Musings of a Dinosaur

A Family Doctor in solo private practice; I may be going the way of the dinosaur, but I'm not dead yet.

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Nothing Better To Do

Via Medpundit:

Social Services in the UK are planning to take away a woman's baby at birth because she "is deemed capable of emotional abuse," based on past mental health issues. The decision was based solely on the report of a pediatrician who had never met her, and was made despite evidence submitted by current treating mental health providers that the mother was fine. Full article here.

I'm just thrilled that child abuse and neglect in the UK no longer exists; that Children's Services is finally able to go after children -- even before they are born -- who "might" be abused, instead of using their time and resources to help those already-born kids who are beaten, neglected and sexually abused. After all, if there were still children being emotional or physically abused by their families then of course the moral imperative would be to help them first. It would be unconscionable to expend their limited energies merely on the potential for abuse if true abuse were going on right in front of their noses, wouldn't it?

11 Comments:

At Wed Sep 05, 08:55:00 AM, Blogger rlbates said...

Isn't that like arresting someone for theft before it ever happens?

I must say though that I sometimes wish we could sterilize parents (male and female) who are shown to be repeat child abusers (just had a father arrested for murder here after his son was starved to death).

 
At Wed Sep 05, 09:32:00 AM, Blogger D.P. said...

Wow . . .

 
At Wed Sep 05, 12:12:00 PM, Blogger Lynn Price said...

The government stealing a child based on unfounded proof? I love those guys. Where would we be if we didn't have those forward thinkers taking care of us because we're too stupid to take care of ourselves? (tongue seriously in cheek here)

 
At Wed Sep 05, 02:12:00 PM, Blogger Elaine said...

I used ro be involved in the decision making process about children at risk. In this case, I think that this decision is appalling. Supervision, perhaps, but removal of the child, NO!

 
At Wed Sep 05, 02:39:00 PM, Blogger CrankyProf said...

As far as I know, they actually have mandated ADOPTION quotas to meet...so they're stealing this woman's child to hand her over to anther family, so they can tick off a box on government form.

Absolutely heinous.

 
At Wed Sep 05, 03:04:00 PM, Blogger GeorgeH said...

She might consider entering teh US illegally to have the child. The baby being a US citizen would give her another lever against this hideous system.

 
At Wed Sep 05, 04:03:00 PM, Anonymous Orodemniades said...

Gotta love the NHS.

Not that I'm bitter.

 
At Wed Sep 05, 09:22:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't this the same government that stole thousands of children during and after WW 2 and relocated them to Australia (and other places)?

 
At Fri Sep 07, 04:52:00 PM, Blogger Dreaming again said...

Elaine, I don't want to be argumentative ...but even supervision ... is unwarrented!

As a survivor of abuses of more kinds than I'm willing to put into print, some emotional by parents ... my children were never at risk. To have supervised me ..would have been cruel ...and told me that the world that had been untrustworthy as i was growing up, was just that now that I was an adult. AND ..that I could not trust myself.

If mental health officials said that she was fine. End of story.

VERY few people who are abused, actually go onto abuse. I can point to blog after blog after blog of people who have been abused as children ...many read here ...and all of us have raised GREAT kids ...because we knew what not to do and we determined that it wasn't right.

SOME people who are abused do go onto abuse ..but most of us ...go on to thrive ...and SURVIVE!

 
At Sat Sep 08, 08:36:00 PM, Blogger Hygeian said...

What I'm wondering after reading it is how this "case" ever came to a conference/hearing in the first place.

The only bit I can see is that "Miss Lyon came under scrutiny because she had a mental health problem when she was 16 after being physically and emotionally abused by her father and raped by a stranger."

That certainly doesn't seem like it should be sufficient to warrant an investigation into her potential fitness as a parent. This sure does sound pretty sketchy.

 
At Mon Aug 03, 07:36:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are many children - white healthy baby ones, mostly - taken from educationally subnormal or otherwise isolated parents to fill the adoption quota for social services. I know, my friend had 3 stolen from her. After social services advised her to cut herself off from her family as they were abusers, she was then deemed to not have a 'support structure' in place for her children. They talked her into a temporary holiday from her children for a week so she could have a rest, then placed them for adoption. She gets two pictures a year from the children, and can write a letter.
The idea of the quota was to get older children, with troubled backgrounds or disabilities, out of care and into secure placements. Obviously, it is easier to meet quotas if the ones to be adopted are untroubled healthy white babies, rather than troubled black preteens(you can't put black kids with white parents now, and most people looking to adopt are white middle class couples). Advice would be - If you are vunerable, don't dare have a cute baby.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home