Forcibly removed by Cesaerean...

[PreachersWife2004]

Scary stuff in the UK.

What the heck were they thinking? Couldn't they be bothered to contact her family AT ALL before removing the baby?

Abortion activists should be up in arms about this, actually, since it totally took away any right to choose the mother had.

I'll be shaking my head over this one for a looong time...

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Wow! basically she was kidnapped, held hostage and had her baby kidnapped over a panic attack. Of course a good mom tries to get off drugs, so her baby doesn't take them. They could have let her deliver her baby and tried to get her back on her meds, instead of kidnapping her baby. Of course if this woman get her child back, Then this baby will feel like she's being kidnapped and have to deal with that the rest of her life.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Wow! basically she was kidnapped, held hostage and had her baby kidnapped over a panic attack. Of course a good mom tries to get off drugs, so her baby doesn't take them. They could have let her deliver her baby and tried to get her back on her meds, instead of kidnapping her baby. Of course if this woman get her child back, Then this baby will feel like she's being kidnapped and have to deal with that the rest of her life.

Totally agree here.

I don't get why they had to do the c-section at all. If they feared for her and the baby, fine, get family involved, get her regular doctor (OB) involved and send her back home. They had NO right to do this to her, at all.

 

[craigerNY]

The doctors......the hospital...........they were cool with doing this????

This is just one question of so many I have. Hard to wrap my head around really.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The doctors......the hospital...........they were cool with doing this????

This is just one question of so many I have. Hard to wrap my head around really.

I was reading it with my husband and we thought for sure it was a satirical article...there's been so many of them, and I first heard about this via Chicks on the Right so I was certain there was SOMETHING amiss with it. But alas, I can't find anything to suggest that this did not happen.

It is quite terrifying. Could this ever happen in the US?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

It is quite terrifying. Could this ever happen in the US?

It wouldn't surprise me, especially in the 50's 60's. I know my sister has mental problems and this never happened to her. I did see on the news that a teen rape victim was sterilized after she had her baby, because they figured she was"feebleminded" and doomed to "promiscuity. I'm sure she's not the only one.
Sterilized in North Carolina, she felt raped once more - Los Angeles Times

Elaine Riddick was only 14 when the state decided that she was not capable of mothering children and quietly cauterized her fallopian tubes. The $50,000 now offered to her only makes her angrier.

January 25, 2012|By David Zucchino, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Raleigh, N.C. — Elaine Riddick was a confused and frightened 14-year-old. She was poor and black, the daughter of alcoholic parents in a segregated North Carolina town. And she was pregnant after being raped by a man from her neighborhood.

Riddick's miserable circumstances attracted the attention of social workers, who referred her case to the state's Eugenics Board. In an office building in Raleigh, five men met to consider her fate — among them the state health director and a lawyer from the attorney general's office.

 

[KitKatMatt]

I looked up this case on Google and got several news sites including the Guardian reporting it. So it sounds like a real case.

Of course, there are two sides to every story, but this sounds completely HORRIBLE and I don't know what kind of excuse anyone could make for the treatment of this woman and her child.

If I go on I think my post will be a mass of blesses :/

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I looked up this case on Google and got several news sites including the Guardian reporting it. So it sounds like a real case.

Of course, there are two sides to every story, but this sounds completely HORRIBLE and I don't know what kind of excuse anyone could make for the treatment of this woman and her child.

If I go on I think my post will be a mass of blesses :/

I was trying to think of what could possibly be on the "other side" of this story to legitimize or justify what they did, and I couldn't think of anything. Even if she would've been the most horrible mother, they had no right to drug her and deliver that baby via c-section. I'd like to know if any of these people who determined her fate are connected to the foster family this baby is with.

 

[KitKatMatt]

I was trying to think of what could possibly be on the "other side" of this story to legitimize or justify what they did, and I couldn't think of anything. Even if she would've been the most horrible mother, they had no right to drug her and deliver that baby via c-section. I'd like to know if any of these people who determined her fate are connected to the foster family this baby is with.

I can think of nothing either.

These people are a shame to the medical field and need their licenses stripped. They don't need to be interfering in lives like this.

And... I actually wouldn't put that possibility past some people. Unfortunately.

 

[craigerNY]

I was trying to think of what could possibly be on the "other side" of this story to legitimize or justify what they did, and I couldn't think of anything. Even if she would've been the most horrible mother, they had no right to drug her and deliver that baby via c-section. I'd like to know if any of these people who determined her fate are connected to the foster family this baby is with.

