Results 1 to 10 of 10

Hybrid View

  1. #1 'Operate on this mother so that we can take her baby’ 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,737
    Think about what Kathleen Sibelius said about treating "mental health" issues equally with physical health issues. Then look at how "mental health" plays out in England's single-payer system.


    'Operate on this mother so that we can take her baby’
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...-her-baby.html

    Last summer a pregnant Italian mother flew to England for a two-week Ryanair training course at Stansted. Staying at an airport hotel, she had something of a panic attack when she couldn’t find the passports for her two daughters, who were with her mother back in Italy. She called the police, who arrived at her room when she was on the phone to her mother. The police asked to speak to the grandmother, who explained that her daughter was probably over-excited because she suffered from a “bipolar” condition and hadn’t been taking her medication to calm her down.

    The police told the mother that they were taking her to hospital to “make sure that the baby was OK”. On arrival, she was startled to see that it was a psychiatric hospital, and said she wanted to go back to her hotel. She was restrained by orderlies, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told that she must stay in the hospital.

    By now Essex social services were involved, and five weeks later she was told she could not have breakfast that day. When no explanation was forthcoming, she volubly protested. She was strapped down and forcibly sedated, and when she woke up hours later, found she was in a different hospital and that her baby had been removed by caesarean section while she was unconscious and taken into care by social workers. She was not allowed to see her baby daughter, and later learnt that a High Court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, had given the social workers permission to arrange for the child to be delivered. In October, at a hearing before another judge, she was represented by lawyers assigned to her by the local authority and told she would be escorted back to Italy without her baby.

    All this was such a shock to the mother that, back in Italy, she resumed taking her medication and embarked on a legal battle for the return of her daughter, which has by now involved lawyers in three countries, all of whom I have spoken to at length to establish the facts of this remarkable story. The High Court in Rome expressed outrage at what had been done to an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. But the judge there concluded that, since she had not protested at the time, she had accepted that the British courts had jurisdiction – even though she had not known what was to be done to her, was deemed to have no “capacity” to instruct lawyers because she had been sectioned, and had only been represented by solicitors assigned to her by the local authority.

    In February, when the mother returned to Chelmsford to plead for the return of her daughter, the judge, I am told, admitted that, since resuming her medication, she seemed impressively articulate and a different person from the one he had seen earlier. But, because he could not risk a failure to maintain her medication in the future, he ruled that the child must be placed for adoption.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,737
    More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-services.html


    She suffered a panic attack, which her relations believe was due to her failure to take regular medication for an existing bipolar condition.

    She called the police, who became concerned for her well-being and took her to a hospital, which she then realised was a psychiatric facility.

    She has told her lawyers that when she said she wanted to return to her hotel, she was restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

    Meanwhile, Essex social services obtained a High Court order in August 2012 for the birth “to be enforced by way of caesarean section”, according to legal documents seen by this newspaper.

    The woman, who says she was kept in the dark about the proceedings, says that after five weeks in the ward she was forcibly sedated. When she woke up she was told that the child had been delivered by C-section and taken into care.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
    More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-services.html


    She suffered a panic attack, which her relations believe was due to her failure to take regular medication for an existing bipolar condition.

    She called the police, who became concerned for her well-being and took her to a hospital, which she then realised was a psychiatric facility.

    She has told her lawyers that when she said she wanted to return to her hotel, she was restrained and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

    Meanwhile, Essex social services obtained a High Court order in August 2012 for the birth “to be enforced by way of caesarean section”, according to legal documents seen by this newspaper.

    The woman, who says she was kept in the dark about the proceedings, says that after five weeks in the ward she was forcibly sedated. When she woke up she was told that the child had been delivered by C-section and taken into care.
    Socialized medicine sure declared war on that woman.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Socialized medicine sure declared war on that woman.
    Yes. This is the REAL war on women.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Socialized medicine sure declared war on that woman.
    I don't see how this is an indictment of the NHS. It could have all happened much the same way in the US.
    The American police can and do initiate involuntary hospitalization. In Florida it's called Baker Acting. If the doctors determine that a patient is a danger to herself or others while under the initial assessment, then she can be committed. Once she has been involuntarily committed, the case worker and the judge can pretty much do anything they want when there is no relative (with an attorney) to run interference. I'll grant you that the caesarian is unusual and extreme, but the article doesn't really tell us all we need to know about that, it theatrically allows the reader to believe that it was an arbitrary or inexplicable thing done to this woman rather than for a sound medical reason. It's rather disingenuous to claim that the NHS can't or won't provide necessary care in a timely manner and to simultaneously claim that they do c-sections for jollies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    I don't see how this is an indictment of the NHS. It could have all happened much the same way in the US.
    The American police can and do initiate involuntary hospitalization. In Florida it's called Baker Acting. If the doctors determine that a patient is a danger to herself or others while under the initial assessment, then she can be committed. Once she has been involuntarily committed, the case worker and the judge can pretty much do anything they want when there is no relative (with an attorney) to run interference. I'll grant you that the caesarian is unusual and extreme, but the article doesn't really tell us all we need to know about that, it theatrically allows the reader to believe that it was an arbitrary or inexplicable thing done to this woman rather than for a sound medical reason. It's rather disingenuous to claim that the NHS can't or won't provide necessary care in a timely manner and to simultaneously claim that they do c-sections for jollies.
    Homosexuality makes you a danger to yourself because of increased disease, drug use and suicide rate and someday the national healthcare you lust after will decide that you should be in a mental institution for your own safety. You will change your opinion, it will be too late, if a nut screams in a nut ward does he make a sound?
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Homosexuality makes you a danger to yourself because of increased disease, drug use and suicide rate and someday the national healthcare you lust after will decide that you should be in a mental institution for your own safety. You will change your opinion, it will be too late, if a nut screams in a nut ward does he make a sound?
    Really, this isn't your best work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Homosexuality makes you a danger to yourself because of increased disease, drug use and suicide rate and someday the national healthcare you lust after will decide that you should be in a mental institution for your own safety. You will change your opinion, it will be too late, if a nut screams in a nut ward does he make a sound?
    There will come a time when the GLBT movement has outlived its usefulness to the powers that be. It will have accomplished the destruction of religion, family, and a self-reliant society under the rubric of "civil rights." Once that has happened, some new organizing principle will be brought in--Islam, perhaps?--for the impoverished masses. The new principle will have no use for the GLBT community. And the apparatus will be in place to insure that those who are not useful to society will not get health care, as per Zeke Emmanuel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •