libuse Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Oh I see, so presumably its okay then. Obviously the best intentions and concerns were meant for mother and child. Its just that its the first I've heard of anyone issuing power to authorise that someone have a caesarean section for the mentioned intention and I thought it seemed rather extreme, but admittedly I'm a little behind the times on these issues. Yes, it is indeed "okay then." That's the whole point of the MCA - to ensure that when a person lacks capacity, actions are taken in their best interests (which has a definition within the act). Personally, I'm not always sure the judgements are ideal, but histrionic accounts such as the OP's, implying that social services are acting merely to cover their backs, get on my wick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Yes, it is indeed "okay then." That's the whole point of the MCA - to ensure that when a person lacks capacity, actions are taken in their best interests (which has a definition within the act). Personally, I'm not always sure the judgements are ideal, but histrionic accounts such as the OP's, implying that social services are acting merely to cover their backs, get on my wick.Yes that's the problem I have. And although I praise and respect social workers for the difficult job they do, and am aware of the huge pressure and responsibility they have, as with any other authority responsible for the health and well being of people, I don't think the decisions they make should always be unquestionable. In the case of this Italian woman we have limited information at this stage, and perhaps may never get to know the full facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Yes that's the problem I have. And although I praise and respect social workers for the difficult job they do, and am aware of the huge pressure and responsibility they have, as with any other authority responsible for the health and well being of people, I don't think the decisions they make should always be unquestionable. In the case of this Italian woman we have limited information at this stage, and perhaps may never get to know the full facts? Social Services didn't make the decision. The High Court did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 And like melt said maybe shed have done nothing to hurt her baby or kids The mother doesn't own the child, it isn't chattel. The parents are guardians until it becomes of age. If the state feels that the child is in anyway threatened by circumstances which could bring it to harm, it is duty bound by law to intervene and take over the role. Be thankful you actually have a social care system which is pretty efficient. The system can always be improved, be thankful you don't live in India or parts of Africa. If the child at a later date was harmed then you may (ironically) bay for blood and hunt the "social services down like dogs"..terms I might add that will not win over your point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Social Services didn't make the decision.The High Court did. Yes I'm aware of that, I wouldn't have expected the surgeon to perform the surgery on the sole authority of the Social Services only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 She was suffering a mental breakdown, who knows what she would have done to the kid. Sometimes none of the options are pleasant so you go for the least bad one. You leave these things be, and all of a sudden you read about a baby that has been flushed down the toilet or some other horrible murder or attempted murder. Mental breakdown or She suffered a panic attack, which her relations believe was due to her failure to take regular medication for an existing bipolar condition. And the child has not been returned despite her having the condition under control for the 15 months since it was forcibly removed from her body... ---------- Post added 02-12-2013 at 11:37 ---------- As someone has said on this thread, the baby's father is thought to be a family member. Where has that come from, it's not in the telegraph article. ---------- Post added 02-12-2013 at 11:38 ---------- Social Services didn't make the decision. The High Court did. Social services presented some evidence to the court, the woman in question had no advocate and wasn't informed of the court application, so she couldn't contest the evidence or present any of her own. ---------- Post added 02-12-2013 at 11:41 ---------- The mother doesn't own the child, it isn't chattel. The parents are guardians until it becomes of age. If the state feels that the child is in anyway threatened by circumstances which could bring it to harm, it is duty bound by law to intervene and take over the role. At what point does it become a 'child' and have this protection, clearly not at the point of conception. Is it when the 24 week period is passed? Or should it not be after being born? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoGo_dancer Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 The baby was placed with a foster family as I said. The girl in person was actually impregnated by a family member and her illness meant that she hadn't even been able to confirm that she had consented to sex in the first place, there was no way she could look after herself, nevermind a child. These stories are always emotive but there are often complex backgrounds that the public don't get to hear about. Apologies if I caused any confusion with my comments, this information was from the case that my friend was dealing with last year that I had mentioned to the OP. I was trying to make the point about the complex details behind the headlines that we, the public, don't get to see. And why should we? It's nothing to do with us! I was simply posting this to try and add perspective and defend the social workers who have to do these incredibly hard jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsTrophy Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Apologies if I caused any confusion with my comments, this information was from the case that my friend was dealing with last year that I had mentioned to the OP. I am concerned about your friends lack of confidentiality. It seems to be that the wrong people are in place with great responsibility. I would put a pre-requisite of at least being a grand parent with university educated children, who have all studied social sciences. Being a middle class snob with unrealistic expectations of real life is not the ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Apologies if I caused any confusion with my comments, this information was from the case that my friend was dealing with last year that I had mentioned to the OP. I was trying to make the point about the complex details behind the headlines that we, the public, don't get to see. And why should we? It's nothing to do with us! I was simply posting this to try and add perspective and defend the social workers who have to do these incredibly hard jobs I'm not so sure about it having "nothing to do with us" Are we (the public) expected to accept that every decision made by the social workers and family courts in private should never be revealed or subjected to scrutiny? Think of the past when powers of control were given to authorities who made major decisions about the future welfare of children's lives in secret! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.