This is NOT posted to start a debate on abortion or caesarians versus natural birth or any other contentious related issues.<br /><br />It's posted to show how inconsistent, stupid and often useless child protection authorities have become. <br /><br />I accept that child protection officers have a difficult job to do, but they seem to do it pretty poorly a lot more often and with far worse consequences compared with lots of other occupations who have equally important decisions to make in equally fluid circumstances with equally equivocal information and an equal lack of support from their superiors or bureaucracies. Look at what they're paid and how long most people stay in the job and it ain't hard to fathom why decisions which turn out to be bad are made by people who lack the training and experience for the difficult job they have to do.<br /><br />Mandelaine Dagan made an informed choice not to have a caesarian birth contrary to medical advice. We all do that sort of thing by refusing to give up smoking or lose weight or just refusing medication. Turns out the natural birth went fine and mother and baby are doing well. <br /><br />The doctors were wrong and mum was right<br /><br />Doctor's opinions are fine and they do their best, but they're not infallible. My father died last week of pneumonia as the final complication in a worn out old body, fourteen years after we were told he had 3 to 6 months to live because of Alzheimer's or dementia (they weren't sure what it was), and a few other doctor's predictions of certain death within months along the way.<br /><br />The mother in this story gets chased by the welfare people, while she's in labour, purely because she misses a pre-birth doctor's appointment.<br /><br />When did it become compulsory to attend an appointment in a free market and a free society?<br /><br />They're all so concerned for the baby. <br /><br />I wonder what the hospital's policy is on sending out the welfare police to mothers who don't turn up to pre-abortion appointments?<br /><br />If it's the mother's choice about abortions how come it's not her choice about birth? After all, it's not just about the baby. She's the one who has to go through the birth or operation. Seems like she might be entitled to make a decision.<br /><br />Anyway, what were they going to do if she maintained her position? Carry out a caesar against her will? Yeah, right, like that wouldn't result in huge damages that the mother would rightly be awarded for a terrible surgical assault by the hospital and its staff.<br /><br />If the welfare people turned up at my door when my wife had made an informed decision that she was going to have a natural birth, or for that matter an abortion, I'd be tempted to show them what childbirth, or an abortion, feels like. In reverse.<br /><br />Meanwhile child welfare departments regularly fail to act on reports that Blind Freddie would know tell you that the kid was at serious risk. We usually find out the details during the coroner's inquest on some poor kid who's had the sh*t knocked out of him or her for most of their miserable, short little lives before they're finally beaten to death. They've often been "supervised" by child welfare for ages, with numerous reports from concerned family and neighbours leading to precisely nothing while the poor little bugger has untreated fractures and untreated ruptured organs and other misery like being locked in dark cupboards in their own filth for days on end.<br /><br />When the child bashers don't turn up for appointments or go missing, what do you think child welfare does?<br /><br />Right.<br /><br />Sweet FA.<br /><br />So, if you're a mother who makes an informed decision not to have a caesarian contrary to advice you're a prime target for child welfare. But if you decide to have it aborted or meekly have the kid by casearian and later belt the living bejesus out of him or her for years you'll probably be left largely alone by child welfare. <br /><br />Makes sense.<br /><br />Like most other government actions and policies.<br /><br /> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1295480.htm <br /><br />PM - Legal implications emerge for Qld women who ignore doctors' advice <br /><br />[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1295480.htm] <br /><br /><br />PM - Thursday, 3 February , 2005 18:30:00<br />Reporter: Ian Townsend<br />ELEANOR HALL: As some federal politicians look at limiting the right to abortion in Australia, in one state lawmakers are already restricting the rights of mothers-to-be to have their babies at home, saying this can amount to child abuse.<br /><br />Queensland's new child safety laws appear to have been extended to the womb, with legal implications for pregnant women who ignore their doctor's advice.<br /><br />In one case, child safety officers were sent to the home of a mother who'd been rejecting a doctor's advice to have a caesarean section, as Ian Townsend reports from Brisbane.