Rights of the Parent vs rights of the child

Donkey Oaty

Biggins wrote: »

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.

Yes - that could well be part of the case.

If they decide she is incapable of making rational decisions, they can carry out procedures for the good of her health which in mental health terms no doubt will include what is best for the baby.

Chuchoter

Biggins wrote: »

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.

Exactly, for instance schizophrenic mothers can be brought under the control of the court if they are pregnant and no co-operating. It came up in Health Sciences recently.

Terry

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.

When it comes to faith, I'm of the opinion that sane government legislation should over-rule any archaic belief system.
Religion has no place in government, or in medical treatment for that matter.

Mike 1972

Terry wrote: »

When it comes to faith, I'm of the opinion that sane government legislation should over-rule any archaic belief system.
Religion has no place in government, or in medical treatment for that matter.

Id agree with you to a point anyway.

If an otherwise mentally competent adult is determined to endanger their own health/life with their own stupidity than nobody has any business stopping them but it doesnt give them the right to endanger their children/other family members.

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

who the fuk would ride someone with hiv?

To be fair becoming sexually involved with someone I knew to be HIV positive is something I would be highly wary about doing but Im not going to pass judgment on someone else who does so having clued themselves in on the levels of risk and means of minimising same.

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

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

Pro life/choice threads have a frequent tendency to quickly develop into a trainwreck so depending on my mood and how it goes Ill probably stay on the sidelines.

Donkey Oaty

Sorry, but I've misunderstood some parts of the story, and I think some other people have as well.

Here's how I see it now.

Lady is going to have baby.

HSE thinks certain ARV drugs are good for her baby, and they'll give them to the baby once it is born.

Lady disagrees, and goes to court for the right for her kid not to be given the drugs.

Meanwhile, doctors say it's in the baby's best interests to be born by elective Ceaesarean on Monday.

Lady does not agree to that, but says she'll have it next Friday - giving the court time to decide whether or not the ARV drugs have to be administered.

One way or another, the baby will be born - but without the drugs, the HSE say the baby is likely to have HIV.

The question is, does the lady have the right to refuse to have a Ceasarean on Monday? I can see why she shouldn't refuse, but the question is whether she should be forced to have it.

southsiderosie

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Id agree with you to a point anyway.

If an otherwise mentally competent adult is determined to endanger their own health/life with their own stupidity than nobody has any business stopping them but it doesnt give them the right to endanger their children/other family members.

So should it be mandatory for HIV-positive women to take anti-retroviral drugs while pregnant? They reduce the odds of transmission.

Mike 1972

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Meanwhile, doctors say it's in the baby's best interests to be born by elective Ceaesarean on Monday.......Lady does not agree to that, but says she'll have it next Friday

Pregnant women know a week in advance when theyre going into labour

southsiderosie

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Pregnant women know a week in advance when theyre going into labour

If you know you are having a c-section, doctors will schedule it.

Donkey Oaty

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Pregnant women know a week in advance when theyre going into labour

Not in my experience - but I take your word for it!

The Irish Times only tells us that the mother-to-be is:

is in the latter stages of pregnancy

...but the doctors think it is the best interests of the child if a ceaesarian is done on Monday.

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

Terry

southsiderosie wrote: »

So should it be mandatory for HIV-positive women to take anti-retroviral drugs while pregnant? They reduce the odds of transmission.

Without a doubt.
Bringing a child into the world with the knowledge that it will be dependant on medication for the rest of its life is cruel and selfish.

I'm not talking eugenics here. I'm not suggesting for one second that people only have children who will live to be 100 and never get cancer, or be born autistic or anything of the sort.
My point is that HIV is a known quantity, and if someone with HIV wants to have a child, then every precaution should be taken to ensure that the child is not born with HIV.

I have no doubt that the parents of a child with HIV will love their child, but if the child can be prevented from contracting it, then every effort must be made to ensure that the child is born free of this illness.

wolfpawnat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

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.

