"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

[FredPuli43]

A social worker's job is hard enough, and it depends on establishing trust. Irresponsible journalism, like we have seen in this case, makes the job harder. How easy do you think it is to gain the confidence and trust of someone who has read lurid accounts like that one? The papers and the politicians don't care. They are out to sell newspapers or themselves.

[pixie373]

It often seems to be the way Fred. Attention-grabbing headlines, and changes when you read further. It shouldn't even be publicised as news if it's incorrect.

[woofgang]

but pixie....if only totally factually correct un spun stuff was printed in newspapers, they'd all end up being 2 page tabloids!

[jno]

it's regrettable that this story wasn't in a tabloid, it was in the Telegraph, which ought to know better.

[Gromit]

I was rather busy on Sunday when this story was discussed on AB so I offered a one word comment - 'Scary'. What I did not appreciate at the time was that the root of the story was the work of Christopher Booker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

If I had spotted that Sunday, I would have immediately have been suspicious. Brooker is very anti-science which means his journalism often seems to lose the plot.

[woofgang]

jno, I include the broadsheets in that comment!

[LazyGun]

@Jno Thanks for the link to "headoflegals" site and comment on this case. Makes for very interesting reading, especially the review of Christopher Booker and John Hemmings involvement in previous "social services abuses".

After reading that link, it now seems entirely clear that the caesarean section was ordered on the best medical advice, out of clear concern for the viability of the foetus and the mothers health. Whilst it does appear there might still be some questions over the adoption process, it would appear the authorities have acted humanely and in the best interests of the mother and child - in complete contrast to the way the Telegraph described them, which, given they are a broadsheet rather than a tabloid is more than a little disappointing.

I was unaware when I posted the original link that this was essentially a Christopher Booker article. Had I known that, I would have been much less inclined to place any weight in the article. And John Hemmings previous actions as reported by "headoflegal", and his action in this case seem very odd to me - you might almost argue an abuse of privilege as an MP.

[woofgang]

What questions over the adoption process LG?

[LazyGun]

I am just referencing the headoflegal comments from jnos link, Woofgang.

"We still do not know everything about this case, of course. It may be that the adoption decision was taken too lightly – Lucy Reed in her blogpost wondered whether it can now stand in the light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Re B-S (Children) in September, in which Sir James Munby said (para. 30):

We have real concerns, shared by other judges, about the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption, both in the materials put before the court by local authorities and guardians and also in too many judgments. This is nothing new. But it is time to call a halt.
Social workers can get things wrong, as can judges – and if they’ve done so in this case, I’ve no doubt we’ll find out when this case gets before Sir James.

I have no experience of the policies and practices surrounding the process of adoption, but it would be nice to get some confirmation that everything in this case was done with the best intentions for the health of the mother and well-being of the child, particularly in view of the negative media coverage initiated with the Telegraph/Booker article.

[woofgang]

Oh I see. Assuming the facts in that document are correct, the Mother had already had two children removed from her care and placed with her mother by Italian courts; this woman, the grandmother had expressed herself unable/unwilling to care for a third child and the Italian court system had "ruled that the child should remain in England"
The part that isn't mentioned is whether there seemed to be any possibility that either the mother or the extended family might be able to care for the child at some future point in time. I would infer that the answer to that would be "no" but i agree, its not explicitly stated.