Rights of the Parent vs rights of the child

tallaght01

metrovelvet wrote: »

. THey dont catch up with the times over here.

I don't want to detract from the issue at hand. But you need to keep your USA is superior attitude for something other than a discussion about health.

The plight of the uninsured HIV community in the states is nothing short of a wankstain on the underpants of humanity.

You're entitled to your rather unique views on healthcare, but let's not kid ourselves here.

metrovelvet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

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

Well they manage to an old man who didnt pay his dog licence in jail.

If there are not legal protocols in place for this and she is not aware of the consequences of the law then really its a bit of a disaster waiting to happen.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

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..

Ah, so you are an unmarried mother, one of the risk factors for a pre-term labour. IMO, thats the reason this happened to you......

metrovelvet wrote: »

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

A case for what? What loss have you suffered?

southsiderosie

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'm from the US so I don't know about Ireland. I recently read an article about American kids coming of age with HIV, and the teenagers disclosed (or didn't disclose) their status themselves, so I don't think the schools knew. However, one girl ended up transferring after she told her boyfriend and he told half of the school; she felt like a pariah. Several of the kids felt rejected by their peers; they only felt truly comfortable at a summer camp for HIV-positive kids. Their sense of profound alienation is why I find attitudes like yours disturbing.

I believe strongly in the science around HIV and HIV transmission. The chances of catching it through casual contact are very very low. If my teenage daughter was dating a boy who was HIV positive I would be concerned, since teenagers are notoriously insensitive to risk, especially when it comes to sex, but again, the chances of transmission are relatively low, and very low with precautions. I don't see anything wrong with kids playing together, especially if I knew the parents. I see it as the same as a kid with severe allergies - if the parents and the child are aware, the kids will be the first to say "I can't do that" or "I can't eat that".

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

Ah, so you are an unmarried mother, one of the risk factors for a pre-term labour. IMO, thats the reason this happened to you......


A case for what? What loss have you suffered?

I had an induction which then failed. I did not go into labour. FFS.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

I had an induction which then failed. I did not go into labour. FFS.

And the compensatable loss is?

metrovelvet

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't want to detract from the issue at hand. But you need to keep your USA is superior attitude for something other than a discussion about health.

The plight of the uninsured HIV community in the states is nothing short of a wankstain on the underpants of humanity.

You're entitled to your rather unique views on healthcare, but let's not kid ourselves here.

I don't have to do any such thing. And your attitude is exactly why I dont get treatment in this country.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

And the compensatable loss is?

I'm not going to get into it on a public forum. Don't believe me if you don't want to.

You very clearly feel the medics cant make mistakes and the dumb women just cant be trusted with their own bodies.

metrovelvet

So are any of you medical experts going to answer my question on what will happen to her if she defies the court order?

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

I'm not going to get into it on a public forum. Don't believe me if you don't want to. .

You told me you had a failed induction. How does equate to a compensatable loss?

metrovelvet wrote: »

You very clearly feel the medics cant make mistakes and the dumb women just cant be trusted with their own bodies.

If you can point to anywhere i said the above, or anything close to it, ill get you a free induction with your next baby.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

So are any of you medical experts going to answer my question on what will happen to her if she defies the court order?

Someone already answered it; as did I earlier. If the baby is an inpatient, she cant defy it. If it is outpatient treatment, and she fails to bring him to the Hospital, the HSE could have an applkication to bring the child into care. If she obstructs any of that process, she could be charged with contempt or a variety of other offences.

southsiderosie

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.

How many ways can it be explained? Every major public health service in the world has the same protocols for dealing with the birth of children to mothers with HIV.

Like I said, I definitely think modern medicine, particularly in the US, is far too pro-intervention, especially when it comes to childbirth. But the data on mother child transmission is very clear: the standard protocols reduce transmission rates from over 30% to less than 2%. Any assertion otherwise is simply being willfully ignorant.

Donkey Oaty

southsiderosie wrote: »

Every major public health service in the world has the same protocols for dealing with the birth of children to mothers with HIV.

That may well be true of the choice of treatment, but is it true of the legal process for enforcing such treatment? Does anybody know where the rest of Europe stands on this?

southsiderosie

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

That may well be true of the choice of treatment, but is it true of the legal process for enforcing such treatment? Does anybody know where the rest of Europe stands on this?

