Don't have a Panic Attack in the UK and be pregnant.

[nehalem256]

I'm saying it's odd that they can ship her back in a "poor state", yet couldn't ship her back before? I admit we're missing some key details, but from what information there is the situation strikes me as rather suspicious.

Acted unprofessionally in the sense of holding a woman involuntarily for 2 months and forcefully removing her unborn child. Not sure how it works in Europe, but we have this lovely thing called "informed consent" where if a person is mentally or physically incapacitated it falls to their next of kin to make decisions regarding treatment. I've yet to see any mention of where her family approved months of psychiatric confinement and a c-section.

C-section at the very least is confirmed to have been approved by judge's order. One would then logically assume they were acting in accordance with British law.

And saying they "forcefully removed her unborn child" is simple hysteria. There was no mention of a pre-term birth. Therefore logically one would assume it was time for the baby to come out.

Its not like you can tell the baby, sorry you have to stay in there a couple extra months your mom is too crazy to give "informed consent" for you to come out.

Seeing as how they claim to have been so avid about contacting the family, you'd think there'd be mention of this. Not to mention her family appears to be supporting her current efforts.

Where do you see any mention of her family supporting her current efforts? If anything I thought the lack of mention of her family supporting her was pretty damning. Might have something to do with

The council said social services had taken the baby into care because "the mother was too unwell to care for her child".

"Historically, the mother has two other children, who she is unable to care for due to orders made by the Italian authorities," the council said,

Bottom line is the ends don't justify the means, and the details we're missing have a lot of extraordinary ground to cover to make a decision like this valid. I'm doubtful they will, and call me cynical but I find it far more likely that a few social services workers and a judge felt like playing God "for the sake of the children."

What "extraordinary ground" would that be? You are the one basically claiming that the UK opted to hold a woman captive for 2 months so they could steal her baby. It seems to me you are the one making extraordinary claims.

It seems to me much more likely that a woman with a history of mental illness, who went off her medication, who had 2 previous children removed to the care of her mother, really did go crazy and the UK acted completely reasonably under the circumstances.

 

[irishScott]

C-section at the very least is confirmed to have been approved by judge's order. One would then logically assume they were acting in accordance with British law.

And saying they "forcefully removed her unborn child" is simple hysteria. There was no mention of a pre-term birth. Therefore logically one would assume it was time for the baby to come out.

Its not like you can tell the baby, sorry you have to stay in there a couple extra months your mom is too crazy to give "informed consent" for you to come out.



Where do you see any mention of her family supporting her current efforts? If anything I thought the lack of mention of her family supporting her was pretty damning. Might have something to do with





What "extraordinary ground" would that be? You are the one basically claiming that the UK opted to hold a woman captive for 2 months so they could steal her baby. It seems to me you are the one making extraordinary claims.

It seems to me much more likely that a woman with a history of mental illness, who went off her medication, who had 2 previous children removed to the care of her mother, really did go crazy and the UK acted completely reasonably under the circumstances.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-case-mother-Im-suffering-like-an-animal.html

The woman’s father, a restaurant owner said: “My daughter is not mad, she is being treated for bipolar disorder. And they took her baby away against her will.”

And as I said, the decision should have been made by the family. If British Law says otherwise then frankly British law is kinda fucked. Not that that's news.

In any case, we're both basing our entire cases on assumptions. Not much left to do but wait for more details.

 

[HumblePie]

First off,

For those disparaging the mother for "being off her meds" and thus deserved what she got are idiots. A pregnant woman is pretty much not allowed to take medications of any sort. Most medications will cause great harm to many babies.

Also, most woman that are bipolar typically show less signs and symptoms of their disorder when they are pregnant. Being pregnant, especially late into their pregnancy, tends to actually balance out most chemical problems woman have in their heads. At least until the pregnancy is over. Of course that quantifier, most, was used which is to say that some woman still have symptoms of their mental problems even while pregnant.

