Dilemma of man 'asked by social workers to donate organ to son he is not allowed to see'

[naomi24]

What do you make of this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3367804 /Dilemma-of-man-asked-by-social-workers-to-don ate-organ-to-son-he-is-not-allowed-to-see.html

[Whickerman]

What a horrible situation - the poor ******.

If it was me I'd need a paternity test first, but then i'd donate - but to my last breathe I'd be fighting for custody.

[jackthehat]

Oh my word !
What a horrible, horrible dilemma.
My heart goes out to both the father and his son..........

[Le Chat]

If he doesn't donate then he'll never see him in adulthood either.
Part of me understands how he must feel but how can a child's life be used as a bartering tool? "If you don't let me see him, I'll let him die," is basically what is being said.
If I had a child 'out there somewhere' and I knew that I could potentially save his/her life, then I would because the child would be mine, regarless of contact.

[Quinlad]

This is a no brainer.

Less than 1 donor in 3,000 dies. I totally understand why the father is upset but bleating to a national newspaper and using his kidney as a bargaining chip is low.

Of course he should donate.

[naomi24]

The man was interviewed by Jeremy Vine today. He has had a DNA test, and he is the father. The child is in the care of social services awaiting adoption, and he had no idea that this child, the product of a short-lived affair, existed before Social Services contacted him in connection with organ donation, but he said he wants to shoulder his responsibilities and has applied to the courts for custody. However, that has been refused. No reason was given. A spokesman for Social Services, who also took part in the programme, said that the welfare of the child was paramount. The father has other children, and seems a reasonable and respectable man. His wife is a doctor - I'm not sure in what field - but she was also interviewed and introduced as Doctor ......

I simply can't understand what's going on here.

[naomi24]

From what I gathered from the interview, there doesn't seem to be any question of the father not agreeing to donate the organ, but he wants his son - or at the very least he would like contact with his son - but that has also been refused.

[tigerlily11]

He can't believe that social services could be so cruel.
Well I can.

[Quinlad]

Given that he himself descirbes the decision as a 'dilemma' suggests that he is (claiming to be) unsure.

[naomi24]

As I said, the donation of an organ didn't appear to be the central issue of the radio interview. The point raised was that social services appeared to deem an unknown adoptive father more suitable to rear the child than the natural father, but for no apparent reason. This is what I can't understand. Failing any legitimate objections relating to the possible mis-treatment of a child, surely the father has the right to raise his own child? Or doesn't he?

[netibiza]

Just think - as his poor son is really ll, what are the odds that his other children won't need one of his organs later - how would he feel if he couldn't then help one of them.

[Oneeyedvic]

Just a quick thought:

The boy in question is 5 years old so born in 2003.

From the article: Mr Shergold, a school caretaker, married his wife, who is originally from Los Angeles, in 2002, the year she moved to Britain.

She became a pastor with a Pentecostal church in Portsmouth.

So within a year of his marriage he had an affair. Presumably the woman that he had an affair with who couldn't cope, knew that he wouldn't leave his new wife, so she had him fostered.

What is in the best interest of the boy? To stay with the family who have taken care of him for the past few years (and who he would consider to be his parents) or to give him to a 'stranger' who he doesn't know?

[Quinlad]

I'm not sure he has adoptive parents yet actually. I think he's awaiting adoption.

Obviously, there are complex factors and legitimate objections involved in this. And a national radio interview probably isn't the appropriate forum to air them.

We shouldn't assume they don't exist just because they weren't broadcast on Radio 2.

[naomi24]

Vic, I understood that the affair took place before the marriage, so can only assume that the child was conceived earlier in 2002 and born in early 2003. I just think it's odd that the natural father should be refused custody. If there was anything untoward in the father's background, would he have been so perplexed by the ruling? The thing is, his wife was interviewed too, and she was just as confused by the refusal to grant custody as he was. I don't believe adoptive parents have been found yet, but I couldn't help wondering just what rights a natural father has. In this case, none, it seems.

[kempie]

The boy's mother had originally agreed to donate the organ, then changed her mind as the transplant might affect her future chance at having another child.

In light of the fact fact she had already given this child up to the foster system, her actions beggar belief!