I don't know and that is a valid issue. But people keep raising "the doctors didn't do their jobs" angle on this and I am calling bull****. If the woman didn't believe her doctors, then she could have looked on the World Health Organization, Center for Disease Control, National Institute of Health, or any large research hospital for information, and they would have said the same things as the HSE. Whereas everything in the articles published around this case points to the fact that the woman was in denial about her own HIV status, and that she was using information from websites that the court did not find credible in order to block treatment, both for herself (which she is able to do) and for her child (which, according to the law, apparently she cannot do).

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

You told me you had a failed induction. How does equate to a compensatable loss?


If you can point to anywhere i said the above, or anything close to it, ill get you a free induction with your next baby.

If you are going to be so glib about obstetrics and babies then I really dont have any time for you. Generally it is not wise to talk to someone who tells you to shut the **** up. You must be a great doctor.

Cat Melodeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

How many ways can it be explained? Every major public health service in the world has the same protocols for dealing with the birth of children to mothers with HIV.

Like I said, I definitely think modern medicine, particularly in the US, is far too pro-intervention, especially when it comes to childbirth. But the data on mother child transmission is very clear: the standard protocols reduce transmission rates from over 30% to less than 2%. Any assertion otherwise is simply being willfully ignorant.

The reduction of the transmission rates is not the issue. This woman was concerned about the risks (to herself and the child) of taking drugs that are toxic. There is no consensus about the risks of taking those drugs because there is no long term outcome data. The current protocols are in place because in the absence of long term data, it is considered better to lower the transmission rates and deal with any potential but as yet unknown side-effects if/when they happen. This woman happened to be concerned about the black hole in the data, was unconvinced by the professionals and was seeking further information before proceeding with treatment. Instead, the HSE took legal action.

My issue is not with the treatment, it is with the failures of the HSE. They did not provide the woman with other sources of reliable information to allay her fears. They did not accept that in the end it is her responsibility and her choice. They attempted to coerce her into receiving treatment. They sought to take away her rights in favour of the unborn child. Should this ruling have been that the HSE can take away a patient's rights to refuse treatment, that would be a significant curtailment of the rights of the individual by the state.

metrovelvet

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't know and that is a valid issue. But people keep raising "the doctors didn't do their jobs" angle on this and I am calling bull****. If the woman didn't believe her doctors, then she could have looked on the World Health Organization, Center for Disease Control, National Institute of Health, or any large research hospital for information, and they would have said the same things as the HSE. Whereas everything in the articles published around this case points to the fact that the woman was in denial about her own HIV status, and that she was using information from websites that the court did not find credible in order to block treatment, both for herself (which she is able to do) and for her child (which, according to the law, apparently she cannot do).

Respectfully if you had to deal with healthcare in this country you wouldnt trust the doctors either.

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

If you are going to be so glib about obstetrics and babies then I really dont have any time for you. Generally it is not wise to talk to someone who tells you to shut the **** up. You must be a great doctor.

Oh stop whinging.
Any sign of your compensatable loss that leads your friend, the US defence attorney, to believe you 'have a case'.....:D

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Respectfully if you had to deal with healthcare in this country you wouldnt trust the doctors either.

Thats a little glib, I would say......:D:D

southsiderosie

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

The reduction of the transmission rates is not the issue. This woman was concerned about the risks (to herself and the child) of taking drugs that are toxic. There is no consensus about the risks of taking those drugs because there is no long term outcome data. The current protocols are in place because in the absence of long term data, it is considered better to lower the transmission rates and deal with any potential but as yet unknown side-effects if/when they happen. This woman happened to be concerned about the black hole in the data, was unconvinced by the professionals and was seeking further information before proceeding with treatment. Instead, the HSE took legal action.

There is over a decade of data showing the reduction in transmission rates. Nobody is sure what the long-term effects of taking the drugs are (although it has been over a decade now), but everyone knows the effect of not taking the drugs - an over 1-in-3 chance of transmission. Would you rather expose your child to these drugs for one month, or risk a 1-in-3 chance that they will have to take these drugs for life?

I can't believe this is even a point of debate. This treatment saves lives. If women who are HIV-positive want to have babies, then they need to do everything in their power to reduce the odds that those babies do not catch their deadly disease. If they don't want to expose babies to toxins, then, frankly, they should not become pregnant knowing they are HIV-positive.

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

My issue is not with the treatment, it is with the failures of the HSE. They did not provide the woman with other sources of reliable information to allay her fears. They did not accept that in the end it is her responsibility and her choice. They attempted to coerce her into receiving treatment. They sought to take away her rights in favour of the unborn child. Should this ruling have been that the HSE can take away a patient's rights to refuse treatment, that would be a significant curtailment of the rights of the individual by the state.

