Rights of the Parent vs rights of the child

southsiderosie

A HIV-positive woman is fighting an HSE recommendation to have an elective c-section and to give her newborn a round of treatment with anti-retroviral drugs in order to lower the risk of mother-to-baby transmission of the disease:

The HSE is seeking a High Court order requiring that certain drugs be administered from birth to the child of a heavily pregnant HIV positive woman with a view to reducing the risk of transmission of the virus.

The HSE says the anti-retroviral (ARV) prophylaxis medication, if administered from birth for a four week period, will reduce the risk of transmission.

However, the woman, who the court heard had accessed information about HIV and the drugs on the internet, has expressed concern the drugs pose risks to the child.

Her counsel Fergal Kavanagh SC said today these were “black-label, highly toxic” drugs which had side-effects in some cases and had led to some deaths and their risks had to be “properly weighed”.

There was no conflict between the interests of the mother and child and, if it was determined it was in the child’s interests to be treated with the drugs, the mother would be happy with that, he said.

Felix McEnroy SC, for the HSE, said the case should be “reduced to common sense”. The HSE says its evidence is the ARV drugs reduce the risk of transmission of the HIV virus to a child to 0.01 per cent and, while the drugs can have side-effects, such risks are more than counter-balanced by the benefits of preventing HIV transmission.

The HSE wants the court order because it is concerned the woman was “in denial” of her diagnosis as HIV positive and the implications of that for her child. The woman had not ahdered consistently to the medical advice concerning her treatment, including she should have an elective Caesarean section this weekend, it said...

Full article

I'm all for individual rights, but I'm with the HSE on this one: why would you not want to do everything within your power to insure that your child did not have to live with this terrible disease? I hope this woman loses her case, and quickly.

Saila

because your a selfish hoe

squod

Is her case that she believes the treatment may be potentially fatal to the child

Giselle

However, the woman, who the court heard had accessed information about HIV and the drugs on the internet, has expressed concern the drugs pose risks to the child.

I'd guess thats the problem right there.

The internet is teeming with crank sites and conspiracy theory sites, and vaccines and drugs are hot targets.

People who make decisions on their health and the health of their kids based on random websites can make stupid decisions based on misinformation. Thats what she's probably doing.

biko

However, the woman, who the court heard had accessed information about HIV and the drugs on the internet, has expressed concern the drugs pose risks to the child.

This is why medical advice isn't a good idea on the internet.

Saila wrote: »

because your a selfish hoe

Are you referring to the mother who is acting on what she believes is in the best interest of the child?

Mike 1972

southsiderosie wrote: »

A HIV-positive woman is fighting an HSE recommendation .

southsiderosie

Giselle wrote: »

I'd guess thats the problem right there.

The internet is teeming with crank sites and conspiracy theory sites, and vaccines and drugs are hot targets.

People who make decisions on their health and the health of their kids based on random websites can make stupid decisions based on misinformation. Thats what she's probably doing.

I think the part about her being in denial about her HIV status may have more to do with it. Based on the comments I'd guess that she didn't take a full regimen of anti-retrovirals while pregnant. If she were actually serious about managing her disease and learning about what it does to people and especially children who have it, there is no way she could or would try to block both the drug treatment and the planned c-section. Idiot.

southsiderosie

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The HSE recommended, she refused after perusing health websites, and the HSE filed an injunction.

Biggins

If I have this correct, the HSE wants to give the child AFTER its born, drugs to fight off the mothers HIV condition.
A child that at birth would have no possibly defences anyway against such an infection it might get from the mother.

I don't see the problem here.
I would take the side of the HSE to be honest. They are trying to look after a new born that can't fend for itself - at least till it builds up some sort of fighting/working immune system anyway.
They are trying to give it a chance. Fair play to them.

Terry

southsiderosie wrote: »

A HIV-positive woman is fighting an HSE recommendation to have an elective c-section and to give her newborn a round of treatment with anti-retroviral drugs in order to lower the risk of mother-to-baby transmission of the disease:



I'm all for individual rights, but I'm with the HSE on this one: why would you not want to do everything within your power to insure that your child did not have to live with this terrible disease? I hope this woman loses her case, and quickly.

