Rights of the Parent vs rights of the child

Mike 1972

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Then she could be anything from anywhere, I guess.

Gosh you dont say ?

Im glad we finally cleared that up.

Cavehill Red

Terry wrote: »

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

No, it doesn't.
But I'd lay good odds that she's no hippy from Offaly.

Rodin

The child will become a ward of court on delivery.
She claims the drugs will harm the child therefore doesnt want them

But she wants to dictate when the section goes ahead? She's likely not qualified to make an informed decision on that.

wolfpawnat

Rodin wrote: »

The child will become a ward of court on delivery.
She claims the drugs will harm the child therefore doesnt want them

But she wants to dictate when the section goes ahead? She's likely not qualified to make an informed decision on that.

She knows the section is good for her and the child. She is no doubt thinking of herself with that one! Delaying the section by the 5 days may cause the woman to go into labour naturally. She will be 39+ weeks by this time next week.

This should have been sorted 2-3 months ago!

And some people are riding everyone they can these days, Gays, bisexuals and all. I am not trying to point the finger at anyone area of society, but it is not uncommon for people to have sex with members of both sexes these days, so it does not have to be that she is a junkie OR Sub Saharan African. Those are just general assumptions

southsiderosie

Update: A hearing was granted and a judge said they could not force someone to have an elective c-section, but asked if counsel for the woman would provide witnesses that actually had credentials and weren't randomers off of the internet.

Yesterday the court ruled that the newborn would receive the anti-retroviral treatment , and the woman has agreed to undergo an elective c-section in the next few days.

.....and all the lawyers got paid

wolfpawnat

wolfpawnat wrote: »

And some people are riding everyone they can these days, Gays, bisexuals and all. I am not trying to point the finger at anyone area of society, but it is not uncommon for people to have sex with members of both sexes these days, so it does not have to be that she is a junkie OR Sub Saharan African. Those are just general assumptions

What?!

drkpower

Louisa Cuddly Script wrote: »

.....and all the lawyers got paid

Should they not be? Without this legal intervention, this baby may well have died. With it, his chances soar hugely.

You pick a funny example of lawyerly greed. Perhaps its a better example of posterly stupidity.

drkpower

drkpower wrote: »

Should they not be? Without this legal intervention, this baby may well have died. With it, his chances soar hugely.

You pick a funny example of lawyerly greed. Perhaps its a better example of posterly stupidity.

anyone have a different stance is stupid then ? the courts ruled in favour and the woman agreed on the basis that she could be reassured that the drugs wouldnt harm her child . surely a proper and full explanation could of been afforded to the woman thereby avoiding all this time and money .

drkpower

Louisa Cuddly Script wrote: »

anyone have a different stance is stupid then ? the courts ruled in favour and the woman agreed on the basis that she could be reassured that the drugs wouldnt harm her child . surely a proper and full explanation could of been afforded to the woman thereby avoiding all this time and money .

It seems that these concerns had been known to the Hospital and the mother for many weeks. The mother had it explained to her a multitude of times. She continued to refuse. There were two options open:

1. Accept that refusal and allow the baby's risks to rise masssively.
2. Go to court.

The latter requires lawyers. What option would you have favoured?

southsiderosie

Louisa Cuddly Script wrote: »

anyone have a different stance is stupid then ? the courts ruled in favour and the woman agreed on the basis that she could be reassured that the drugs wouldnt harm her child . surely a proper and full explanation could of been afforded to the woman thereby avoiding all this time and money .

The woman is the one trying to wriggle out of an elective c-section, all because of what she read online (and I have to wonder where, because any reputable health body or HIV organization would make the same recommendation as the HSE did). Do you really think that her doctors have not tried to explain this to her? She is the one who has caused all of this drama and expense because she refused to listed to medical advice - this is not the fault of the HSE.

i dont blame the hse but surely this could of been avoided ? seems a complete waste of everyones time and resources given that the woman is still asking for clarification at this stage ?

drkpower

Louisa Cuddly Script wrote: »

i dont blame the hse but surely this could of been avoided ? seems a complete waste of everyones time and resources given that the woman is still asking for clarification at this stage ?