A court ordered her cut open and her child removed. I have issues with court ordered surgery as it is but this. This is so hard for me to comprehend. I can't picture it.

I mean there are processes and protocols for taking custody of someone by the state or placing one under custody of a family member. Why were one of those avenues not the solution? What steps were omitted before this horrific step?

I'm kind of at a loss here, this is so hard to imagine.

 

[craigerNY]

It is quite terrifying. Could this ever happen in the US?

Oh, and to answer your question, I don't know. But we have had disturbing things happen here as well. Sorry if this muddies your OP. Not my intent.

Case of New Jersey woman who lost custody of baby because she refused a cesarean raises many issues

 

[HorsieJuice]

I'm rather skeptical that this was merely a "panic attack." The article says that she's bipolar and had gone off her medication.

Also, she had already been in the ward for at least 5 weeks when the baby was delivered, and we have no idea why they chose a c-section.

I'm not saying that social services didn't do anything wrong, but reading between the lines a bit, I can see plenty of ways in which they would've been completely justified.

 

[variant]

I was trying to think of what could possibly be on the "other side" of this story to legitimize or justify what they did, and I couldn't think of anything. Even if she would've been the most horrible mother, they had no right to drug her and deliver that baby via c-section. I'd like to know if any of these people who determined her fate are connected to the foster family this baby is with.

I have my doubts that she was suffering from just a panic attack.

Unless that is the sort of thing that gets you sent to a mental institution in england.

I'm rather skeptical that this was merely a "panic attack." The article says that she's bipolar and had gone off her medication.

Also, she had already been in the ward for at least 5 weeks when the baby was delivered, and we have no idea why they chose a c-section.

I'm not saying that social services didn't do anything wrong, but reading between the lines a bit, I can see plenty of ways in which they would've been completely justified.

Yes, five weeks for a panic attack? Seems to me like they thought her life was in danger and perhaps the child she was carrying was making it difficult to recover.

 

[revanneosl]

I hope she gets back on her meds & then charges them with assault.

 

[Vanilla Scripture]

There are no words.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm rather skeptical that this was merely a "panic attack." The article says that she's bipolar and had gone off her medication.

Also, she had already been in the ward for at least 5 weeks when the baby was delivered, and we have no idea why they chose a c-section.

I'm not saying that social services didn't do anything wrong, but reading between the lines a bit, I can see plenty of ways in which they would've been completely justified.

I totally see your point. I have a relative who was in protective custody both times while pregnant and was much more of a danger to herself and her unborn child than what appears with this woman. Never once did they even entertain the idea of sedating her and delivering her children. It was just understood that at the time of the birth, the parental rights would be signed off and the child placed for adoption. But both times family members were aware and present, and both children went to other family members.

I can see justifying removing the child if the circumstances called for it. But what they did? Seems to open the door to so many slippery slopes! What if a government (or government agency) decided that a pregnant woman who drank wine during her pregnancy presented a risk and they did this?

Seems to me that if it wasn't just a panic attack, the people who did this would be out in force stating such, and I still would have a hard time justifying the forced c-section. C-sections should be for emergencies only (in my opinion, of course) and not to enable birthing while the mother is incapacitated.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I hope she gets back on her meds & then charges them with assault.

When I was talking to my husband about this he brought up rape. I realize this was not sexual in nature, but they drugged a woman and then performed an intimate procedure on her without her consent.

What REALLY kills me is that the judge formed a favorable opinion of her, yet still recommended the child be placed for adoption. WHY?

Too many unanswered questions here.

 

[marshlewis]

This is bloody awful.

Anyone who has had more children after a c-section, especially twins, knows how cruel the pressure applied to have another c- section is. But this story is a nightmare.

 

[Kylie]

Abortion activists should be up in arms about this, actually, since it totally took away any right to choose the mother had.

Quite apart from the forced C section (which I agree is scary), what does this have to do with abortion? If the child was developed enough to survive outside, then it was certainly too far along to be aborted. I'm not aware of a single person who argues for a woman's right to have an abortion who would say that it is okay to terminate a pregnancy that far along.

 

[Oafman]

Too many unanswered questions here.

Yeah, this appears to be a very complicated case. I think judgment should be withheld until a detailed picture of the extent of her illness before the birth is known.