Anyway, here the rest of the article for those on mobiles and stuff. Emphasis mine.

The HSE wants the court order because it is concerned the woman was “in denial” of her diagnosis as HIV positive and the implications of that for her child. The woman had not ahdered consistently to the medical advice concerning her treatment, including she should have an elective Caesarean section this weekend, it said.

A further order restraining the woman breast-feeding the child, also with a view to reducing the risk of transmission of HIV, was initially sought by the HSE but the court was told today the woman would give an undertaking not to breast-feed.

The woman, aged in her twenties, is 38 weeks pregnant, and her due date for delivery is December 2nd at a Dublin maternity hospital. The court heard she has another child who was recently tested for HIV and found not to have the virus.

She is estranged from the father of that child, against whom she has made several allegations, and that man was represented in court today by Michael P O’Higgins SC.

Mr O’Higgins said his client had secured an order in the UK to have his child made a ward of court in an effort to have the child tested for HIV. Counsel also said the woman had left the UK for her home in Ireland when the wardship order was made so as “to frustrate” that order. A HIV test was later carried out on consent on the child, counsel added.

The doctors involved in the woman’s care and treatment claim it is in the best interests of her unborn child to be delivered by elective Caesarean section on Monday next rather than wait for either a natural birth of emergency Caesarean section. The international opinion is that elective Caesarean section carries less risks and leads to best outcomes for babies with HIV positive mothers, a doctor told the court.

Monday was already a “compromise” date and, “on balance, this baby can’t wait,” she added.

The woman has said she will not agree to an elective Caesarean section on Monday but will have an elective Caesarean section on Friday next. She wants the court in the interim to determine whether it is in the best interests of her child to have the ARV drugs administered.

Mr Justice George Birmingham has adjourned until tomorrow the further hearing of the HSE’s application so that the woman’s lawyers have an opportunity to call evidence related to the safety of the drugs. They want to call evidence from a Californian based toxicologist and arrangements were to be made yesterday evening to have his evidence heard via video-link.

Earlier, Mr Kavanagh said the issue in the case had narrowed to whether the court could order administration of these drugs having conducted an investigation into their toxicology and pharmacology.

Counsel said the woman could not be forced to have the elective Caesarean section and the judge confirmed no order could be made requiring her to undergo such a procedure.

Mr Kavanagh said he had been instructed by the mother to rerpresent the child at this stage. His side wanted to call expert witnesses and would need time.

Mr Justice Birmingham told Mr Kavanagh the qualifications of the witnesses sought to be called would have to be established and asked was counsel proposing to call any medical witness “as opposed to people on the Internet”.

Mr Kavanagh said one witness he hoped to call had given evidence in some 40 cases in the US and “should not be denigrated” because he had started out in life as a verterinary surgeon. That witness would give evidence about the toxicology of the drugs, he said. Counsel also said there were issues about the quality and reliability of HIV tests.

Mr McEnroy said the HSE were anxious to have the case decided and the woman had had adequate time to prepare as she had been consulting with clinical professionals and taking legal advice since August last. Up to November 10th last, she had agreed to undergo an elective Caesarean section this weekend but then said she had concerns about the ARV drugs and had also questioned her own HIV diagnosis, he said.

I'm pro-choice and all, but this child is going to be born. This woman should not be allowed any access to her children until she cops the fúck on and realises how dangerous HIV is.

So she doesn't want to give meds to the child in case they kill it?
If it gets HIV, it will definitely die, you dumb bitch.

Hogzy

Problem is the amount of weight the constitution gives Family Rights (which really translates into rights of the parents). If Courts just decided cases in the interests of the child and not the bloody rights of the parents to make uneducated decisions then all would be happy in LaLa land.

Donkey Oaty

Until the kid plops out, it's her body, her choice.

Hogzy

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Until the kid plops out, it's her body, her choice.

You couldnt be any more wrong.

Donkey Oaty

Hogzy wrote: »

You couldnt be any more wrong.

