Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
joc

Child Forcibly Taken from Womb

69 posts in this topic

A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.

Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.

The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.

The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.

LINK

Wow....and some of you who say that Government Health Care doesn't pose a risk to personal freedom....

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is just plain scary. Next thing you know they'll start forcibly sedating people and "fixing" them if they are deemed a potential threat to possible future children.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the world of "Minority Report" made real. In the interests of "protecting children" and "health and safety", we become the property of the state, all for our "protection though, so no complaints, or you will deemed to be "mentally ill"....

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.

Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.

The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.

The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.

Wow....and some of you who say that Government Health Care doesn't pose a risk to personal freedom....

I'm against people who think that their rights, their well-being, their freedom and their happyness are more important than everybody elses. There are two people involved in this scenario not one - the mother and the child.

If the mother tops herself because of her mental breakdown the baby dies. If the council removes it knowing shes at risk of topping herself then even if she does end her life the baby gets to live. The Council have acted correctly. It has considered the rights, well-being, freedom and happyness of everyone involved then taken the morally right, althought difficult, course of action.

Edited by SilentHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sick on so many levels. :(

It's hard enough, traumatic even, for biological mothers to relinquish their child when they have given consent, so how this poor woman is coping; I just can't begin to fathom such hell, because that's how it is bound to be. Imo if the best interest of mother and baby were being met, the mother would've been given all of the support necessary in order to get well and to look after her baby, as nature intended her to. It makes no sense to crush her even more mentally if she was already so bad off. Neither mother nor child have won in this; both are being put under severe stress when they needn't be. At least that's the case if she has made a full recovery. There's no excuse then.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should be a police matter, an MP has called for action apparently. Social Services has been badly run over the years, they have let children and families down. Surley a criminal investigation needs to happen. more children and families need help better protection

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against people who think that their rights, their well-being, their freedom and their happyness are more important than everybody elses. There are two people involved in this scenario not one - the mother and the child.

If the mother tops herself because of her mental breakdown the baby dies. If the council removes it knowing shes at risk of topping herself then even if she does end her life the baby gets to live. The Council have acted correctly. It has considered the rights, well-being, freedom and happyness of everyone involved then taken the morally right, althought difficult, course of action.

I'd sack you 60 times over and tell everyone not to employ you all over the world

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm against people who think that their rights, their well-being, their freedom and their happyness are more important than everybody elses. There are two people involved in this scenario not one - the mother and the child.

If the mother tops herself because of her mental breakdown the baby dies. If the council removes it knowing shes at risk of topping herself then even if she does end her life the baby gets to live. The Council have acted correctly. It has considered the rights, well-being, freedom and happyness of everyone involved then taken the morally right, althought difficult, course of action.

I can agree up to a point. Not to mention there's always two sides to every story - and due to privacy laws we get what the side building up for a massive lawsuit has to say. For all we know she threatening the baby or was on something. But that's a judge's call - and not transferring the newborn to Italy? - its only been 15 mos. The highly efficient and competent British Child Welfare Services are on the case so we can relax and let the system do it's thing. By the time kid has gone through all that annoying stuff like potty training, learning to walk, talk(english) and tying shoes they'll have all the paperwork done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult one to comment on this is, simply because I haven't seen the papers on her mental health state and why the decision was made - was she found holding a knife to her stomach and threatening to stab herself, or overdose? I'm not going to pass comment until more is made available (if it ever is).

I will say that social services in this country are a strange bunch though. One of my contracts is having a driver pick up four 'troubled' kids for school runs, one lad is only 5, was still in nappies, never spoke, and look white as a sheet all the time, yet social services are not involved with him. Another lad throws tantrums if he doesn't get what he wants (but can turn it on and off when he chooses), and social services bend over backwards to give him what he wants......they seem in a complete mess to me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What gave them the authority to do this to a citizen of a foreign country?

Why was the family of the woman not immediately contacted and offered to take custody of the child after it stabilized?

Why was the Italian government not notified at all of any of the proceedings?

People here are only allowing themselves to see this case through the eyes of the woman. The baby is a human being too. Does it not have a right to life? Its life may have been under threat. Mentally ill people can be a threat to the lives of their unborn children if they're suicidal. Even the stress of severe mental illness can be a threat as it often makes the body abort a pregnancy.

Where that person comes from is irrespective because it has no baring on this case. However I will agree that after the c-section the authorities should have tried to place the child with a willing and capable relative assuming one was available. Once the mother is then past her issues, or if she gets past them, then the child can be reunited with her.

Edited by SilentHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd sack you 60 times over and tell everyone not to employ you all over the world

Dr Nixon - He has 10 suicides from people under his care over the last 5 years and another 10 deaths which were their unborn babies.