Still, for the British government to detain her for that long, force an elective surgical procedure om her, and basically steal her child at that point was way over the line. It doesn't matter how "unfit" to be a mother she may have been in the past or will be in the future. You let the mother have her baby. After it's born, if there is cause to proceed to take steps to protect the child from an unfit mother then that is the proper route to go. Not this bullshit "Minority Report" style of decision making.

 

[nehalem256]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-case-mother-Im-suffering-like-an-animal.html

And as I said, the decision should have been made by the family. If British Law says otherwise then frankly British law is kinda fucked. Not that that's news.

In any case, we're both basing our entire cases on assumptions. Not much left to do but wait for more details.

You mean details like this?

Essex County Council later insisted that the decision was taken in the woman’s best interests of the woman because she suffered from bipolar disorder. Her two other children are being looked after in Italy by their grandmother.

If the woman was being unjustly held for 2 months why isn't she using over that? Seems like she could get a nice chunk of change. And why isn't the Italian government involved. You think they would want to raise a big stink over the UK unjustly detaining their citizens wouldn't you?

Which of course leads to the natural conclusion that the UK was right to hold her in a mental-health institution. And that when it came time for the baby to be born they acted reasonably in performing a c-section as having a deranged woman go through natural-childbirth seems like a bad idea.

After the child was born the UK then determined, reasonably(see for example the fact that the woman had 2 other children she already can't care for, her going off her medication, her being in a mental hospital for 2+ months) that she was unable to care for the new baby and acted in the babies best interests.

 

[nehalem256]

First off,

For those disparaging the mother for "being off her meds" and thus deserved what she got are idiots. A pregnant woman is pretty much not allowed to take medications of any sort. Most medications will cause great harm to many babies.

Also, most woman that are bipolar typically show less signs and symptoms of their disorder when they are pregnant. Being pregnant, especially late into their pregnancy, tends to actually balance out most chemical problems woman have in their heads. At least until the pregnancy is over. Of course that quantifier, most, was used which is to say that some woman still have symptoms of their mental problems even while pregnant.

If you have bipolar disorder and become pregnant unexpectedly, take note: Stopping your medications suddenly may cause harm to you and your unborn child.



Complications of Bipolar Disorder in Pregnancy

Few studies have been done on bipolar disorder and pregnancy, so not enough is known about the risks of untreated bipolar disorder or the risks and benefits of medications during pregnancy. And the factors that lead to relapse during pregnancy are not clear.

Bipolar disorder, however, can worsen during pregnancy. Pregnant women or new mothers with bipolar disorder have seven times the risk of hospital admissions than pregnant women who do not have bipolar disorder.

A 2007 study on bipolar disorder and pregnancy called into question a common belief that pregnancy may have a protective effect for women with bipolar disorder. The study followed 89 women through pregnancy and one year after delivery. When stopping bipolar medications foe the six months before conception to 12 weeks after, the women had:


Twice the risk of relapse
A 50% risk of recurrence within just two weeks, if they stopped suddenly.
Bipolar symptoms throughout 40% of the pregnancy -- or more than four times that of women who continued their bipolar medications.



Bipolar Medications During Pregnancy

Some women continue taking bipolar medications and have healthy babies. But a few bipolar medications have an increased risk of birth defects in the first trimester, such as:

Neural tube defects
Heart defects
Developmental delay or neurobehavioral problems
However, you must weigh these risks against the risks of untreated bipolar disorder. It can lead to behaviors like these, which can also harm a baby:

Poor prenatal care
Poor nutrition
A rise in alcohol or tobacco use
Stress and trouble with attachment
Your doctor may suggest stopping gradually or changing medication. Or you may continue with medication and do regular tests to check on the health of your baby. But whatever you do, don't stop taking medications without first talking with your doctor.

Was your pregnancy unplanned? If so, know that stopping medications suddenly may do more harm than good.

http://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guide/bipolar-disorder-in-pregnancy

It would appear you are misinformed.

And if you are a bipolar woman who already has 2 kids she can't care for. Yes, you 100% do deserve to be disparaged for having another child.