It's just my opinion, Hogzy, based on the alarming alternative that the State makes decisions about what happens inside a woman's body.

wolfpawnat

Doctors HAVE to think for the safety of their patients. They MUST prevent death as much as possible. To not give this child the drugs it NEEDS is indeed going against everything a doctor stands for!

If this woman does not want what is best for her child, as decided by the top doctors in the country, she is not thinking of the child. I know she doesn't want it to die of the drugs, but she is killing it herself if she does not allow this to go ahead!

This set of drugs now will also save the child, and indeed the HSE money in the future! The old saying goes, Prevention is better than the cure!

Stupid idiot, if it were me, I would do anything to make sure my child did not contract the disease.

Irregardless of the medication, she HAS to get the C-Section! It is the only safe way for the child to be born!

Hogzy

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

It's just my opinion, Hogzy, based on the alarming alternative that the State makes decisions about what happens inside a woman's body.

Please tell me you're not comparing this to abortion?

ballsymchugh

for some reason i'm picturing a woman in a free loving anti modernisation hippy camp in offaly who believes in homeopathy to save herself and the child. would love to know how she herself contracted HIV, if it was through unfortunate circumstances like a transfusion, or through irresponsibility.

Biggins

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Until the kid plops out, it's her body, her choice.

Actually under the eyes of the law, (it related to when a "life" is classified as such), a baby within, still has rights.

In this case however, its after the child is born that the HSE is worried about - and rightly so I think.

wolfpawnat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

It's just my opinion, Hogzy, based on the alarming alternative that the State makes decisions about what happens inside a woman's body.

Inside that womans body is a human, who will be here soon, they have to think of that child! If the mother won't they have to. It is like the case of the Jehovah's witness who was forced by the courts to allow her twins to get blood transfusions. A doctor should not have to watch children die because of idiotic parents!

Chuchoter

Then she should be offered an ultimatum. Protect her child from a condition that will hugely shorten their lifespan or have the child taken off her at birth. You don't get to want to bring a child in to the world and then not look after it.

Hogzy

wolfpawnat wrote: »

A doctor should not have to watch children die because of idiotic parents!

Its not because of the parents idiocy. Its because of their religious choices. Your comment is OTT in fairness and extremely insulting to people who choose that faith.

EDIT: Im refering to J. Witnesses refusing a blood transfusion.

wolfpawnat

crayolastereo wrote: »

Then she should be offered an ultimatum. Protect her child from a condition that will hugely shorten their lifespan or have the child taken off her at birth. You don't get to want to bring a child in to the world and then not look after it.

Completely agree. Either she should give the child a life, or take it away and gie it one away from here!

Lab_Mouse

who the fuk would ride someone with hiv?

Gotta go with the HSE here,childs welfare comes first

Hogzy

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

who the fuk would ride someone with hiv?

:rolleyes:

wolfpawnat

Hogzy wrote: »

Its not because of the parents idiocy. Its because of their religious choices. Your comment is OTT in fairness and extremely insulting to people who choose that faith.

I never care about the parents faiths. They can believe what they want, I will respect that. But the child(ren) should not suffer. Those twins needed that blood transfusion to live. Science and religion will always be arch enemies. But having studied in a medical field and as a mother I cannot see how someone could allow their child die for anything.

And the idiocy statement is directed at ALL parents who choose anything over their child!

Mike 1972

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

who the fuk would ride someone with hiv?

Someone else with HIV ?

Newsflash: There are precautions one can take to minimise ones risk of HIV transmission !

Biggins

Hogzy wrote: »

Problem is the amount of weight the constitution gives Family Rights (which really translates into rights of the parents). If Courts just decided cases in the interests of the child and not the bloody rights of the parents to make uneducated decisions then all would be happy in LaLa land.

Indeed - and in all honesty, probably another reason why the constitution in regards to childrens rights (and fathers too but thats another topic) needs to be seriously overhauled.
We won't hold our breath though for that to happen sadly.
FF got a report 15 years ago that stated then such rights were already out of date and now after 15 years later, they still have done nothing concrete.

Its one more disgusting immobility by those who can (if they bothered their arse) effect change.
Sadly while they do nothing yet still, the HSE has to quickly use up resources, money and court time for clarification of such rights of the unborn/newborn.

These matter could have been allowed for years ago and then (as is the case now) a solution sought quickly, ready available and quietly for the betterment of all, mother and child.
Because there are no modern legal guidelines because of... laziness (?) of FF, we now have a case of head scratching, solicitor/court chasing and publicity both mother and child in all honesty, don't need.

...They have enough problems on their plate already!

Lab_Mouse

Hogzy wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Was it you?

The Waltzing Consumer

Hogzy wrote: »

Its not because of the parents idiocy. Its because of their religious choices. Your comment is OTT in fairness and extremely insulting to people who choose that faith.

EDIT: Im refering to J. Witnesses refusing a blood transfusion.

Any person who chooses faith over the welfare of their child is an absolute idiot. Your comment is OTT in fairness and extremely insulting to people of any religion, any race, any sex, any nationality and any person who has the ability to string two words together.

Lab_Mouse

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Someone else with HIV ?

that would make sense.

Donkey Oaty

Hogzy wrote: »

Please tell me you're not comparing this to abortion?

Only in the sense that we're talking about an unborn child, but you are right - it's a different situation.

Biggins wrote: »

Actually under the eyes of the law, (it related to when a "life" is classified as such), a baby within, still has rights.

In this case however, its after the child is born that the HSE is worried about - and rightly so I think.

Agree with your legal point, Biggins, but I disagree with the law on that.

On the second point, I think the HSE have the moral high ground.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Inside that womans body is a human, who will be here soon, they have to think of that child! If the mother won't they have to. It is like the case of the Jehovah's witness who was forced by the courts to allow her twins to get blood transfusions. A doctor should not have to watch children die because of idiotic parents!

Wolf, you are talking about two different scenarios. In the first case, I would argue that the woman should have 100% say, but not in the second case.

Tragic and difficult cases all round, and my heart goes out to anyone who has to make these decisions.

Biggins

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

...Agree with your legal point, Biggins, but I disagree with the law on that.

On the second point, I think the HSE have the moral high ground.

Well, its your right to disagree on somethings.
However glad to see we both think the HSE is doing the right thing.

Hogzy

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I never care about the parents faiths. They can believe what they want, I will respect that. But the child(ren) should not suffer. Those twins needed that blood transfusion to live. Science and religion will always be arch enemies. But having studied in a medical field and as a mother I cannot see how someone could allow their child die for anything.

And the idiocy statement is directed at ALL parents who choose anything over their child!

Agreed, i thought you were refering to their religious choices as being stupid.

@Biggins,

I cant agree. The more and more modern case law i read i see Judges weighing in the interests of the child more and more. While i agree with you that no positive legislation exists to copper fasten the childs/unmarried father's rights.
Im not saying though that the judges influence is enough. There does need to be some serious overhaul/update of Child rights legislation. Rights of the child seems to be a MASSIVE area where people are focusing their PHD's at the moment so give it another few years (and a new government) and i can see things smoothing out.

Although usually in this country the Joe Duffy callers get their issues sorted out first. It will probably take some huge injustice to a child/unmarried father to suffer before people sit up and listen.

Lab_Mouse

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Newsflash: There are precautions one can take to minimise ones risk of HIV transmission !

Thats the important word there.I wouldnt risk it.Date some one for a few weeks and then just before you hop into bed that bombshell is dropped!eh no offense but eh no.

Mike 1972

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Date some one for a few weeks and then just before you hop into bed that bombshell is dropped!eh no offense but eh no.

So how do people youve been dating for a few weeks react when you insist on them going for an HIV test ?

Granted this might be a somewhat more common scenario in some countries with a higher level of HIV prevalence/awareness

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Until the kid plops out, it's her body, her choice.

Dont want to sidetrack the thread into a Pro Choice/Pro Life debate but the "Until the kid plops out" bit is a rather extreme position. When it comes to abortion most people on the pro choice side of the debate accept some kind of term limit.

southsiderosie

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Until the kid plops out, it's her body, her choice.