It could have been avoided if the woman had listened to the advice of her doctors over a number of weeks; she could have sought a 2nd, 3rd & 4th opinion.

But what she did was refuse putting her baby's life at risk. But you blame the lawyers...?:rolleyes: If stupid isnt the appropriate word, what is?

drkpower

drkpower wrote: »

It could have been avoided if the woman had listened to the advice of her doctors over a number of weeks; she could have sought a 2nd, 3rd & 4th opinion.

But what she did was refuse putting her baby's life at risk. But you blame the lawyers...?:rolleyes: If stupid isnt the appropriate word, what is?

i dont blame the lawyers :rolleyes: i was merely saying that there were a lot of people getting paid and will continue to do so .

Either the woman in question isnt very bright or then explanations afforded to her were not ones she could understand either way this whole mess has cost and will cost a huge amount of money and resources which i dont considered very smart .

drkpower

Louisa Cuddly Script wrote: »

i dont blame the lawyers :rolleyes: i was merely saying that there were a lot of people getting paid and will continue to do so ..

oh, ok....

Donkey Oaty

southsiderosie wrote: »

The woman is the one who sued to stop the doctors from treating the baby...

That is not so - it is the HSE that brought this case to court.

southsiderosie

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

That is not so - it is the HSE that brought this case to court.

Yeah, sorry that was really sloppy...and I was the OP!

Millicent

wolfpawnat wrote: »

And some people are riding everyone they can these days, Gays, bisexuals and all. I am not trying to point the finger at anyone area of society, but it is not uncommon for people to have sex with members of both sexes these days, so it does not have to be that she is a junkie OR Sub Saharan African. Those are just general assumptions

You're aware that she could get HIV through heterosexual sex, right?

Rodin

I'm guessing the kid won't be having the MMR jab.

wolfpawnat

bluewolf wrote: »

What?!

Millicent wrote: »

You're aware that she could get HIV through heterosexual sex, right?

People were stating she was more than likely African because she has HIV. I was merely stating that due to peoples lifestyle choices HIV is common in ALL areas of society nowadays! Africans, Europeans, Americans, Gays, Bi-sexuals, Hetrosexuals, you would almost be too frightened to sleep with anybody these days, you have no idea what you could contract!

metrovelvet

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!

Hmnnn....I dont completely trust the professionals [especially the HSE] and I think this is a very slippery slope were getting into. Where do you draw the line?

I know a woman who had to get a court order to refuse the vitamin K injection.

THe pros got my dates wrong and said I needed to get an induction. But all the signs were there that the baby just wasnt ready and I felt pressured into getting one. First time mum and nervous and all that. Looking back I should have refused the induction [which ended up failing and put both our lives at risk and ended up with a section anyway]. If I had refused the induction should I have been handcuffed and brought into the hospital?

I dont rely on the professionals. I see too much incompetance here. My son was referred to a consultant who took out the wrong organ on another child and another child died under his care.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Hmnnn....I dont completely trust the professionals [especially the HSE] and I think this is a very slippery slope were getting into. Where do you draw the line?

I know a woman who had to get a court order to refuse the vitamin K injection.

THe pros got my dates wrong and said I needed to get an induction. But all the signs were there that the baby just wasnt ready and I felt pressured into getting one. First time mum and nervous and all that. Looking back I should have refused the induction [which ended up failing and put both our lives at risk and ended up with a section anyway]. If I had refused the induction should I have been handcuffed and brought into the hospital?

I dont rely on the professionals. I see too much incompetance here. My son was referred to a consultant who took out the wrong organ on another child and another child died under his care.

This is the kind of post that really annoys me. It is nonsense born of ignorance wrapped up in apparent reasonableness.

First, you DO rely on the professionals; if not, you would have had your baby at home, with no professional support, and when your baby gets sick, you wouldnt bring him to the GP.

Second, the fact that bad sh!t happens (through badluck, or even error on occasion) does not mean that a doctor, or all doctors, cant be trusted. For every story of yours where a 'child died under someone's care', I am sure we could find a thousand 'doctor saves child's life' story; right?