She can refuse for herself, but not the child. The state has the right to intervene if a child is at risk, and not giving the child this treatment is risking its life, so legally they can interfere. It is the same as if I allowed my son in contact with HIV today. They can take him off me to save him.

She does not appear to be refusing the Section, which looks after her, but not her baby. A bit selfish IMHO!

Donkey Oaty

wolfpawnat wrote: »

She can refuse for herself, but not the child.

You include "unborn child" in that, I take it? If so, I respect your consistency, but I hope you will respect my opinion that she can refuse treatment for herself regardless of whether or not she is pregnant.

wolfpawnat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

You include "unborn child" in that, I take it? If so, I respect your consistency, but I hope you will respect my opinion that she can refuse treatment for herself regardless of whether or not she is pregnant.

She can do whatever she wants for herself. That is her choice, but a natural birth is dangerous for both of them and once the child is independent of her body it can be forcibly removed from her care and given the treatment it requires if needs be.

Donkey Oaty

wolfpawnat wrote: »

She can do whatever she wants for herself. That is her choice, but a natural birth is dangerous for both of them and once the child is independent of her body it can be forcibly removed from her care and given the treatment it requires if needs be.

She has agreed to the c-section, but is delaying it until Friday so the court can decide on the legality of the drugs for her child after it is born.

The doctors say that that is more dangerous than having it on Monday.

It's an odd one, this.

wolfpawnat

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

She has agreed to the c-section, but is delaying it until Friday so the court can decide on the legality of the drugs for her child after it is born.

The doctors say that that is more dangerous than having it on Monday.

It's an odd one, this.

The longer they leave it the more likely she will go into natural labour. 37 weeks is full term, anything after that is extra. So every day is risking both of them.

We will just have to wait and see

southsiderosie

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

She has agreed to the c-section, but is delaying it until Friday so the court can decide on the legality of the drugs for her child after it is born.

The doctors say that that is more dangerous than having it on Monday.

It's an odd one, this.

I think the doctors want to schedule things before she would go into actual labor. And considering that she doesn't want to treat the baby after it's born, it sounds like she did not complete a full anti-viral regimen while she was pregnant, and the article referenced her being in 'denial' about her diagnosis, I think they want the process to be as controlled as possible. If she goes into labor and doesn't go to the hospital until the contractions are 2 minutes apart and she is fully dilated, anything that happens at that point is going to be messy.

Edit; meh, I am slow on the draw!

angelfire9

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

You include "unborn child" in that, I take it? If so, I respect your consistency, but I hope you will respect my opinion that she can refuse treatment for herself regardless of whether or not she is pregnant.

I am 35 weeks pregnant today
And when I go into labour I'd love to have a natural birth i.e. I don't want a C-Section, I would like to have the baby given to me straight after birth, I would like to keep the babs beside me continually while I am in the hospital etc etc

BUT
If the baby is in distress and the doctors recommend a section then I'm not going to say no
If GOD FORBID the baby requires immediate medical treatment for any reason immediately after the birth then I'm not going to object if they take him/her away to do that
If the baby needs an incubator (again god forbid) when it is born then i'm not going to insist on rooming in

I am not a medical doctor I have to rely on the professionals to know what is best for the baby and for me when the time arrives

This woman appears to be totally and completely selfish and I certainly hope the HSE get the injunction they are looking for in this case!

Donkey Oaty

It seems to be an important case with a possible precedent at stake.

The HSE is seeking a court order to administer the drugs once the child is born, but the strange thing is that it is the effects of the drugs they are considering rather than the general principle of the HSE having the power to overrule the mother's decision.

If my interpretation is correct, will it affect any future HSE cases with different drugs, or will the HSE have to seek a court ruling on a case-by-case basis?

Perhaps some kind legal-minded person can put me right on this one.

wolfpawnat

angelfire9 wrote: »

I am 35 weeks pregnant today
And when I go into labour I'd love to have a natural birth i.e. I don't want a C-Section, I would like to have the baby given to me straight after birth, I would like to keep the babs beside me continually while I am in the hospital etc etc

BUT
If the baby is in distress and the doctors recommend a section then I'm not going to say no
If GOD FORBID the baby requires immediate medical treatment for any reason immediately after the birth then I'm not going to object if they take him/her away to do that
If the baby needs an incubator (again god forbid) when it is born then i'm not going to insist on rooming in

I am not a medical doctor I have to rely on the professionals to know what is best for the baby and for me when the time arrives

This woman appears to be totally and completely selfish and I certainly hope the HSE get the injunction they are looking for in this case!

I wanted natural, ended up with an emergency section, no baby for 12 hours as he was in neo-nates with tubes everywhere and was taken off me midday and midnight to get his meds, I never doubted the docs, they explained everything and told me it is what he needed if I wanted to take him home. You just accept the cards you are dealt and trust the professionals when they explain everything properly

Donkey Oaty

angelfire9 wrote: »

This woman appears to be totally and completely selfish and I certainly hope the HSE get the injunction they are looking for in this case!

I wish you the best of luck!

The woman might be misguided, but according to the press reports she seems to have the best interests of her child at heart:

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.

Let's hope for a speedy resolution.

angelfire9

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I wish you the best of luck!

The woman might be misguided, but according to the press reports she seems to have the best interests of her child at heart:

Let's hope for a speedy resolution.

The best interests of the child would be achieved by listening to the medical professionals who are dealing with her case not by listening to internet mumbo jumbo

Everyone researches things on the net, new games, new films, new books, even new drugs and drugs treatments
BUT
What kind of idiot puts internet opinion above medical knowledge???

I'm pregnant, does that mean that every time I have a twinge I go research it on the net and never bother asking my GP or consultant about it?
NO
If i think i am going into labour will I go on the net and seek the opinions of other mothers and/or pregnant women or will I go to hospital
Mmmm.... what do you think??

The internet has its uses
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!

southsiderosie

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I wish you the best of luck!

The woman might be misguided, but according to the press reports she seems to have the best interests of her child at heart:

Let's hope for a speedy resolution.

Where is she getting her information from though? It is STANDARD for women with HIV to 1) do an anti-viral regimen while pregnant, 2) have a c-section, 3) give the baby an anti-viral regimen and 4) not to breastfeed. This has cut the risk of mother-child transmission from 35% to under 2%.

The original injunction against the woman also asked to restrain her from breastfeeding (although I have no idea how they could enforce that). The injunction was dropped when the woman said she would agree not to do it.

Either she is some kind of neo-hippie or she is completely delusional. But as Terry said (and I am paraphrasing here) if she doesn't expose her child to what are very strong and sometimes dangerous drugs now for a short period of time, her child may have to take those same drugs every day for the rest of its (shortened) life.

cc-offe

I wouldn't even be prepared to listen to this womans arguments on the matter as the HSE said she hasn't adhered to medical advice, why take the risk? It's all very well saying the way people say these days that HIV is not the death sentence it once was but it is still a horrific disease, this woman needs to listen to the experts, they are trying to do the best for her child.
Anyone with kids here will be familiar with the heel prick test which is done on all newborns, it is to test for PKU among other dangerous diseases, The midwife told me in the hospital that this is mandatory and that as PKU can lead to brain damage unless a strict diet is followed, that if a parent refused the test that that is classed as child abuse (now I don't actually know if it is true that it is mandatory but that is what she said)

They do these things and follow these procedures for the good of the child, It is always hard to know what is best when it comes to children, I choose not to get the swine flu vaccination when I was pregnant as there was no possible study available that would prove it to be safe for my unborn child, I did however choose to follow all the rest of the HSE vaccination programme (although it is scary with all the horror stories you hear about the vaccines) There is and always will be worries about vaccines, preventative medicines etc. especially on such tiny babies but in the case of HIV I think there is only 1 option, you must take every precaution recommended to you by your doctors.

Jesus Wept

Shouldn't be having a baby in the first place.

Donkey Oaty

southsiderosie wrote: »

Where is she getting her information from though? It is STANDARD for women with HIV to 1) do an anti-viral regimen while pregnant, 2) have a c-section, 3) give the baby an anti-viral regimen and 4) not to breastfeed. This has cut the risk of mother-child transmission from 35% to under 2%.

She has agreed to 2 and 4, and (strangely) 1 has not even been mentioned in the report. The court will rule on 3, but I'm surprised that the HSE does not already have the right to enforce the treatment on her child. I assumed they did.

I hope the HSE will end up being able to do what's necessary, but I feel sorry for this lady.

She didn't initiate this court case and hopefully people in her position will not have to go through this in future - although how a court order can be enforced is anyone's guess.

cc-offe

southsiderosie wrote: »

The original injunction against the woman also asked to restrain her from breastfeeding (although I have no idea how they could enforce that). The injunction was dropped when the woman said she would agree not to do it.
.

If u see my last post where I mentioned what the midwife saying to me about the heel prick test she also told me that they would not allow a certain group of people in Ireland to breast feed at all as they had such a high incidence of PKU, again i'm not sure if this was true or not but that's what she said

southsiderosie

The-Rigger wrote: »

Shouldn't be having a baby in the first place.

If women take proper precautions, the risk of mother-child HIV transmission is 2% - about the same as the risk of a 43 year old woman giving birth to a child with Downs Syndrome. Should 43 year old women not have children then?

cc-offe

southsiderosie wrote: »

If women take proper precautions, the risk of mother-child HIV transmission is 2% - about the same as the risk of a 43 year old woman giving birth to a child with Downs Syndrome. Should 43 year old women not have children then?

I agree with the-rigger on this, not about women with HIV not having children but I don't think this particular woman should be having a child at all, not if she doesn't seem to understand the severity of what life could be like for her child

southsiderosie

cc-offe wrote: »

I agree with the-rigger on this, not about women with HIV not having children but I don't think this particular woman should be having a child at all, not if she doesn't seem to understand the severity of what life could be like for her child

She sounds nutty and irresponsible, but unfortunately that could describe a large number of people who have children today. And the nuttier they are, the more children they seem to have.

cc-offe

southsiderosie wrote: »

She sounds nutty and irresponsible, but unfortunately that could describe a large number of people who have children today. And the nuttier they are, the more children they seem to have.

sad but true

Jesus Wept

southsiderosie wrote: »

If women take proper precautions, the risk of mother-child HIV transmission is 2% - about the same as the risk of a 43 year old woman giving birth to a child with Downs Syndrome. Should 43 year old women not have children then?

Probably not. There are lot of other risks associated with having a child that late apart from Downs.

Cavehill Red

ballsymchugh wrote: »

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.

Whereas I'm picturing a woman from Sub-Saharan Africa.
I wonder which of us will be right?

Terry

The-Rigger wrote: »

Shouldn't be having a baby in the first place.

That's one of the most idotic comments I've ever read here.
I would suggest doing some research into people with HIV giving birth before you consider replying to this post.

Jesus Wept

I wasn't chastising anybody for having HIV. Get angry all you want.
Roll the dice then, gambol.

southsiderosie

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

She has agreed to 2 and 4, and (strangely) 1 has not even been mentioned in the report. The court will rule on 3, but I'm surprised that the HSE does not already have the right to enforce the treatment on her child. I assumed they did.

I hope the HSE will end up being able to do what's necessary, but I feel sorry for this lady.

She didn't initiate this court case and hopefully people in her position will not have to go through this in future - although how a court order can be enforced is anyone's guess.

The article alludes to the fact that she probably did not do a full drugs regimen while pregnant. And she reneged on the c-section because of the drugs issue. If she goes into labor, once her water breaks, the chances of transmission start increasing exponentially.

The only reason why she is in this position today is because she is a fool.

southsiderosie

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Whereas I'm picturing a woman from Sub-Saharan Africa.
I wonder which of us will be right?

