Forcibly removed by Cesaerean...

[Hetta]

But it's still all confusing and I still want to hear from the health provider, and that won't happen until the case comes to court. Why didn't the father get custody? From what I can work out, he shouldn't have been in the country (undocumented migrant) and therefore had no legal standing. I don't believe that the NHS truly decided that 'this baby is mixed race' (how would they have known that before the baby was born?) and therefore the mother must be deprived of her rights. Do you know the cultural mix in the UK? There is a very high predominance of non-whites. Do all of those non-whites have their babies taken away by c-section? I would say not - or we would have heard of it by now. All those people who thought they should have the baby? Are they even related to the baby or its mother? Again, nobody is going to hand over a baby to a non-genetic relative, who is not in the country where the baby was born. Who knows whether the mother was even coherent at that time and able to inform relatives what was happening?

I would rather withhold 'judgment' until all is explained.

 

[LordOhSavior]

The full story has to be brought into the mainstream. This is deeply disturbing.

 

[explodingboy]

Facts in the news seem to be in short abundance these days.

Generally becuase most of the agencies accused have strict policies on not discussing patient cases. Which unfortunately just means the good ol 24hr media circus we live with will run just about anything.

 

[Hetta]

HIPAA. That's what the privacy law is called here.

If the health provider was to divulge "the full story" - every single person involved in telling that story would be fired, and the institution would be fined very, very heavily.

Both the media and the family knows this. That's why they can spin, and spin, and spin this story again, knowing that nobody from the other side can say a word. Not until it gets to court.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

HIPAA. That's what the privacy law is called here.

If the health provider was to divulge "the full story" - every single person involved in telling that story would be fired, and the institution would be fined very, very heavily.

Both the media and the family knows this. That's why they can spin, and spin, and spin this story again, knowing that nobody from the other side can say a word. Not until it gets to court.

If you're pointing specifically to the family in this story it seems like you're not actually withholding judgment until you get the whole story. It seems like you've already judged the family as spinning the story.

 

[Hetta]

If you're pointing specifically to the family in this story it seems like you're not actually withholding judgment until you get the whole story. It seems like you've already judged the family as spinning the story.

I said that they "can" spin the story. And yes they do know that the health authority cannot respond. That is a certainty.

 

[MrLuther]

The lesson: Don't go to the UK if you're pregnant. You risk some social worker paying a doctor to cut you up, and then steal your baby to hand it to one of her childless friends...

 

[Hetta]

The lesson: Don't go to the UK if you're pregnant. You risk some social worker paying a doctor to cut you up, and then steal your baby to hand it to one of her childless friends...

Let's see the source to support this accusation.

 

[Supreme]

It's pretty horrifying, but the woman was clearly in no state to mother her baby. Why the relatives weren't involved is beyond me, but courts don't make these decisions, well, ever. So I'm guessing there must have been a very good reason for them to have done what they did.

 

[MrLuther]

It's pretty horrifying, but the woman was clearly in no state to mother her baby. Why the relatives weren't involved is beyond me, but courts don't make these decisions, well, ever. So I'm guessing there must have been a very good reason for them to have done what they did.

Funny how this applies here, but not elsewhere. If the same thing had happened in a third-world country, you wouldn't have gone "Oh well, it was for a reason", but "DISGRACE!", and rightfully so.

 

[Skaloop]

The answer is right there. It's all about choice. Those who are pro-abortion claim they are pro-choice. If that is really honestly true, then I expect those people to be the most upset about this as well - seeing as how they completely obliterated this woman's ability to choose how to deliver her child.

First of all, I don't know anyone in the pro-choice camp who is pro-abortion.

Secondly, as a pro-choice person, I am indeed bothered by the OP story.

I would almost expect pro-life people to cheer for what happened; a child was born healthy, rather than perhaps being harmed or killed in utero by a mentally ill pregnant woman. Surely over-riding her rights is worth it to ensure the survival of the baby, right?

 

[Oafman]

So it turns out she'd had two previous children by cesarean section. Which means that the third would always have been by cesarean, regardless of her state of mind.

Still, being "forcibly cut open" makes for a better story doesn't it.

 

[Hetta]

So it turns out she'd had two previous children by cesarean section. Which means that the third would always have been by cesarean, regardless of her state of mind.

Still, being "forcibly cut open" makes for a better story doesn't it.

Do you have a link to that story?

Also, yes, you are quite correct. As well as that, an OB would tend to advise a woman that she should not keep on getting pregnant because her skin at the site will get more and more scarred and thin. :/

 

[MrLuther]

So it turns out she'd had two previous children by cesarean section. Which means that the third would always have been by cesarean, regardless of her state of mind.

Still, being "forcibly cut open" makes for a better story doesn't it.

But her child would not have been kidnapped and sold to highest bidder under the table, or whatever disgrace happened.

 

[Hetta]

It's interesting because I see such a variety of stories in the different reports. There are quite a lot of reports out there, just google something like 'essex woman caesarean section' and they all pop up. I won't read the ones big on hyperbole ("torn from the womb" - okay, that would have killed her, duh), but some say that the father was never involved during the whole process. Others say that the child wasn't placed into care until all other enquiries (into her family specifically) had been exhausted. It's still all spin and innuendo. We will see if she doesn pursue this through the courts, although it has taken her a while. I would never have left any of my babies in a foreign country.

 

[Oafman]

Do you have a link to that story?

I found this blog to be balanced:

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?

It doesn't seek to answer many of the questions raised by this case. It just points out the poor standard of journalism which has been applied to it.

 

[Oafman]

But her child would not have been kidnapped and sold to highest bidder under the table, or whatever disgrace happened.

I think there's a job at the Daily Mail beckoning...

 

[MrLuther]

I think there's a job at the Daily Mail beckoning...

The child was kidnapped, no getting around that. How it then ended up being given to someone who wasn't its parents, or family, is a different matter, but since it isn't normal for people's children to just be ripped out of their wombs, kidnapped, and given away, there has to be some kind of underhanded reason.

 

[Oafman]

kidnapped

sold to highest bidder under the table

children to just be ripped out of their wombs

Seriously, this is exactly the kind of thing the Mail is looking for. You'll go far.

 

[Hetta]

Interesting statement of facts from Essex County Council:

Essex County Council responds to interest in story headlined "Essex removes baby from mother"

2 December 2013
Page Content
Key Dates

There have been lengthy legal proceedings in this case over the past 15 months.

• Mother detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act on 13 June 2012
• Application by the Health Trust to the High Court 23 August 2012
• Application for Interim Care Order 24 August 2012
• Mother took part in the care proceedings ending on 1 February 2013.
• Mother applied to Italian Courts for order to return the child to Italy in May 2013. Those courts ruled that child should remain in England
• In October 2013 Essex County Council obtains permission from County Court to place child for adoption

Context

The Health Trust had been looking after the mother since 13 June 2012 under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. Because of their concerns the Health Trust contacted Essex County Council's Social Services.

Five weeks later it was the Health Trust's clinical decision to apply to the High Court for permissions to deliver her unborn baby by caesarean section because of concerns about risks to mother and child.

The mother was able to see her baby on the day of birth and the following day. Essex County Council's Social Services obtained an Interim Care Order from the County Court because the mother was too unwell to care for her child.

Historically, the mother has two other children which she is unable to care for due to orders made by the Italian authorities.

In accordance with Essex County Council's Social Services practice social workers liaised extensively with the extended family before and after the birth of the baby, to establish if anyone could care for the child.

Statement on behalf of Essex County Council

"The long term safety and wellbeing of children is always Essex County Council's priority. Adoption is never considered until we have exhausted all other options and is never pursued lightly."