Third, and the most galling - you talk of slippery slopes in terms of parental ability/responsibility to decide for their children; yet you talk as if the smelly end of that slope, the bit we want to avoid, is taking dcecision-making from parents. Anyone with a genuine concern for children would recognise that the result we want to avoid is unnecessarily letting children die, or becoming critically ill, because of irresponsible decisions of parents. That is the result we should all be trying to avoid. But you seem more concerned at the taking of parental decision-making from irresponsible parents.

So, where to 'draw the line'? What about at a point at which a decision of parent will cause significant ill-health to their child? Or do you favour the parental right to inflict ill-health on their children?

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

This is the kind of post that really annoys me. It is nonsense born of ignorance wrapped up in apparent reasonableness.

First, you DO rely on the professionals; if not, you would have had your baby at home, with no professional support, and when your baby gets sick, you wouldnt bring him to the GP.

Second, the fact that bad sh!t happens (through badluck, or even error on occasion) does not mean that a doctor, or all doctors, cant be trusted. For every story of yours where a 'child died under someone's care', I am sure we could find a thousand 'doctor saves child's life' story; right?

Third, and the most galling - you talk of slippery slopes in terms of parental ability/responsibility to decide for their children; yet you talk as if the smelly end of that slope, the bit we want to avoid, is taking dcecision-making from parents. Anyone with a genuine concern for children would recognise that the result we want to avoid is unnecessarily letting children die, or becoming critically ill, because of irresponsible decisions of parents. That is the result we should all be trying to avoid. But you seem more concerned at the taking of parental decision-making from irresponsible parents.

So, where to 'draw the line'? What about at a point at which a decision of parent will cause significant ill-health to their child? Or do you favour the parental right to inflict ill-health on their children?

Bull****. I am concerned about where you draw the line on the state controlling everything. Especially an incompetent one.

wolfpawnat

metrovelvet wrote: »

Bull****. I am concerned about where you draw the line on the state controlling everything. Especially an incompetent one.

When the mother is incompetent what else can they do. If they did nothing we would all be attacking them saying they were sick to let this happen to the child!!!!

metrovelvet

http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/forced_c-section.htm

Could You Be Forced To Have A C-Section?

Baby Talk
May, 2005
By Lisa Collier Cool
Amber Marlowe anticipated an easy delivery when she went into labor on January 14, 2004. But after a routine ultrasound, doctors at Wilkes-Barre General Hospital, in Pennsylvania, decided that the baby--at what looked like 13 pounds--was too big to deliver vaginally and told her that she needed to have a cesarean. The mom-to-be, however, wasn't convinced: After all, she'd given birth to her six previous kids the natural way, including other large babies. And monitoring showed that the fetus was in no apparent distress.

After she said no to surgery, doctors spent hours trying to change her mind. When that didn't work, the hospital went to court, seeking an order to become her unborn baby's legal guardian. A judge ruled that the doctors could perform a "medically necessary" c-section against the mom's will, if she returned to that hospital. Meanwhile, she and her husband checked out against the doctors' advice and went to another hospital, where she later gave birth vaginally to a healthy 11-pound girl. "When I found out about the court order, I couldn't believe the hospital would do something like that. It was scary and very shocking," says Marlowe. "All this just because I didn't want a c-section."

She and her husband, John, turned to the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), in New York City, for help in contesting the judge's ruling--the first of its kind in Pennsylvania. The couple is also considering legal action against the hospital. "It's not about us," says John Marlowe. "What's going to happen to the next lady who goes there? We want everyone to know what's going on. What they did was wrong, and our goal is to put a stop to it so that other women don't end up with c-sections they don't need."

Coercive Medicine
Increasingly in the United States, pregnant women are encountering legal or more subtle pressures to have c-sections. Currently, more than a million expectant women have the operation annually, as America's rate of surgical deliveries has hit an all-time high. In 2003, cesareans accounted for nearly 28 percent of births in this country, compared with just 5 percent in 1970. Many factors contributed to this rise--increasing numbers of repeat c-sections, doctors' fears of malpractice lawsuits, and women waiting longer to have kids (which is related to higher rates of complications), to name a few. But while the procedure is usually quite safe and can be potentially lifesaving for mother and baby, it also poses a number of potential risks, including severe bleeding, infection, injury to the fetus, blood clots, and even the mother's death in extremely rare cases.

Yet hospitals in at least a dozen states have obtained court orders to compel unwilling women to undergo this major abdominal surgery. And while Marlowe was able to escape the scalpel, other patients were operated on-- despite their verbal or even physical resistance. In a tragic 1984 case, staff at a Chicago hospital forcibly tied a pregnant Nigerian woman who had declined a c-section to her hospital bed with leather wrist and ankle restraints. The woman objected to the surgery because she planned to return to Nigeria where the operation wasn't readily available, and she rightfully worried about health risks, including a ruptured uterus, if she became pregnant again and had another child vaginally back home. As she screamed for help and frantically tried to free herself, doctors, with a judge's permission, wheeled her off to the O.R. to perform the procedure.

Defying doctors' advice can even lead to criminal prosecution, as Melissa Rowland discovered last year. While pregnant with twins, the 28-year-old Utah mom initially declined a recommended c-section, even though doctors warned that without it her babies might die due to low levels of amniotic fluid and other problems. Several days later, on January 13, 2004, she changed her mind and had the operation. Her daughter, Hannah, survived after treatment with oxygen and antibiotics, but a twin boy was stillborn. Contending that the initial refusal caused his death, prosecutors charged Rowland with first-degree murder. After spending three months in jail, she accepted a deal in which the murder charge was dismissed in return for her guilty plea to two counts of child endangerment (unrelated to her c-section refusal). She's now free, and serving 18 months of probation.

"This case is a tragedy compounded by a shocking abuse of legal authority," contends Lynn Paltrow, executive director of NAPW and a lawyer specializing in reproductive issues. "It shouldn't be a crime for pregnant women to disagree with doctors and make their own medical decisions. Nor should they be punished for a bad outcome when there's always some risk to giving birth, regardless of whether it's vaginal or by c-section."

And you can't be legally compelled to undergo any other medical procedure for the benefit of another person. "You don't have to donate your kidney, your bone marrow, or your blood, even if someone else might die without it," explains Howard Minkoff, M.D., chair of obstetrics and gynecology at Maimonides Medical Center, in Brooklyn, New York, and coauthor (with Paltrow) on an analysis of the Rowland case published in the December 2004 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology. You also can't be prosecuted for murder if you refuse. "So why should c-sections be any different?" the doctor adds. "That's saying pregnant women have fewer rights than anyone else, including a fetus."

A Subtle Pressure
Of course, only a minute fraction of the c-sections performed in this country are court ordered. Far more women undergo the procedure at the recommendation of their doctor. The most common reason a woman is encouraged to have a c-section is if she previously delivered a child this way. These "repeat c-sections" have become so common that they now account for nearly 410,000 births annually in the United States, about 10 percent of births each year.

And it doesn't seem that this number will be getting any lower, as an increasing number of hospitals that formerly permitted women to try for vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) now prohibit the practice, making a return trip to the O.R. mandatory for moms-to-be with a previous surgical delivery. Because it 's getting harder and harder to find medical centers that allow VBAC, the rate has plunged by nearly two-thirds, from 27.5 percent in 1995 to 10.6 percent in 2003.

Ask doctors what's behind the ban, and you'll hear the same answer: fear of lawsuits. Trying for a VBAC carries with it a 1 percent risk of uterine rupture. This dangerous complication is an emergency that requires surgical repair--or, in some cases, a hysterectomy--to stop potentially life-threatening blood loss. "Medical liability is a huge problem for obstetricians, because people are losing their practices over malpractice claims," reports medical ethicist Anne Lyerly, M.D., assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. "So it's understandable that a lot of us practice defensive medicine by avoiding risky deliveries that might have adverse outcomes." A 2004 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) survey bears this out, since 15 percent of its members say they've stopped doing VBACs to protect themselves from mal-practice claims, and another 14 percent no longer deliver babies at all for the same reason.

In 1999, ACOG responded to concerns about VBAC risks with new practice guidelines, saying that the delivery should only be provided at hospitals equipped to do an immediate c-section if anything went wrong, instead of within 30 minutes' notice, as was previously required.

That's fine for big medical centers that have anesthesiologists and surgeons on duty 24/7, like the one where Dr. Minkoff delivers babies, but not for smaller hospitals. "Often, they can't afford to have doctors standing by in case a woman who arrives in early labor needs surgery later on, so in many parts of the country, especially rural areas, pregnant patients can't find anywhere to have a VBAC," he explains.

An Ethical Debate
How far should ob-gyns go to save an unborn baby they consider at risk? Some of the very doctors you'd most expect to advocate for pregnant women actually support forced c-sections, a 2003 University of Chicago study found. When the researchers surveyed directors of 42 maternal-fetal medicine programs around the country, 14 percent reported that their hospital had used court orders to compel unwilling women to have O.R. deliveries. What's more, 21 percent of these specialists in the care of pregnant patients consider coerced c-sections "ethically justified" to spare a fetus possible harm--even over the woman's physical resistance, as long as her struggles weren't strenuous enough to endanger her or the baby.

ACOG adamantly disagrees. In 2004, its ethics committee ruled that it's never right for health care providers to subject pregnant women to physical force, even with a court order authorizing a c-section or other procedure. The committee also said that seeking such orders against a patient's wishes is "rarely if ever acceptable." The American Medical Association, another prominent doctors' group, has a similar policy.

So what should happen if a doctor is convinced that a vaginal birth would be disastrous? "Personally, I'm willing to counsel women very strongly in that situation--and bring in another physician to offer a second opinion about the risks of not having a c-section," says Dr. Lyerly. "I also tell patients that it's a very safe operation--and I should know, since I've had three c-sections myself."

However, doctors' opinions can also be tragically wrong. Years ago, a Washington, D.C., hospital got a court order to perform a c-section on Angela Carder, who was gravely ill with cancer. Since the mom was in such poor health, the hospital's doctors believed that delivering the 26-week fetus immediately would give it a better chance of survival than waiting for a natural delivery. The result? Carder and her baby both died soon after the operation. Later, in a landmark 1990 ruling, an appeals court overturned the order, finding that Carder had a right to make medical decisions for herself and her unborn child. Her family also received an undisclosed financial settlement from the hospital.

"I hope that doctors and judges are humbled by this terrible mistake that never should have happened," says Dr. Lyerly. "We can make dire predictions and think patients are too irrational to weigh the risks for themselves, but we're not infallible. And since doctors and moms can both be wrong, and if they can't agree on the best way to give birth, ultimately it has to be the woman's choice."

When surgery is being considered, experts say pregnant women need to feel confident that their wishes will prevail, whether they consent to an elective or emergency c-section or decline one they deem medically unnecessary, as Amber Marlowe did. (Want to avoid a c-section? See "Getting the birth experience you want," above.) In 25 years of delivering babies, Dr. Minkoff has learned to respect his patients' decisions about how they want to give birth--even if he doesn't always agree. "It's my duty to fully explain why I think a c-section should be seriously considered and the risks of not following my advice," he says. "But in the end, the strongest advocate for the safety and health of an unborn child is the baby's mother. And that's the way it should be, because she has the most at stake."

metrovelvet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

When the mother is incompetent what else can they do. If they did nothing we would all be attacking them saying they were sick to let this happen to the child!!!!

What's next? Court ordered ritalin?

wolfpawnat

metrovelvet wrote: »

What's next? Court ordered ritalin?

The child has to be protected, if a parent will not do it, then the professionals have to be brought in. And it is not one doc they bring in, but a team. A court will want the majority if not all of the doctors to agree on the course of action. There are enough children suffering in Ireland, I agree with them helping as many as possible.

Could you imagine your son in school with a child with HIV, as much as you would try not to be judgmental and not ignore the child, if you saw your son sharing food with it you would be worried.

I am an open minded person, but even I would be worried about that!

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Bull****. I am concerned about where you draw the line on the state controlling everything. Especially an incompetent one.

First, it is the judicial branch of the state that will decide such issues usually. And only after hearing evidence from doctors and the parents (when that is possible). When you refer to an incompetent state, are you referring to the judiciary also?

Even if you feel the judiciary are incompetent, and the doctors who give evidence to them are also incompetent, they are not AS incompetent as parents who refuse to allow their child to recieve life-saving and health-preserving treatment.

It is interesting that in your statement of concern above, not once did you say you were concerned about the child.

metrovelvet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The child has to be protected, if a parent will not do it, then the professionals have to be brought in. And it is not one doc they bring in, but a team. A court will want the majority if not all of the doctors to agree on the course of action. There are enough children suffering in Ireland, I agree with them helping as many as possible.

Could you imagine your son in school with a child with HIV, as much as you would try not to be judgmental and not ignore the child, if you saw your son sharing food with it you would be worried.

I am an open minded person, but even I would be worried about that!

For all I know he is already playing and eating with a kid who has HIV. I have no idea who has HIV and who hasn't.

Cat Melodeon

There seems to be one line in this story that everyone is ignoring:

... 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.

HIV drugs are still new, there is no consensus on their use in babies. I agree that the internet should not be treated as reliable source of information, but the woman surely has a right to a court decision if she is unconvinced by the HSE professionals?

wolfpawnat wrote: »

. You just accept the cards you are dealt and trust the professionals when they explain everything properly

angelfire9 wrote: »

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!

This country does not always encourage one to trust the professionals. "Hello, my name's Dr Neary. Would you like your womb removed with that C-section? What's that, you're under anaesthetic and can't hear me? Ah well, I'm sure you won't mind". Snip.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

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.

The World Health Organization defines normal term for delivery as between 37 weeks and 42 weeks. 37 weeks is quite early for most first-time mothers, 40 is the norm, and up to 42 weeks is still as normal as 37 weeks. It is not 'extra', it is normal.

cc-offe wrote: »

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

No that's not true at all. That 'certain group' are also strongly encouraged to breastfeed. PKU does not mean that breastfeeding cannot be done, it just means that the mother must strictly adhere to a particular diet. With the correct support and education, there is no reason why that can't happen.

wolfpawnat

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

The World Health Organization defines normal term for delivery as between 37 weeks and 42 weeks. 37 weeks is quite early for most first-time mothers, 40 is the norm, and up to 42 weeks is still as normal as 37 weeks. It is not 'extra', it is normal.

According to the Irish Times this is her second child, so it is more likely to come on the earlier end of that scale.

Cat Melodeon

wolfpawnat wrote: »

According to the Irish Times this is her second child, so it is more likely to come on the earlier end of that scale.

Not necessarily. Some women always go over term, regardless of how many babies they have had before. That's just how their cycle works. It is more likely for first-timers, but not restricted to them.

wolfpawnat

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Not necessarily. Some women always go over term, regardless of how many babies they have had before. That's just how their cycle works. It is more likely for first-timers, but not restricted to them.

Oh course, but it is more likely

Cat Melodeon

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Oh course, but it is more likely

As I said, not necessarily. It depends on her cycle. Without access to her file, it is impossible to say whether it is more likely or not.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

First, it is the judicial branch of the state that will decide such issues usually. And only after hearing evidence from doctors and the parents (when that is possible). When you refer to an incompetent state, are you referring to the judiciary also?

Even if you feel the judiciary are incompetent, and the doctors who give evidence to them are also incompetent, they are not AS incompetent as parents who refuse to allow their child to recieve life-saving and health-preserving treatment.

It is interesting that in your statement of concern above, not once did you say you were concerned about the child.

That is because I am arguing against the status quo of this thread. I have decided to take the opposite stance for the sake of a good argument. I'm not going to take what you say as gospel.

southsiderosie

@ metrovelvet - I agree that c-sections are out of control in the US. However, the data on prevention of mother-child transmission of HIV is very clear: elective c-sections before active labor significantly reduces the risk of transmission.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Could you imagine your son in school with a child with HIV, as much as you would try not to be judgmental and not ignore the child, if you saw your son sharing food with it you would be worried.

I am an open minded person, but even I would be worried about that!

No. Contact sports are problematic. Sharing a bag of crisps, not so much.

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

HIV drugs are still new, there is no consensus on their use in babies. I agree that the internet should not be treated as reliable source of information, but the woman surely has a right to a court decision if she is unconvinced by the HSE professionals?

There is medical consensus on reduction of mother-child risk: 1) an anti-retroviral cycle while the mother is pregnant, 2) elective c-section before active labor, 3) an anti-retroviral cycle for the infant, and 4) no breastfeeding. The consensus is, that while these drugs are strong and may cause harm, better a brief one-month exposure to them than a lifetime of exposure to them with HIV.

metrovelvet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

According to the Irish Times this is her second child, so it is more likely to come on the earlier end of that scale.

I was two weeks late. My younger brother was three weeks late. My son imo was premature because they got the dates wrong.

Cat Melodeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

There is medical consensus on reduction of mother-child risk: 1) an anti-retroviral cycle while the mother is pregnant, 2) elective c-section before active labor, 3) an anti-retroviral cycle for the infant, and 4) no breastfeeding. The consensus is, that while these drugs are strong and may cause harm, better a brief one-month exposure to them than a lifetime of exposure to them with HIV.

There is no consensus on risks to children who are given anti-retroviral drugs at birth. There is simply no long-term outcome data available, the drugs haven't been around long enough for that.

Current recommendations are that the drugs be given, as what is known about them so far suggests that it is better for most children to be given them. There is no consensus that for all cases this would be the best course of action.

The only thing that there is consensus on is that the mother should be informed of current recommendations, should be told of the risks and benefits, should not be coerced in any way, and that ultimately, the decision and the responsibility are hers.

The woman in this case seemed to feel that things had not been explained thoroughly to her and felt she could trust information from the internet before that given to her by her own doctors. That in itself is a failure by the HSE. If they cannot instill confidence in their patients, the alternative is legal action like this.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

That is because I am arguing against the status quo of this thread. I have decided to take the opposite stance for the sake of a good argument. I'm not going to take what you say as gospel.

Its not a debating school, ffs. Give your actual view or stfu.

I know exactly the contrary positions, i dont need you to articulate them.:D

tallaght01

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

There is no consensus on risks to children who are given anti-retroviral drugs at birth. There is simply no long-term outcome data available, the drugs haven't been around long enough for that.

Current recommendations are that the drugs be given, as what is known about them so far suggests that it is better for most children to be given them. There is no consensus that for all cases this would be the best course of action.

The only thing that there is consensus on is that the mother should be informed of current recommendations, should be told of the risks and benefits, should not be coerced in any way, and that ultimately, the decision and the responsibility are hers.

The woman in this case seemed to feel that things had not been explained thoroughly to her and felt she could trust information from the internet before that given to her by her own doctors. That in itself is a failure by the HSE. If they cannot instill confidence in their patients, the alternative is legal action like this.

There is consensus.

I've never worked anywhere where we didn't give ARVs to newborns born to a HIV positive woman. Well, in Africa we didn't but that was because they weren't available. But in Ireland, the UK, New Zealand and Oz, we all do the same thing. I haven't worked in the USA or Canada, but they do too,and the rest of Europe.

There's good guidelines by the WHO, updated this year, which most people follow.

The evidence is very high quality for breastfeeding and non breastfeeding infants, especially if mum gets a shot of AZT during delivery.

I've never met a single mother who's refused ARVs or her kids, and I've been at a LOT of HIV pos deliveries, and never seen a kiddy develop it.

I think this argument is bigger than another of metrovelvet's inward-looking opinions. It needs to be about the science, and this baby.

I don't like telling people what to do, but I'd cut me own bolix off before letting this lady give a baby HIV, when there's good treatment available. Court seems the only option in this case, sadly.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

I was two weeks late. My younger brother was three weeks late. My son imo was premature because they got the dates wrong.

