Astronomy Common Knowledge Quiz.......
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Dilemma of man 'asked by social workers to donate organ to son he is not allowed to see'
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
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.
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.
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.
I simply can't understand what's going on here.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.