Why?

johngalway

Children have fúck all rights in this tin píss pot country. And that's all I have to say about that.

Donkey Oaty

southsiderosie wrote: »

The article alludes to the fact that she probably did not do a full drugs regimen while pregnant. And she reneged on the c-section because of the drugs issue. If she goes into labor, once her water breaks, the chances of transmission start increasing exponentially.

The only reason why she is in this position today is because she is a fool.

The medical arguments are clear enough, and so is the law. To clarify, you think that the law should be changed so that she could be forced to have an elective c-section at a time determined by the doctors?

southsiderosie

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

The medical arguments are clear enough, and so is the law. To clarify, you think that the law should be changed so that she could be forced to have an elective c-section at a time determined by the doctors?

I don't know how any such law could be enforced. You can't legislate common sense. As I said, what rational person would not make every effort to reduce their child's likelihood of exposure to HIV? The only thing you could threaten is to take people's kids away for child endangerment or something like that.

drkpower

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

The medical arguments are clear enough, and so is the law. To clarify, you think that the law should be changed so that she could be forced to have an elective c-section at a time determined by the doctors?

The law isnt clear when it comes to forcing a woman to have a c-section actually. This may not be the case to enforce it, but if a c-section is required to vindicate the life of the unborn, a woman may be forced to have one.

Cavehill Red

southsiderosie wrote: »

Why?

Why am I wondering or why do I suspect the mother is from Sub-Saharan Africa rather than a hippy from Longford?

southsiderosie

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Why am I wondering or why do I suspect the mother is from Sub-Saharan Africa rather than a hippy from Longford?

Why would you suspect they are African?

Mike 1972

Cavehill Red wrote: »

why do I suspect the mother is from Sub-Saharan Africa ?

Cue trainwreck :rolleyes:

southsiderosie wrote: »

Why would you suspect they are African?

Going by comments in another thread I would have thought a gay bloke from San Francisco would have been the top suspect.

Donkey Oaty

drkpower wrote: »

The law isnt clear when it comes to forcing a woman to have a c-section actually. This may not be the case to enforce it, but if a c-section is required to vindicate the life of the unborn, a woman may be forced to have one.

Thanks for that. I wonder why the judge said that no such order could be made, considering that the HSE maintain that the life of the child was in danger if the c-section was delayed - conflict of interest with the drugs issue, perhaps?

Cavehill Red

southsiderosie wrote: »

Why would you suspect they are African?

Based on the HIV rates of women in Ireland the likelihood is she's either sub-Saharan African or a junkie.

southsiderosie

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Cue trainwreck :rolleyes:

Going by comments in another thread I would have thought a gay bloke from San Francisco would have been the top suspect.

Somehow I doubt that a pregnant woman got HIV from a gay man...

drkpower

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Thanks for that. I wonder why the judge said that no such order could be made, considering that the HSE maintain that the life of the child was in danger if the c-section was delayed - conflict of interest with the drugs issue, perhaps?

yeah, that was interesting; i suspect it was because in this case, while a c-section would be in the baby's interest, the evidence wasnt such that it was required to vindicate the baby's life. But i know no more than what is in the media reporting.

southsiderosie

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Based on the HIV rates of women in Ireland the likelihood is she's either sub-Saharan African or a junkie.

The article said she was living in the UK, and came back to "her home in Ireland" to avoid a court order filed by her ex-boyfriend. I just assumed she was Irish, not anything about her race. Whatever she is, she's mental.

Cavehill Red

southsiderosie wrote: »

The article said she was living in the UK, and came back to "her home in Ireland" to avoid a court order filed by her ex-boyfriend. I just assumed she was Irish, not anything about her race. Whatever she is, she's mental.

Then she could be anything from anywhere, I guess.
Is she mental? I'm no medic, but I'd say it's looking likely.

Terry

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Based on the HIV rates of women in Ireland the likelihood is she's either sub-Saharan African or a junkie.

So what?
Does it really matter to you where she is from?