Dr Silent - He has 10 suicides all of whom were also angry at c-sections they were given. However on the positive side 10 babies got to live, grow up and enjoy their lives.

Now which is the better of the two evils? Its the one that results in the least loss of life. Something for you to consider. If you disagree you're justifying the deaths of 10 people simply for the freedom of the other 10. That is deeply concerning.

Would you let me die in a situation where it was my life or some of your freedoms?

Edited by SilentHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Nixon - He has 10 suicides from people under his care over the last 5 years and another 10 deaths which were their unborn babies.

Dr Silent - He has 10 suicides all of whom were also angry at c-sections they were given. However on the positive side 10 babies got to live, grow up and enjoy their lives.

Now which is the better of the two evils? Its the one that results in the least loss of life. Something for you to consider. If you disagree you're justifying the deaths of 10 people simply for the freedom of the other 10. That is deeply concerning.

Would you let me die in a situation where it was my life or some of your freedoms?

Hold on. I thought a mother had all the rights to her body, and anything that may or may not be living inside it. Your opinion (or mine, or the fathers) has nothing to do with her body! :innocent:

In case you don't quite get it, i am speaking with my tongue firmly in my cheek

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on. I thought a mother had all the rights to her body, and anything that may or may not be living inside it. Your opinion (or mine, or the fathers) has nothing to do with her body! :innocent:

In case you don't quite get it, i am speaking with my tongue firmly in my cheek

We arent talking fetus though are we? Its past the abortion cut-off and deamed to be a human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this sounds absolutely terrible! But, well... I dunno.... There is a lot of missing information. Information that we may never be privy to. I want to make assumptions but I don't think I should.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We arent talking fetus though are we? Its past the abortion cut-off and deamed to be a human being.

My understanding is that the child is a fetus until it is separated from the mother. So you having rights as a fetus is a bit of a misnomer. Plenty of countries have abortion up until the date of birth and there are University experts saying that "post-birth abortion" (i.e infanticide) should also be legal as there is no quantifiable difference between a fetus and a new born.

I guess if you tested all woman who want an abortion for mental illness, i think we'd "save" a lot of people as per your definition

Edited by Professor Buzzkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this sounds absolutely terrible! But, well... I dunno.... There is a lot of missing information. Information that we may never be privy to. I want to make assumptions but I don't think I should.

A. Social Services got a court order to sedate and forcibly extract her baby C-section then they took the baby...and she has never even seen it.

B. They asked for no other permission...not from her family..not from her country of origin

C. Do you really want your Government to have that kind of power?

Edited by joc
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This is the whole story right here

Link

Edited by joc
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This is the whole story right here

Link

Well if that is totally correct, then I hope she sues them for everything they have, and I hope she starts criminal proceedings too against those involved.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just awful beyond words. There was absolutely no reason to do this. ******* social services. I can't even begin to imagine how horrible this whole ordeal must have been to this poor woman.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Difficult one to comment on this is, simply because I haven't seen the papers on her mental health state and why the decision was made - was she found holding a knife to her stomach and threatening to stab herself, or overdose? I'm not going to pass comment until more is made available (if it ever is).

This.

But, if the woman was a very real and constant danger to her unborn child and herself, there would be, I think, other options. If she needed to be forcibly committed, how about keeping her sedated enough so she could give birth naturally, treated and then, if she is OK, start the parent-child reunification process.

I have personal experience with a child being taken away from her mentally ill mother directly after the birth and the court proceedings that followed. Sometimes, a mother is not mentally able to keep the kid. But... as I mentioned above, commitment to a hospital and letting the pregnancy end normally would probably be much better than what actually happened here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.

Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.

The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.

The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.

LINK

Wow....and some of you who say that Government Health Care doesn't pose a risk to personal freedom....

Only in UK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the court deem the woman's family ALSO unfit to take care of their own flesh and blood and random strangers a more apt choice?

This story is as crazy as the court said the woman is. The first option for any child is the blood family. It's like some kind of horror story, a child being stolen from a mothers womb and being sold off to strangers in a different country.

Scary.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the child is a fetus until it is separated from the mother. So you having rights as a fetus is a bit of a misnomer. Plenty of countries have abortion up until the date of birth and there are University experts saying that "post-birth abortion" (i.e infanticide) should also be legal as there is no quantifiable difference between a fetus and a new born.

I guess if you tested all woman who want an abortion for mental illness, i think we'd "save" a lot of people as per your definition

At 24 weeks its no longer a fetus. That is the legal limit for abortion because at that point it isnt a blob of flesh but a baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.