Still, for the British government to detain her for that long, force an elective surgical procedure om her, and basically steal her child at that point was way over the line. It doesn't matter how "unfit" to be a mother she may have been in the past or will be in the future. You let the mother have her baby. After it's born, if there is cause to proceed to take steps to protect the child from an unfit mother then that is the proper route to go. Not this bullshit "Minority Report" style of decision making.

So we are clear here. You think it is a good idea for a deranged woman experiencing paranoid delusions to go through natural childbirth?

 

[irishScott]

You mean details like this?


If the woman was being unjustly held for 2 months why isn't she using over that? Seems like she could get a nice chunk of change. And why isn't the Italian government involved. You think they would want to raise a big stink over the UK unjustly detaining their citizens wouldn't you?

Which of course leads to the natural conclusion that the UK was right to hold her in a mental-health institution. And that when it came time for the baby to be born they acted reasonably in performing a c-section as having a deranged woman go through natural-childbirth seems like a bad idea.

After the child was born the UK then determined, reasonably(see for example the fact that the woman had 2 other children she already can't care for, her going off her medication, her being in a mental hospital for 2+ months) that she was unable to care for the new baby and acted in the babies best interests.

More like details you haven't repeated several times.

You paint a very rosy version of events that aren't any more substantiated than my darker one, without even addressing my point of the family involvement (because with the information currently available, you can't).

So given that neither of us can prove that we're right, nothing more to say really. Nothing more I can learn from you, certainly.

 

[nehalem256]

More like details you haven't repeated several times.

You paint a very rosy version of events that aren't any more substantiated than my darker one, without even addressing my point of the family involvement (because with the information currently available, you can't).

So given that neither of us can prove that we're right, nothing more to say really. Nothing more I can learn from you, certainly.

It said the family was involved in the adoption. None of her extended relatives wanted to take the child.

As for the c-section I don't see it as relevant. The idea that the c-section moves from some kind of horrible violation of the woman's basic human rights to totally acceptable because her mommy instead of a judge gave the good old :thumbsup: is absurd.

 

[irishScott]

It said the family was involved in the adoption. None of her extended relatives wanted to take the child.

As for the c-section I don't see it as relevant. The idea that the c-section moves from some kind of horrible violation of the woman's basic human rights to totally acceptable because her mommy instead of a judge gave the good old :thumbsup: is absurd.

Wasn't talking about the adoption, as you well know. *yawn*

Yeah, government making medical decisions in place of family. What a wonderful idea! Yeah, you know it's so absurd to not want major medical decisions made by total strangers at the whim of a judge! That I'd want people who actually know me well enough to interpret my wishes to make the call? Naaaah, that's complete bullshit! You should write a letter to the surgeon general about this, your quip has completely defeated the notion of informed consent.

And as I predicted, I learned nothing from this post. Although it is mildly amusing when you try to blow hot air and just end up making a farting noise.

 

[nehalem256]

Wasn't talking about the adoption, as you well know. *yawn*

Yeah, government making medical decisions in place of family. What a wonderful idea! Yeah, you know it's so absurd to not want major medical decisions made by total strangers at the whim of a judge! That I'd want people who actually know me well enough to interpret my wishes to make the call? Naaaah, that's complete bullshit! You should write a letter to the surgeon general about this, your quip has completely defeated the notion of informed consent.

And as I predicted, I learned nothing from this post. Although it is mildly amusing when you try to blow hot air and just end up making a farting noise.

Seems like you just want to gloss over the fact that the woman was apparently 9 months pregnant and severely mentally ill. The baby was coming out one way or another.

Now does it sound like a good idea to have a woman, who is severely mentally ill, put through natural childbirth or not?

You keep acting like there was a choice. There wasn't. The baby was coming out. You can't just tell the baby to wait until mommy isn't crazy anymore.

The ability to give informed consent will be governed by a general requirement of competency. In common law jurisdictions, adults are presumed competent to consent. This presumption can be rebutted, for instance, in circumstances of mental illness or other incompetence. This may be prescribed in legislation or based on a common-law standard of inability to understand the nature of the procedure. In cases of incompetent adults, a health care proxy makes medical decisions. In the absence of a proxy, the medical practitioner is expected to act in the patient's best interests until a proxy can be found.