But the problem is the manner in which the kid "plops out" will affect its chances of catching HIV. A planned c-section lowers the chances of transmission significantly. And the HSE injunction is over the issue of treating the child once it is born.

The one thing I don't understand is, how are these injunctions actually enforced? How will they know if the woman gives the baby its medication? How will they know if she does or doesn't breastfeed?

Lab_Mouse

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So how do people youve been dating for a few weeks react when you insist on them going for an HIV test ?

Its normaly 'you can roide me now or fuk off'.

Hogzy

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Any person who chooses faith over the welfare of their child is an absolute idiot. Your comment is OTT in fairness and extremely insulting to people of any religion, any race, any sex, any nationality and any person who has the ability to string two words together.

As i said above i thought he was refering to the parents choice of religion being stupid.
In Ireland if the parents religious choices interfere with the childs life the state will step in. It has happened before in the courts.
However if the subject is relatively trivial then the courts cannot step in. For example parents refusing a PKU test on religious grounds.

Biggins

Hogzy wrote: »

@Biggins,

I cant agree. The more and more modern case law i read i see Judges weighing in the interests of the child more and more. While i agree with you that no positive legislation exists to copper fasten the childs/unmarried father's rights.
Im not saying though that the judges influence is enough. There does need to be some serious overhaul/update of Child rights legislation. Rights of the child seems to be a MASSIVE area where people are focusing their PHD's at the moment so give it another few years (and a new government) and i can see things smoothing out.

Although usually in this country the Joe Duffy callers get their issues sorted out first. It will probably take some huge injustice to a child/unmarried father to suffer before people sit up and listen.

I don't see where you disagree with me?
I agree with what you've said above!

I am/was saying that proper clarifications by now should be laid down within law so that these such occasions should not have to arise and a rush to courts happen.
If the legal guidelines were already sorted or even better defined, the matters would be taken out of the daily/weekly/etc judges hands and out of further PHD heads consecutively also.
A similar (or this matter) would have been sorted much easier earlier - and probably with less public/media attention too.

(You get my 17,000 post by the way!)

Mike 1972

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

Its normaly 'you can roide me now or fuk off'.

And you normally/always pick the latter option right ?

Donkey Oaty

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Dont want to sidetrack the thread into a Pro Choice/Pro Life debate but the "Until the kid plops out" bit is a rather extreme position. When it comes to abortion most people on the pro choice side of the debate accept some kind of term limit.

It's an important point, Mike, and it deserves discussion - another thread, perhaps?

Hogzy

Biggins wrote: »

I don't see where you disagree with me?
I agree with what you've said above!

Read over your post again. Misread it the first time. I though you were saying that NOTHING was being done for childrens rights. I was merely pointing out that nothing is going on at Governmental level but elsewhere there is progress.

(You get my 17,000 post by the way!)

Honoured :pac:

Donkey Oaty

southsiderosie wrote: »

But the problem is the manner in which the kid "plops out" will affect its chances of catching HIV. A planned c-section lowers the chances of transmission significantly. And the HSE injunction is over the issue of treating the child once it is born.

The one thing I don't understand is, how are these injunctions actually enforced? How will they know if the woman gives the baby its medication? How will they know if she does or doesn't breastfeed?

My concern is with the rights of the mother before she gives birth, which - by definition - cease to exist once the baby is born.

The "plops out" terminology was a bit flippant and crass, and sorry if it lowered the tone of what is a very serious issue.

wolfpawnat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Wolf, you are talking about two different scenarios. In the first case, I would argue that the woman should have 100% say, but not in the second case.

Tragic and difficult cases all round, and my heart goes out to anyone who has to make these decisions.

How are they 2 different scenarios

In both cases they are choosing something they believe themselves (be it religion or bad internet bs) over the lives of the lives of their children!

Donkey Oaty

wolfpawnat wrote: »

How are they 2 different scenarios

In both cases they are choosing something they believe themselves (be it religion or bad internet bs) over the lives of the lives of their children!

I see your point, but the first case has an impact on the mother's body and the second case doesn't.

southsiderosie

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

My concern is with the rights of the mother before she gives birth, which - by definition - cease to exist once the baby is born.