<br /><br />IAN TOWNSEND: When Mandelaine Dagan told staff at the Brisbane Royal Women's Hospital that she wanted a natural birth, she was told, initially, no. She was advised that because she'd had two caesarean sections in the past, there were increased risks to the baby this time. Then she was told that if she insisted on a natural birth, she'd have to accept certain interventions.<br /><br />She decided to change hospitals.<br /><br />So when she missed an antenatal appointment at the Royal Women's hospital, the Queensland Child Safety Department was notified. Two child safety officers then turned up at Mandelaine Dagan's door, while she was in labour and waiting to go to another hospital.<br /><br />Under Queensland's Child Safety Legislation Amendment Act of 2004, it seems child safety officers can respond if there's concern for an unborn child.<br /><br />Queensland's Child Safety Minister is Mike Reynolds.<br /><br />MIKE REYNOLDS: Well, they were of the medical opinion that the mother was placing the child at great risk by not having a caesarean birth. Now, we are duty-bound, under our legislation which actually indicates that we need to act in a situation where we believe that the unborn child when the child is born is going to be placed at great risk.<br /><br />IAN TOWNSEND: This notion that the mother who refuses to have a caesarean could be breaking the law has outraged a number of groups, especially a group which lobbies for birthing mothers called The Maternity Coalition.<br /><br />Justine Caines is the National President.<br /><br />JUSTINE CAINES: There's a bit of scare-mongering, and very serious power plays going on here with women's bodies.<br /><br />IAN TOWNSEND: Do you think the law's gone too far now?<br /><br />JUSTINE CAINES: Absolutely too far. I mean, women don't have child protection workers coming to their door saying that they can't have a caesarean section. This is, you know, very, very serious, and if we want to look at real statistics we have to open it right up and look at safety across the board and not just pick what seems to be part of a new agenda.<br /><br />IAN TOWNSEND: The baby in this case was deemed to be at greater risk of harm because of a recent study that showed that electing to have a vaginal delivery after a caesarean section was a more dangerous choice for the baby. <br /><br />But in this case, Queensland's AMA President, Dr David Molloy, says it appears it was the fact that the mother had missed the hospital appointment that sparked the intervention by the child welfare officers.<br /><br />DAVID MOLLOY: I don't think there was either the intention of restricting choice, providing the patient was acting in a way that was safe for her and her baby.<br /><br />Where we're trying to take modern obstetrics is from let's see what we can get away with and hope we can get away with something to, you know, helping mothers make evidence-based choices for themselves and their children.<br /><br />IAN TOWNSEND: But helping mothers make a choice and then, or legislating for a choice are two different things, aren't they?<br /><br />DAVID MOLLOY: Exactly. And I don't think there's any evidence here that that legislation is being made to restrict mothers' choices. Really, there's just legislation to, you know, there can be interference by the state for an at-risk child after a delivery, but the need for that can be flagged during a pregnancy because the patient, you know, may be, for example, a heavy substance abuser or have a history of harming several other children.<br /><br />IAN TOWNSEND: Well, if we are going to legislate, and to protect the welfare of the baby, where do we stop? Should we make it illegal for pregnant women to smoke, for instance?<br /><br />DAVID MOLLOY: Well, exactly. I mean, that's the real problem with this, is that when you start to interfere with the rights of the mother, where do you stop, and where do you ascribe the legal rights to the foetus, then you do open an absolute Pandora's Box can children sue their mothers later on in life for a bad choice about the mode of delivery, or sue them for smoking during a pregnancy? You know, describing the foetus' rights would of course have profound effects on the abortion debate, which is, you know, very topical at the moment.<br /><br />So, I think these are very important legal and social issues, and they're certainly ones that doctors are very happy to see debated in the community, because we actually don't want to be put in the position where we are bullying mothers, we want to educate and help pregnant women, not tell them what they must have.<br /><br />ELEANOR HALL: Dr David Molloy, President of the Queensland branch of the AMA, speaking to Ian Townsend in Brisbane.<br /><br />And in case you're wondering, the pregnant woman in this story gave birth naturally to a healthy baby girl after a seven-hour labour.
