"forced Caesarean" Details

[jno]

As many ABers suspected when this story was originally posted, there was a lot more to it than met the eye, some of it misleading or plain wrong, possibly deliberately

http://www.headoflegal.com/2013/12/04/booker-hemming-and-the-forced-caesarian-case-a-masterclass-in-flat-earth-news/

The earlier post is here:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1295532.html

[boxtops]

How very interesting. Thanks for posting that, jno.

[China Doll]

Thanks for this jno; I did rather think that all was very much not as it appeared to be.

[woofgang]

can those of us who said that we hadn't heard the whole story get our "told you so" banners out please?

[Gromit]

Thanks jno.

A most informative read.

[mikey4444]

I'm a bit confused now to be honest. Did this forced caesarean actually happen or what ?

I could understand how the baby could be taken into care as soon as it was born. This is an uncommon event, but not unknown. But I can't see why the woman should be forced to have a caesarean, unless it was medically necessary.

So, as I said, I am even more confused now.

[Zacs-Master]

Without the facts no one can know. And I doubt that the truth of the matter wil ever become public.

[pixie373]

Doesn't make much sense to me either. She was unconscious, so unable to give consent? Caesarean because she'd had 2 previously. Baby taken away?

[Peter Pedant]

O come on mikey

Obstructed labour - malposition (NOT malpresentation) delayed first stage, fetal distress, active herpes AND the mother refusing consent all immediately spring to mind.

Oh these are all 'ors', not 'ands'

and as I said somewhere else
The judge provides lawful consent
and doesnt order diddly squat (in other words they have to find a doctor who will do the deed beforehand)

[pixie373]

None of those would be "forced" peter.

[askyourgran]

I'm with you mikey it is confusing. I read somewhere that she didn't take her medication because she was worried about harming her unborn baby. Why was she here so near to her time to give birth? She was supposedly training for a job. Her two other children were being cared for by her family, and surely if they deported her back to Italy why keep the baby here. It still doesn't sound right.

[Peter Pedant]

yes they would be if the mother didnt consent to a section

If you have a shoulder presentation - you dont say oo I will wait and see if the child comes out by himself - he wont.

[pixie373]

There wasn't. But the mother has a choice.

[Peter Pedant]

I dont think the mother has a choice to kill her child in labour
I could be wrong on that one

[pixie373]

Indeed. The mother has total choice, unless (as in this case, it seems) she is incapable of judging. Can you give any other examples of forced caesareans? Would be interested to know.

[woofgang]

Did you read the article? Her other two children had been born by elective cesarian. The baby was distressed and a vaginal birth could/was likely to result in a uterine rupture for the mother which is a huge life risk.
Her other children had been removed for her under the italian care system and were permanently with her mother who had said that she could not/would not care for the baby.
Whatever the reason for her ceasing to take the medication, she had done so and was suffering from psychotic hallucinations.

This comment on the piece I thought particularly worth reading too.
"As a mother with bipolar disorder who has suffered from paranoid delusions I have been horrified by the coverage of this case. To go through labour while paranoid and psychotic, unable to understand either why you are in pain or that the people around you are trying to help, would quite literally be one of the most dreadful experiences that I can imagine, and if this woman was that ill a caesarian would absolutely be the only humane way to proceed.

There seems to be a general refusal, particularly in the liberal press and blogosphere, to accept that really serious mental illness and a consequent lack of capacity exists any more, a belief that everything can be done by consent and that anything else is merely prejudice against the mentally unwell. It’s an understandable backlash against the time when we were routinely denied our rights but it does those of us who occasionally really cannot make decisions for ourselves no favours. In this case it seems from the limited information supplied that the court was definitely the appropriate places for the issue to be raised and a decision to be made in light of medical advice."

[woofgang]

pixie I have already mentioned that I have knowledge of a woman who experienced an extreme mental breakdown during her pregnancies. The cause was the hormonal changes and it was important if things got out of hand that the baby should be born as soon as it was safe.

have you experience of someone in the grip of psychotic hallucinations or other florid mental states? I did once see a woman slash her wrists over and over. She was forcibly restrained and sedated so that she could be treated. this wasn't a suicide choice, the woman was in the grip of something she could not control. After the episode, when she had regained herself, the only thing she was concerned about was the injuries she had inflicted on the staff who had helped her.

I think that its inappropriate in these cases to talk about forced treatment, even in the case of cesarian birth because the action taken is not against the person's will. At the time, they have no will.

[ummmm]

I've had experiences with people like that.

The courts also order that some women have certain contraception forced on them (coil or implant) totally against their will. It is 100% for their own safety and the safety of a child they risk bringing into the world.

[pixie373]

Yes, woofgang, i have and that's what i said about consent.

[woofgang]

then why are you still talking about a "forced cesarian"

[pixie373]

Because i was answering peter, who was giving general reasons why it would happen. That wasn't about this lady at that point.