The issue was with the treatment of the child after birth, and the actual act of giving birth itself. Why should the health service not intervene to prevent the likelihood of this child developing HIV? The data on transmission is very clear!

The court ruled that the HSE could not force this woman to do anything before the actual birth of the child. The only thing they could override the mother on was the ARV issue with the baby.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Respectfully if you had to deal with healthcare in this country you wouldnt trust the doctors either.

I have dealt with healthcare in Ireland, and it was a disgrace. And I went to a private clinic. God help the people in the public health service. For any non-emergencies, I go to Spain.

But HIV is one issue where there is PLENTY of information outside of the HSE. Pregnant HIV+ women from Malawi to Manhattan are told the same thing. The only difference is that women in wealthy countries actually have access to the drugs.

metrovelvet

drkpower wrote: »

Oh stop whinging.

Is that what you say to women in labour?

I'm not going to go into my sons medical records with you and your lousy ignorant attitude. I hope to god you are not actually a doctor.

XxMCRxBabyxX

metrovelvet wrote: »

Respectfully if you had to deal with healthcare in this country you wouldnt trust the doctors either.

Respectfully, I have had plenty of dealings with healthcare in this country and I trust all my doctors 100%. No need to be quite so rude.

metrovelvet

southsiderosie wrote: »

There is over a decade of data showing the reduction in transmission rates. Nobody is sure what the long-term effects of taking the drugs are (although it has been over a decade now), but everyone knows the effect of not taking the drugs - an over 1-in-3 chance of transmission. Would you rather expose your child to these drugs for one month, or risk a 1-in-3 chance that they will have to take these drugs for life?

I can't believe this is even a point of debate. This treatment saves lives. If women who are HIV-positive want to have babies, then they need to do everything in their power to reduce the odds that those babies do not catch their deadly disease. If they don't want to expose babies to toxins, then, frankly, they should not become pregnant knowing they are HIV-positive.




The issue was with the treatment of the child after birth, and the actual act of giving birth itself. Why should the health service not intervene to prevent the likelihood of this child developing HIV? The data on transmission is very clear!

The court ruled that the HSE could not force this woman to do anything before the actual birth of the child. The only thing they could override the mother on was the ARV issue with the baby.



I have dealt with healthcare in Ireland, and it was a disgrace. And I went to a private clinic. God help the people in the public health service. For any non-emergencies, I go to Spain.

But HIV is one issue where there is PLENTY of information outside of the HSE. Pregnant HIV+ women from Malawi to Manhattan are told the same thing. The only difference is that women in wealthy countries actually have access to the drugs.

She may or may not have known she was HIV positive at the time she got pregnant.

We dont know this woman. We don't even know if she speaks or understands English and the hospitals here don't provide translators like they do in major US cities. We also don't know her education level and we don't know exactly what the doctors told her.

We dont know what kind of trust was built or not built between the patient and the doctor either.

I also go abroad for treatment.

Cat Melodeon

southsiderosie wrote: »

There is over a decade of data showing the reduction in transmission rates. Nobody is sure what the long-term effects of taking the drugs are (although it has been over a decade now), but everyone knows the effect of not taking the drugs - an over 1-in-3 chance of transmission. Would you rather expose your child to these drugs for one month, or risk a 1-in-3 chance that they will have to take these drugs for life?

I can't believe this is even a point of debate. This treatment saves lives. If women who are HIV-positive want to have babies, then they need to do everything in their power to reduce the odds that those babies do not catch their deadly disease. If they don't want to expose babies to toxins, then, frankly, they should not become pregnant knowing they are HIV-positive.

Maybe I'm not expressing myself very well.

I am not debating the use of the drugs.

I would take the drugs were I in this woman's position.

This woman did not believe that she had been given all of the relevant information by the HSE and refused treatment until she could locate an independent specialist (from California, according to the article) who could allay her fears.

The issue is not with the drugs or with the treatment.

It is with the HSE's handling of the case and their attempts to coerce a woman to take a certain course of treatment when she was unconvinced about that treatment.

metrovelvet

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Respectfully, I have had plenty of dealings with healthcare in this country and I trust all my doctors 100%. No need to be quite so rude.

Its not rude. Its widely acknowledged its a disaster. Look at Droghada, one anestheticist come January.

