Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

The actions of the authorities in this case would appear to be questionable on legal grounds:

In Britain, however, the law is unequivocal: compulsory surgical or invasive treatment of a male or female patient is illegal. It is as illegal to force a woman to submit to Caesarean section as it would be to force anyone to give bone marrow or a kidney, even to someone who desperately needed a transplant, and even if that person was his own child.

Case law: Draft Judgement in Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal before Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Robert Walker, Thursday 7th May 1998

http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm

[Entwood]

The actions of the authorities in this case would appear to be questionable on legal grounds:

In Britain, however, the law is unequivocal: compulsory surgical or invasive treatment of a male or female patient is illegal. It is as illegal to force a woman to submit to Caesarean section as it would be to force anyone to give bone marrow or a kidney, even to someone who desperately needed a transplant, and even if that person was his own child.

Case law: Draft Judgement in Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal before Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Robert Walker, Thursday 7th May 1998

http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm

That's a "DRAFT" judgement . not a final Judgement .. so actually has no legal relevance. However IF ... big IF .. it was published as a Judgement it would stand ... however as it is not quoted as such i have my doubts ..

It is not permissable to quote draft Judgements as case LAW ... so Ms Kitzinger is being very selective, and a tad "outrageous"  with her "statement"

[05omegav6]

One could never accuse the Daily Mail of either selectivity or outrageousness...

[MR MISTER]

One could never accuse the Daily Mail of either selectivity or outrageousness...

That's two biggish words in one sentence, no good if you want Gixer to keep up.

[chrisgixer]

One could never accuse the Daily Mail of either selectivity or outrageousness...

That's two biggish words in one sentence, no good if you want Gixer to keep up.

I'd go with outrageously depressing. Comes with free rope on Sunday. So on that front I have no intention of keeping "up" in any way. 

[D]

I think there is a lot more to this story than the paper has chosen to publish. The view presented is a sensationalised version, with a view to evoking the response the the OP has. To enforce a C-section will require multiple health care professionals, social services, psychiatrists and legal bods to come together and make such a decision. It is certainly not something someone does on a whim.

Having seen events in the NHS, which are then sensationalised by the media and a very one sided view presented to the public, purely to sell their paper; I have very little trust in these reports.

Give us all the facts, then make an decision. What the OP is demonstrating is a mob/lynch mentality. Which is exactly what these newspapers prey on.

As the original poster (OP), I find your post somewhat offensive. Actually, it's downright rude. 

I have not in any way, shape, or form, demonstrated a "mob/lynch mentality".

Anyway, it would seem that this case has caused consternation in the higher circles:

"In an unusual intervention, Sir James Munby, the High Court's President of the Family Division has now said that any further applications in the case must pass through the High Court."

Perhaps he also has, in your view, a mob/lynch mentality.

Still, let's ban all newspapers/blogs and let the NHS, Social Services and Family Courts and all other government agencies and NGOs carry on unhindered. After all, they never make mistakes and never slip below 100% honesty.


P.S. Why do the words "Stafford" and "Savile" keep entering my head?   
 


 

And yet again another attempt at stirring up the mob mentality. Well done. I give up! Those chaps you quote must be correct. Lets let them run the country!

[D]

The actions of the authorities in this case would appear to be questionable on legal grounds:

In Britain, however, the law is unequivocal: compulsory surgical or invasive treatment of a male or female patient is illegal. It is as illegal to force a woman to submit to Caesarean section as it would be to force anyone to give bone marrow or a kidney, even to someone who desperately needed a transplant, and even if that person was his own child.

Case law: Draft Judgement in Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal before Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Robert Walker, Thursday 7th May 1998

http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm

That's a "DRAFT" judgement . not a final Judgement .. so actually has no legal relevance. However IF ... big IF .. it was published as a Judgement it would stand ... however as it is not quoted as such i have my doubts ..

It is not permissable to quote draft Judgements as case LAW ... so Ms Kitzinger is being very selective, and a tad "outrageous"  with her "statement"

I agree. Lots of sensationalism in that article again.

[Nickbat]

And yet again another attempt at stirring up the mob mentality. Well done. I give up! Those chaps you quote must be correct. Lets let them run the country!

For a minute, I thought you might apologise for falsely accusing me of having a mob/lynch mentality. But no, you continue in the same vein.

And there was me thinking this was an adult, civilised forum, in which people can express views without fear of being smeared. 

[Nickbat]

The actions of the authorities in this case would appear to be questionable on legal grounds:

In Britain, however, the law is unequivocal: compulsory surgical or invasive treatment of a male or female patient is illegal. It is as illegal to force a woman to submit to Caesarean section as it would be to force anyone to give bone marrow or a kidney, even to someone who desperately needed a transplant, and even if that person was his own child.

Case law: Draft Judgement in Supreme Court of Judicature Court of Appeal before Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Robert Walker, Thursday 7th May 1998

http://www.sheilakitzinger.com/ArticlesBySheila/BIRTH_Sept1998.htm

That's a "DRAFT" judgement . not a final Judgement .. so actually has no legal relevance. However IF ... big IF .. it was published as a Judgement it would stand ... however as it is not quoted as such i have my doubts ..

It is not permissable to quote draft Judgements as case LAW ... so Ms Kitzinger is being very selective, and a tad "outrageous"  with her "statement"

Of course, it is relevant as all draft judgments are. Relevant only means pertaining to the subject. And you'll see (if you read my post carefully) that I stated that the action may be legally questionable, not necessarily illegal.

Still, any excuse to have a go at me, eh, Entwood? 

[Entwood]

Nick you are an evenly balanced person .. a chip on both shoulders ... however, if you want the right to post your opinions, you automatically give the right to others to post different views. 

You have stated this matter is "outrageous" and published an article that purports to state that the decision was "illegal" ... without boring the pants off everyone else .. I will simply state that there are many, many, facts in this case that you and I will never, ever, know..... I at least have an open mind about it ... unlike some ...

"John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat member of the British Parliament who is also the Public Family Law Reform Coordinating Campaign chairman, is bringing the issue of forced caesarians, family adoption laws and the ‘misuse’ of the Mental Health Act in the United Kingdom to the floor for reform discussions this week. Forced caesarians are currently legally allowed inside the U.K. under certain circumstances, specifically when a pregnant woman appears to be mentally unstable."

So, Hemmings has a drum to beat .. and is doing it many months after the event (august 2012) .. one wonders why ?? and forced Cesarean's are actually legal under certain circumstances .. so that draft judgement you quote would appear to have never stood.

You may wish to read a more balanced article by Sophie Khan ..
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/10488040/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services-its-not-always-wrong.html

if you don't wish to read the whole article I'll just copy the last 3 paragraphs ...

" Sensationalising the story does not take into account the risk faced by the unborn child if the Court of Protection had not made such an Order. You may not agree with the decision by the Court but that does mean the decision was wrong.

The Court weighted up the competing rights of the mother and the unborn child and came to its decision that a forced caesarean section was in the best interest of the child. This is unconventional, unprecedented and highly unusual but within the remit of the Court. The mother had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act and after five weeks still did not have the capacity to instruct a lawyer. The Court had to make the Order.

We must not forget that hard decisions need to be made to protect the welfare of the vulnerable. Criticising the judgment is unwarranted and even dangerous as it may diminish the authority of the Court. If the Court of Protection was inhibited from making hard decisions children’s lives could be put at risk. That is the real story."

So... lets stop willy-waving and think about the child not political point scoring ?? (aimed at Hemmings not you) 

[Nickbat]

Nick you are an evenly balanced person

Indeed, I am.

I would respectfully seek your indulgence to read the blog of the highly-renowned Cranmer.

"...secret courts have no place in the modern liberal democratic state. They can lead to manifest injustice, and must be abolished"

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-british-state-owns-all-eu-babies.html

 

[Sir Tigger KC]

We must not forget that hard decisions need to be made to protect the welfare of the vulnerable. Criticising the judgment is unwarranted and even dangerous as it may diminish the authority of the Court. If the Court of Protection was inhibited from making hard decisions children’s lives could be put at risk. That is the real story."[/i]

This, in my opinion is a dangerous assertion, are the courts infallible? Are we not allowed to question the Judiciary? I always thought that The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was a free and democratic country, it seems we are becoming more and more like North Korea!! 

The Judiciary like any other public institution in the land must held to account and although they play their part in forming the laws of the land they cannot be above the law or indeed above criticism!! 

'dangle berries'!! The bloody Xmas smilies have popped up!!   

[Nickbat]

This, in my opinion is a dangerous assertion, are the courts infallible? Are we not allowed to question the Judiciary? I always thought that The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was a free and democratic country, it seems we are becoming more and more like North Korea!! 

The Judiciary like any other public institution in the land must held to account and although they play their part in forming the laws of the land they cannot be above the law or indeed above criticism!! 

A most valid observation, Sir Tigger. 

[Vamps]

We must not forget that hard decisions need to be made to protect the welfare of the vulnerable. Criticising the judgment is unwarranted and even dangerous as it may diminish the authority of the Court. If the Court of Protection was inhibited from making hard decisions children’s lives could be put at risk. That is the real story."[/i]

This, in my opinion is a dangerous assertion, are the courts infallible? Are we not allowed to question the Judiciary? I always thought that The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was a free and democratic country, it seems we are becoming more and more like North Korea!! 

The Judiciary like any other public institution in the land must held to account and although they play their part in forming the laws of the land they cannot be above the law or indeed above criticism!! 

'dangle berries'!! The bloody Xmas smilies have popped up!!   

If you have the money and ime this applies to civil and family courts - who can get the best Barrister wins - a generalisation to an extent, but I have seen this, particularly in contested contact between parents. In family matters I know of solicitors who will eak out a case just for the money, even when they know wrong has been done,.........

I have worked multiple cases, occasionally with the same Solicitor, who in one case you are against and on the next on the same side - you can only imagine how two faced they can be......

[albitz]

The law and justice are distant cousins.