Scanning for dates is an inexact science; but you use the language of blame, of culpability, of wrong-doing. It is the attitudes of people like you, who equate a poor outcome with 'fault', which has in large part resulted in the defensive medicine that is often practised in Ireland.

But perhaps it is your fault; perhaps you smoke, or drank, or took cocaine during the pregnancy? Perhaps you were too anxious or depressed? Perhaps you had a history of an abortion? Perhaps you are too skinny, or you have bad nutrition? Perhaps you are an unamarried mother (yes, apparently that adds a 20% risk of pre-term birth....)? Perhaps there were a million other reasons, like the above, all of which can contribute to a pre-term birth.......?

But no, you think the doc fcuked up.........:rolleyes:

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

Scanning for dates is an inexact science; but you use the language of blame, of culpability, of wrong-doing. It is the attitudes of people like you, who equate a poor outcome with 'fault', which has in large part resulted in the defensive medicine that is often practised in Ireland.

But perhaps it is your fault; perhaps you smoke, or drank, or took cocaine during the pregnancy? Perhaps you were too anxious or depressed? Perhaps you had a history of an abortion? Perhaps you are too skinny, or you have bad nutrition? Perhaps you are an unamarried mother (yes, apparently that adds a 20% risk of pre-term birth....)? Perhaps there were a million other reasons, like the above, all of which can contribute to a pre-term birth.......?

But no, you think the doc fcuked up.........:rolleyes:

Yes I do think the doc ****ed up because she pushed towards an induction too soon. So none of those things you mentioned apply to me because the only thing I did was be an unwedmother and the baby was taken out of me too soon because I consented to BAD medical advice. It wasnt because he was born too soon. So lay off.

A friend of mine is a medical defense attorney and even she thinks I have a case.

wolfpawnat

southsiderosie wrote: »

No. Contact sports are problematic. Sharing a bag of crisps, not so much.

Oh I know, but it would show they are friends and friends mess around. My point is as much as you would try not to let it cloud your judgement, you know it would.

Also are schools told about this sort of thing? Not being paranoid or biased,just curious?

metrovelvet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Oh I know, but it would show they are friends and friends mess around. My point is as much as you would try not to let it cloud your judgement, you know it would.

Also are schools told about this sort of thing? Not being paranoid or biased,just curious?

I think in the US they are not allowed to ask under anti discrimination laws. SS rosie would know better than I would on that. It might depend on the state. My son's pre school didnt ask for medical conditions so I doubt it's legal. But they can ask about vaccinations. Seems a bit incongruent to me.

metrovelvet

As an aside what do you think should happen to her if she ignores the court order?

aDeener

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

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

charming fellow

goose2005

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.

But a foetus isn't a woman's body, it's a separate organism. You talk as if it were are appendectomy.

wolfpawnat

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think in the US they are not allowed to ask under anti discrimination laws. SS rosie would know better than I would on that. It might depend on the state. My son's pre school didnt ask for medical conditions so I doubt it's legal. But they can ask about vaccinations. Seems a bit incongruent to me.

But the rules here in Ireland? The US system is ridiculously complex 50 states, 50 sets of laws.

metrovelvet wrote: »

As an aside what do you think should happen to her if she ignores the court order?

She could have the child removed from her care! If she is not seen as a fit mother by the courts.

metrovelvet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

But the rules here in Ireland? The US system is ridiculously complex 50 states, 50 sets of laws.


She could have the child removed from her care! If she is not seen as a fit mother by the courts.

She probably would do and the child be put in foster care. I know in the US there have been prison sentences for mothers who seek alternative routes or defy court ordered medicine.

I dont know about the rules in Ireland. There probably arent any. THey dont catch up with the times over here.

wolfpawnat

metrovelvet wrote: »

She probably would do and the child be put in foster care. I know in the US there have been prison sentences for mothers who seek alternative routes or defy court ordered medicine.

I dont know about the rules in Ireland. There probably arent any. THey dont catch up with the times over here.

Ha! we cannot put murderers in jail let alone anyone else!!!!!