The "plops out" terminology was a bit flippant and crass, and sorry if it lowered the tone of what is a very serious issue.

Well I see two issues.

First, the actual act of childbirth - whose rights are paramount then? In normal situations, often the doctor will make the call to have a c-section, even if the mother wanted a natural birth, if there is a potential health risk to the child (breeched, cord wrapped around its neck, etc). So in this case, I think it is clear that, given precedent, the doctors have a right to demand a c-section. But I think the issue here is that the woman won't schedule it, and once the baby sets itself in motion, all bets are off. I can't see the state arresting the mother and taking her to the maternity ward, so what are the other options?

As for the rights of the mother, I think that the government can make a strong claim that HIV-positive women who become pregnant forfeit some of their individual health rights because of their status. But that is a slippery slope: where do we draw the line? What about women with other serious diseases, or couples who have a risk of transmitting genetic disorders to their children? One would home that people would use common sense, but as this case shows, not everyone has it.

wolfpawnat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I see your point, but the first case has an impact on the mother's body and the second case doesn't.

Well c-sections are common place in the modern world, ANY high risk pregnancy is usually a section, HIV positive patients fall into this category. It is best for mum and baby. HIV patients are more likely to catch infections as a result of a less able immune system.

The placenta can tear apart in the uterus, if it does not all come out in the after birth the mother would be dead in days! In a c-section it is a sterile procedure and the whole placenta can be removed safely leaving the mother in a safer position too. And as regards the scar, a scar on the stomach, it is easier to look after than scars below

Donkey Oaty

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well I see two issues.

First, the actual act of childbirth - whose rights are paramount then? In normal situations, often the doctor will make the call to have a c-section, even if the mother wanted a natural birth, if there is a potential health risk to the child (breeched, cord wrapped around its neck, etc). So in this case, I think it is clear that, given precedent, the doctors have a right to demand a c-section. But I think the issue here is that the woman won't schedule it, and once the baby sets itself in motion, all bets are off. I can't see the state arresting the mother and taking her to the maternity ward, so what are the other options?

As for the rights of the mother, I think that the government can make a strong claim that HIV-positive women who become pregnant forfeit some of their individual health rights because of their status. But that is a slippery slope: where do we draw the line? What about women with other serious diseases, or couples who have a risk of transmitting genetic disorders to their children? One would home that people would use common sense, but as this case shows, not everyone has it.

Very interesting point you make in the first para - I wasn't aware that doctors could reduce the risks to the about-to-be-born child by overriding the mother's wishes for giving birth.

I totally agree with sentiments of your last sentence, and it's the problem for all government legislation and guidelines on these issues: where to intervene?

Donkey Oaty

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Well c-sections are common place in the modern world, ANY high risk pregnancy is usually a section, HIV positive patients fall into this category. It is best for mum and baby. HIV patients are more likely to catch infections as a result of a less able immune system.

The placenta can tear apart in the uterus, if it does not all come out in the after birth the mother would be dead in days! In a c-section it is a sterile procedure and the whole placenta can be removed safely leaving the mother in a safer position too. And as regards the scar, a scar on the stomach, it is easier to look after than scars below

I don't disagree with what you say.

I just think that a patient/mother should be allowed to refuse treatment if that is what they want.

Chuchoter

Abortion debate and rights to your body have no place in this argument. She did not have an abortion. She has carried it to term and is now refusing to keep it safe for no obvious reason. It is not like they are asking her to cut off her arm, they are asking her for routine surgery.

Biggins

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I just think that a patient/mother should be allowed to refuse treatment if that is what they want.

I would agree with you also on that point - however - and I just mention this for further consideration, I think the mental capabilities of the parent involved should also be taken into account.

I'm absolutely not saying that in this case the mother is stupid but she MIGHT be of poor mental condition as to be perceived (by professional others alone) to be making some wrong decisions.
Decisions that on the whole other mothers would differ from and more likely agree was in the better interests of the child.

I don't know the finer details of this case as I'm sure some/a lot(?) are being held back for good reasons(s), I only mention the above as just one possibility.
I'm sure there are others.