is beyond my logical comprehension why nobody called him on his b-s yet. Some statements are an attack to anything that has been said by any of the rape and DV charities for the last 20 years.

Also I suspect they were taking into account that an elective Caesarian is a lot safer than an emergency Caesarian after labour has started.

Not to mention less truamatic. I know the popular percpetion is that psych patients are the scary ones. But the reality is that they are more often made terrified by their illness than we the public ever are. In somebody who is unable to comprehend what is happening to them, why they are in pain, why people want to strap monitors on them or stick their hand up their vagina,,or wheel them off at top speed to a cold, strange whilte room and stick a mask on their face .... the terror can be "I am stuck in a horror film" degree and the memories of that can hang around for a lifetime.

I appreciate people think it is kinder to give people the choice even when they are not caperble of comprehening the risk/benefits of that choice, but that is not always the case. To ignore the element of mental illness and demand one size fits all solutions, for everybody, alway, is cruel.

Nana, I was just stating the differences between the initial reporting of the cases and why one might seem more acceptable than the oth

other

"if we lose capacity then our advance decision would be a natural birth "

right.

juliet you realise how nonsensical that sounds? surely you would hope that in the event of a severe mh episode clinical deciisions are taken that ensure your life (and that of unborn baby) are at the forefront?

as nina said, if you have seen somenone in the throes of a MH crisis (as i have) then you would understand how it doesnt make sense. if you have not, then perhaps one should allow for that. but please, ask the views of those who have experience...

it really isnt the same as deciding on no more intervention and a natural death if you no longer have capacity at end of life, when an advance directive giving your views would makes sense

perhaps DT has learned from the reporting of the last case and realised that there is a big difference between a panic attack and a severe mental ilness...it is clear from the court papers etc that the italian lady did not have a simple panic attack...(if a simple panic attack hotel staff could have given her a cup of tea and said there there .. .maybe checked at hospital = she was sectioned and there is a threshold to be sectioned it isnt easy )

and that the steps n the process are:

1 decide if there is a need to apply to court to ensure a caesarean to deliver baby due to patient's lack of capacity

1. then once baby is born, make decisions about the baby

then perhaps one should allow for that

Well that depends.

After several threads and god knows how many posts pointing out the chasm between real and "I am filling in a knowledge gap with my immagination" comprehension in terms of what MI can look like at the sharp end of the scale, clinging determindly like the world's most clingy limpet to ignorance ... starts to look almost deliberate.

And I am hard pushed to make allowances for that.

But there is precedent for this isn't there? Plenty of people make living wills whilst they have capacity about how they want things to be done after they lose capacity or give power of attorney.
If you often have mental illness episodes could you give a power of attorney to your mother to take decisions about you during labour as a precaution?

Juliet It sounds like the mother in this case is actually in denial about her bipolar (which is sadly quite common with bipolar IME and probably why she had a history of refusing her medication) on that basis she probably wasn't thinking ahead to when she had an "episode", so giving power of attorney probably wasn't an option. We also now know that contact with her parents was limited, and she was here on her own - had been for at least 5 weeks. In that case the doctors had a woman who was not able to consent (not unwilling - unable) and needed to decide what was best for her based on the facts available. Would you rather they took into account her physical health or her possible feelings (given that they could hardly step back in time to talk to her when she was well)?

As i understand it, women who suffer with severe mental health difficulties or maybe even mild mental health difficulties, issues can get worst when pregnant.

In an ideal world, women who do suffer with mental issues or any other long term condition (sorry im generalising and I am sure many cope very well) should be looked after and monitored more carefully by health/social professionals with things such as a care plan to help establish what you want, what you need, what services you need and who will provide it etc. Included in that care plan could be who you would wish to appoint as an advocate if need be, what medication should be given etc, etc. Obviously this plan would have to be written when you were feeling well.

Obviously its no guarantee. I feel very sorry for the women concerned that it has to get to the stage it does and im also betting they receive very little care, other than the standard care available to all pregnant women.

Sorry that should have read mental health issues

claw MH services are severely underfunded, and about to be more so. Too many people are going without the help and support they need.

Yes MOG's so true, i have experienced myself with my own ds. Professionals want to pass to buck and it often results with no one taking responsibility so they don't have to fund. It is totally ridiculous as it costs far more in the long term and ends in consequences like this.

A sad link. Shows that another service is being cut so that they can only react to crisis and emergencies - which of course is a fool's policy as it will cost more in the long term because no one's problems will ever be resolved.

You would think the government would want to put a bit more money into keeping all agents of its conspiracy operational. Looks like a few pregnant mentally ill women might escape attention now with no mental health teams to monitor their condition and report back to the SS.