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

Given that a judge signed off on the procedure, for a mentally ill person, sounds to me like standards of informed consent were followed

 

[HumblePie]

http://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guide/bipolar-disorder-in-pregnancy

It would appear you are misinformed.

And if you are a bipolar woman who already has 2 kids she can't care for. Yes, you 100% do deserve to be disparaged for having another child.



So we are clear here. You think it is a good idea for a deranged woman experiencing paranoid delusions to go through natural childbirth?

Did you even read your crappy study?

1) 89 woman is not a significant statistic that can even begin to represent a decent population size.

2) The study was looking at women BEFORE the were pregnant, not during. Of course if they stop taking meds before they conceive they are going to have mental problems BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T CONCEIVED.

It is a known fact that after pregnancy, women can develop mental problems and disorders. Not inborn mental illnesses like bipolar though which is a bit different.

Also, one of the side effects of early pregnancy is depression in some women. Which again is more closely linked with potential social and/or monetary problems usually due to the pregnancy. However, depression after pregnancy is usually called postpartum depression brought on by a huge change again of hormones in their body.

But usually, most women, that aren't having social or economic worries, in their third trimester of pregnancy tend to be a bit more balanced when it comes to mental problems. Of course that is not to say all women either.

 

[irishScott]

Seems like you just want to gloss over the fact that the woman was apparently 9 months pregnant and severely mentally ill. The baby was coming out one way or another.

Now does it sound like a good idea to have a woman, who is severely mentally ill, put through natural childbirth or not?

You keep acting like there was a choice. There wasn't. The baby was coming out. You can't just tell the baby to wait until mommy isn't crazy anymore.


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

Given that a judge signed off on the procedure, for a mentally ill person, sounds to me like standards of informed consent were followed

Lol I'm glossing? You're stating pure assumptions as verified facts and dodging any of my points you can't spin in your direction. And your most recent spin attempt is pitiful. "Medical Proxy" != Judge. And since they claim to have been in active communication with the family, a medical proxy (family member) should have been relatively easy to acquire.

But as I said, neither of us know. You don't know, Nehalem, you just factually don't. I know that just tears you up inside, and you'll likely have nightmares, but it's OK. It really is. You'll be fine.

 

[nehalem256]

Did you even read your crappy study?

1) 89 woman is not a significant statistic that can even begin to represent a decent population size.

2) The study was looking at women BEFORE the were pregnant, not during. Of course if they stop taking meds before they conceive they are going to have mental problems BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T CONCEIVED.

It is a known fact that after pregnancy, women can develop mental problems and disorders. Not inborn mental illnesses like bipolar though which is a bit different.

Also, one of the side effects of early pregnancy is depression in some women. Which again is more closely linked with potential social and/or monetary problems usually due to the pregnancy. However, depression after pregnancy is usually called postpartum depression brought on by a huge change again of hormones in their body.

But usually, most women, that aren't having social or economic worries, in their third trimester of pregnancy tend to be a bit more balanced when it comes to mental problems. Of course that is not to say all women either.

Few studies have been done on bipolar disorder and pregnancy, so not enough is known about the risks of untreated bipolar disorder or the risks and benefits of medications during pregnancy. And the factors that lead to relapse during pregnancy are not clear.

"Crappy" study trumps no study I think.

I would imagine the women stopped taking bipolar medications 6 month prior to conception in order to try and conceive. Seems like this would be a representative real world experience with bipolar disorder and pregnancy.

 

[nehalem256]

Lol I'm glossing? You're stating pure assumptions as verified facts and dodging any of my points you can't spin in your direction. And your most recent spin attempt is pitiful. "Medical Proxy" != Judge. And since they claim to have been in active communication with the family, a medical proxy (family member) should have been relatively easy to acquire.

But as I said, neither of us know. You don't know, Nehalem, you just factually don't. I know that just tears you up inside, and you'll likely have nightmares, but it's OK. It really is. Keep jerking it.

You keep dodging the essentially question. Woman is deranged and 9 months pregnant. How do you deliver the baby?

 

[HumblePie]

"Crappy" study trumps no study I think.

I would imagine the women stopped taking bipolar medications 6 month prior to conception in order to try and conceive. Seems like this would be a representative real world experience with bipolar disorder and pregnancy.

I'm going off information given to me and my old-ex, who was bipolar and got pregnant, by our doctor.

There is some safe-ish medication that a bipolar woman can take while pregnant that still helps and has little to zero effect on the baby. Routine monitoring helps too to minimize any risk.

The big problem with bipolar women being pregnant is about 2 weeks after giving birth. They are at a severe risk for postpartum psychosis. Meaning they can go massively crazy right after giving birth and it results in a lot of bipolar mothers killing their new child.



Still, for millions of years before the advent of modern medicine, there were bipolar women who were having successful pregnancies without medical drugs and intervention for their mental illness. It's not during the pregnancy that the child is really at risk from a bipolar mother. It's afterwards if she is not on meds.

 

[irishScott]

You keep dodging the essentially question. Woman is deranged and 9 months pregnant. How do you deliver the baby?

By whatever the medical proxy (one of those family members they were supposedly in contact with) decides. Assuming woman in question was actually deranged at the moment. Oh, and said medical proxy should have had a say at some point in the 2 freaking months of psych incarceration.

There. Question answered. Next?

 

[HumblePie]

"Crappy" study trumps no study I think.

I would imagine the women stopped taking bipolar medications 6 month prior to conception in order to try and conceive. Seems like this would be a representative real world experience with bipolar disorder and pregnancy.

Damn near every mild sedative has zero risk to a baby in the womb. It's not hard to keep the woman sedated long enough until she has the child naturally. Then put her on proper medications. Determine the effect after delivery to monitor for postpartum psychosis. If the mother is having reasonable behavior give her the child and ship her back home.

 

[nehalem256]

By whatever the medical proxy (one of those family members they were supposedly in contact with) decides. Assuming woman in question was actually deranged at the moment. Oh, and said medical proxy should have had a say at some point in the 2 freaking months of psych incarceration.

There. Question answered. Next?

(1) I dont know of any rule requiring a medical proxy to be a family member.

(2) And it seems like you avoided the question once again.

 

[HAL9000]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-25204276

BBC is apparently much less dubious.

Thank that's a much better link, she was having extreme paranoid delusions. Not just an anxiety attack. Makes a lot more sense now.

 

[nehalem256]

For those disparaging the mother for "being off her meds" and thus deserved what she got are idiots. A pregnant woman is pretty much not allowed to take medications of any sort. Most medications will cause great harm to many babies.

There is some safe-ish medication that a bipolar woman can take while pregnant that still helps and has little to zero effect on the baby. Routine monitoring helps too to minimize any risk.

Seems like your new statement is contradicting the clear implication of the statement in the prior.

If there are safe-ish medication for bipolar medication then she probably should have been taking them. And she deserves to be disparaged for "being off her meds".

 

[irishScott]

(1) I dont know of any rule requiring a medical proxy to be a family member.

(2) And it seems like you avoided the question once again.

Perhaps you should read your own wikipedia link from a couple posts back. But you won't. You done?

 

[Nebor]

Good to see only one person opposes this common sense move by the British government.

 

[Sonikku]

What a disaster. You don't want a kid growing up British. They'll be asking for crackers and you'll give them crackers, then they'll get angry and indignant and take all your cookies. :'( bastards.

 

[monovillage]

Good to see only one person opposes this common sense move by the British government.

Nope, try counting again you probably had mittens on.

 

[Nebor]

Nope, try counting again you probably had mittens on.

I'm not allowed to take them off. :\

 

[monovillage]

Thank that's a much better link, she was having extreme paranoid delusions. Not just an anxiety attack. Makes a lot more sense now.

So rather then putting her back on her medication, they imprisoned her, drugged her and performed a serious operation on her to get her baby? Yeah, that makes sense.