XxMCRxBabyxX

southsiderosie wrote: »

I have dealt with healthcare in Ireland, and it was a disgrace. And I went to a private clinic. God help the people in the public health service. For any non-emergencies, I go to Spain.
.

Considering this is turning into a 'our medical servise is awful' thread, I'd like to state that I have been treated a lot worse in the private system than the public. The public system never lost my scans or results, the private did....

Back On Topic:

How could a woman even question her own child's health? She knew she had HIV and that her child was at risk of it, why make the risk higher by refusing the treatment they need.
Completely with the HSE on this one

XxMCRxBabyxX

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its not rude. Its widely acknowledged its a disaster. Look at Droghada, one anestheticist come January.

And exactly how does that stop you trusting all doctors in the system?

metrovelvet

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

And exactly how does that stop you trusting all doctors in the system?

The system is a mess. The infrastructures are stressed, the employees are stressed and overworked. Mistakes get made when this happens. No matter how good a doctor is.

Think about what happens when there is one anesthetist in a hospital, or one radiologist. Think how that affects everything. It's a disaster. Sorcerers Apprentice.

XxMCRxBabyxX

metrovelvet wrote: »

The system is a mess. The infrastructures are stressed, the employees are stressed and overworked. Mistakes get made when this happens. No matter how good a doctor is.

Think about what happens when there is one anesthetist in a hospital, or one radiologist. Think how that affects everything. It's a disaster. Sorcerers Apprentice.

That's all fine and understandable but I still don't see how you can just decide that no doctor can just not be trusted because they work in the healthcare system. They still all studies medicine, they still all know how to look after patients. They don't lose their ability to diagnose a patient because they are are stressed. If everyone had the same attitude no one would allow themselves to be treated because they didn't trust their own doctor. It's a stupid attitude to have. Our doctors are just as capable and educated as any others

metrovelvet

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

That's all fine and understandable but I still don't see how you can just decide that no doctor can just not be trusted because they work in the healthcare system. They still all studies medicine, they still all know how to look after patients. They don't lose their ability to diagnose a patient because they are are stressed. If everyone had the same attitude no one would allow themselves to be treated because they didn't trust their own doctor. It's a stupid attitude to have. Our doctors are just as capable and educated as any others

Look, Ive had enough bad experiences to want to go elsewhere. If its for the sniffles than fine. Anything more than that and I go abroad.

XxMCRxBabyxX

metrovelvet wrote: »

Look, Ive had enough bad experiences to want to go elsewhere. If its for the sniffles than fine. Anything more than that and I go abroad.

And I have no problem with that. It's your choice.

Just don't decide that all doctors are incompetent just because you say so

metrovelvet

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

And I have no problem with that. It's your choice.

Just don't decide that all doctors are incompetent just because you say so

The system is a disaster. And you know it. Everyone knows it.

Kimono-Girl

metrovelvet wrote: »

The system is a disaster. And you know it. Everyone knows it.

the system is a disaster, in many ways but then in this case the system imo is right,

they should do everything in their power to ensure that baby's life is saved, infringing parents rights should come second to saving a life!

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is that what you say to women in labour? .

No; just to people who spout nonsense generalities about an entire health system based on their own biased misperceptions, and then cry when someone asks them to substantiate their claims with anything other than their own raving & inane personal anecdotes. Just those kinds of people.....:D

metrovelvet wrote: »

I'm not going to go into my sons medical records with you and your lousy ignorant attitude. I hope to god you are not actually a doctor.

So no sign of the compensatable loss then......?:D:eek::P
I thought a big US Defence malpractice attorney-type told you that you could win a big case on this......? :D Hohohohoho

drkpower

metrovelvet wrote: »

The system is a disaster. And you know it. Everyone knows it.

Which system?

The entire health system?
Or just the medical system (ie doctors)?
Or the system whereby the state has a duty to intervene on behalf of children?
Or the judicial system that governs that?
Or the consitutional framework which allows that to happen?

Do you even know what sytstem you are ranting against?

XxMCRxBabyxX

metrovelvet wrote: »

The system is a disaster. And you know it. Everyone knows it.

I don't remember ever denying that. I just don't see how you can decide that all doctors in the system are incompetent because of it.

Rodin

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its not rude. Its widely acknowledged its a disaster. Look at Droghada, one anestheticist come January.

When you can spell 'anaesthetist' or even could be bothered to look it up, perhaps your point may be taken more seriously. If even half the country had the brains and work ethic of our medical staff, the country would be in much better shape.