Goosey, Goosey, Goosestep

Chris Spivey

 

According to the Chimp article found below my two penneth worth, a ” High Court judge Mr Justice Hayden ruled that the woman could lawfully be sedated – and restrained if necessary, following a hearing at the Court of Protection in London”.

“Doctors at a health authority in Sunderland had asked the judge to declare a caesarean section lawful”.

Now, it isn’t often that you see the MSM reporting in terms of ‘Lawful‘ & ‘Unlawful’.

Indeed ‘Legal’ & ‘Illegal‘ reign supreme in the illusionary corporate world that we are forced to live in.

Course there is a massive difference between the words ‘Legal’ and ‘Lawful’ and I do not actually understand how this court order could have been granted under common law – to which the words ‘lawful’ & ‘unlawful’ apply.

Never the less, I would guess that by having the ruling made ‘lawful’ now leaves no scope for future challenges to any similar court rulings using the principles of common law as a defence.

However, that isn’t the point that I want to make.

You see, what we have here is further proof that we are living in a country which is very quickly becoming a fascist regime.

Now, usually these type of repugnant court orders which are becoming ever more frequent, usually involve those who are mentally handicapped, I.E those with Down-syndrome etc.

And indeed, the unscrupulous Chimp tries to deceive those not paying close attention into thinking that this is one of those cases by using the term “mentally ill”  in their headline as a means to describe the woman.

However, the main article itself states that the woman in question has a; “schizophrenia-like psychotic disorder, had a liver condition which posed a risk to her and her unborn baby, and that the delivery by caesarean section was in the best interests of both”.

Now, assuming that the Chimp has used an accurate description of the woman’s afflictions I.E those that were put before the court as the reasons for the necessity for the order; then you would be entitled to question the validity of those reasons.

For starters, what is a “schizophrenia-like psychotic disorder“?

Either the woman is schizophrenic or she isn’t.

Indeed, I believe that I am also correct in saying that the vast majority of people with schizophrenia are no danger to anyone and it is only those with severe ‘paranoid schizophrenia’, such as Ronnie Kray who pose a potential danger to the public.

Indeed – again, as far as I am aware – most schizophrenic’s are able to live a normal life provided that they take their medication correctly.

Moreover, many schizophrenic’s give birth every day.

Therefore, schizophrenia is no argument for forcing someone to have a baby by caesarean section.

We are also told that the woman “HAD a liver condition which posed a risk to her and her unborn baby”, the operative word in that sentence being “HAD” – meaning she is no longer suffering from such a condition.

However, the sub headline does muddy the waters somewhat by stating that the woman “HAS  liver condition“, adding “which POSED risk to baby and her” … What terrible, terrible journalism.

So, are we to conclude that the liver condition no longer poses a threat? I will take it as such, since as far as I can make out, the liver condition – existing or otherwise – appears irrelevant in the courts decision.

Therefore, there is no basis for a court ruling to be had there either.

And with that in mind, I cannot see how a caesarean section could possibly be in the best interests of the mother and child.

After all, a caesarean section is only recommended when a Jack & Danny delivery poses a potential risk to the mother or baby.

In fact, a recent study in the British Medical Journal concluded that due to the comparative risks of a Caesarean section as opposed to those of an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, patients should be discouraged or forbidden from choosing it.

Moreover, the mortality rate for Caesarian sections is 13 per 100,000 whereas for a vaginal birth that figure drops drastically to 3.5 per 100,000.

Indeed, the NHS puts the risk of death for a woman having a C-section as three times that of a Jack & Danny birth.

And according to Wikipedia:

An often overlooked aspect of maternal health is the psychological risks and implications that a Cesarean birth can have.

Mothers can experience increased incidence of postnatal depression, and can experience significant psychological birth trauma and on going birth-related post-traumatic stress disorder after obstetric intervention during the birthing process and Cesarean section.

Yet this woman already has psychological problems… Doesn’t make sense does it?

As for the child safety? Well, again according to Wikipedia:

Non-medically indicated (elective) childbirth before 39 weeks gestation “carry significant risks for the baby with no known benefit to the mother.”

Complications from elective cesarean before 39 weeks include: newborn mortality at 37 weeks may be 2.5 times the number at 40 weeks, and was elevated compared to 38 weeks of gestation.

Higher infant mortality risk: In C-sections performed with no indicated risk (singleton at full term in a head-down position), the risk of death in the first 28 days of life has been cited as 1.77 per 1,000 live births among women who had C-sections, compared to 0.62 per 1,000 for women who delivered vaginally.

However, the case then takes on an even more sinister aspect.

You see, according to the Chimp:

They said it was not clear whether the woman would agree to having a caesarean section, but that the woman’s father agreed with doctors.

So, after reading that you straight away have to ask yourself: If it isn’t known whether the mother would agree to the C Section, why the fuck is the case in court in the first place?

Indeed, as far as I can remember, choice isn’t an option anyway.

You see, as a lot of you know, I have had custody of my Stacey since she was 6 months old. In other words, I was the person receiving the family allowance.

Moreover, when she was 2 years old, it became necessary to return to court where I was given a ‘Residence Order’.

And, without going into too much detail the only allowance that the court made to her mother was that she was allowed to send Stacey birthday & Christmas cards.

So, fast forward to when Stacey – aged seventeen and a half years old – went into hospital to give birth to Clayton, whilst she was still technically a minor and I was still her legal guardian.

Now, as it happens Clayton had to be induced and after sitting around all day and night, the midwife finally declared him ready to arrive in the early hours of the following morning.

Which to be honest caught me on the hop a bit, so I asked her if I had time for a quick fag to which she replied “yes, but don’t be too long”.

Well I had been gone no more than 7 or 8 minutes when I mounted the stairs to return to the delivery room, only to be met by a panicking Katie (Stacey’s friend) stood at the top of them who told me that they had taken Stacey off for an emergency C Section.

You see, according to Katie what had happened was Clayton’s heart rate had suddenly dropped dramatically – sparking all manner of emergency procedures amongst the delivery room staff.

However, to cut a long story short, no one asked me – or Stacey for that matter – if it was okay to give her a C Section… At least as far as I can remember they didn’t.

Course, even if they had of done, there was no question that I would have said ‘no’.

Therefore, you really have to ask yourself; why has the question of a C-Section even been broached upon, let alone needed to be decided upon by a judge?

Especially with the woman’s father having no objections, despite the woman being in her 30’s and as such, it being fuck all to do with him anyway.

Strangely however, the father appeared in court where he testified that his daughter; “was in ‘such a state’ that a ‘normal birth’ would be ‘far too stressful’ for her”.

Errr, shouldn’t that be for the doctors to decide?

The Chimps report also states that “A lawyer appointed by the court to represent the woman also agreed with doctors.”

This begs the questions:

  • Did the woman attend
  • If not, how the fuck does he know what state she is in?
  • And what qualifies him to make that assessment?

Indeed, why was the woman appointed a solicitor in the first place if it isn’t known whether or not the woman would agree to a C-Section?

The Chimps report then states:

Mr Justice Hayden said there was ‘compelling evidence’ that the woman lacked the mental capacity to evaluate medical advice.

What “compelling evidence” would that be then?

Yet even so, why the fuck can’t the doctors play it by ear – as was the case with Stacey?

I mean, at no point in the labour process is it too late to perform a C-Section and speaking from experience; once a woman is in labour, give it an hour or so and she will agree to anything that puts an end to it… Just sayin’.

All in all, I have to say that I am extremely concerned about the future implications of these type of court rulings, especially now that they are being dished out under common law.

Indeed, this should have been a massive article. Instead it is just tucked away half way down the Chimps newsfeed… Now why the fuck doesn’t that surprise me!

 

High Court judge gives go-ahead for forced caesarean on mentally ill woman

  • Mr Justice Hayden ruled the woman could be lawfully be sedated
  • The woman is in 30s and has schizophrenia-like psychotic disorder
  • Doctors said woman has liver condition which posed risk to baby and her
  • They said delivery by caesarean section was in the best interests of both

PUBLISHED: 23:58, 29 April 2014 | UPDATED: 23:58, 29 April 201

Doctors have been given the go-ahead to perform a caesarean section on a mentally-ill woman who is 36 weeks pregnant.

High Court judge Mr Justice Hayden ruled that the woman could lawfully be sedated – and restrained if necessary, following a hearing at the Court of Protection in London.

Doctors at a health authority in Sunderland had asked the judge to declare a caesarean section lawful.

Doctors have tonight been given the go-ahead to perform a caesarean section on a mentally-ill woman who is 36 weeks pregnant, by a High Court judge at the Court of Protection

They had said that the woman, who is in her 30s and has a schizophrenia-like psychotic disorder, had a liver condition which posed a risk to her and her unborn baby, and that the delivery by caesarean section was in the best interests of both.

They said it was not clear whether the woman would agree to having a caesarean section, but that the woman’s father agreed with doctors.

He told the judge that his daughter was in ‘such a state’ that a ‘normal birth’ would be ‘far too stressful’ for her.

A lawyer appointed by the court to represent the woman also agreed with doctors.

Mr Justice Hayden said there was ‘compelling evidence’ that the woman lacked the mental capacity to evaluate medical advice.

Mr Justice Hayden ruled that the woman could lawfully be sedated - and restrained if necessary

The judge said there was also compelling evidence that if well she would put her unborn child’s interests first and follow medical advice.

He was told that the woman’s mental health problems were intermittent and that she was a graduate who had built a successful career.
Doctors said they aimed to deliver the baby tomorrow.

It was planned that the woman’s parents would initially care for the baby, the judge heard.

But he was told that doctors hoped that her condition would improve so that she could assume responsibility.

Mr Justice Hayden said nothing could be reported which would identify the woman.

But the judge said the health authority which had made the application to perform surgery – City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust – could be named.

The Court of Protection is part of the High Court and judges analyse issues relating to sick and vulnerable people.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2616351/High-Court-judge-gives-ahead-forced-caesarean-mentally-ill-woman.html#ixzz30KtF1Fbk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook