Skip to main content

Italian Mother: Mostyn Judgment Published (with transcript of hearing)

The judiciary have now published the judgment in respect of the Caesarean. It is here.

I remain concerned that it does not appear that she was told that this was being proposed. If it is true that she had previously elected to have a Caesarean then it sounds odd that she was not asked on this occasion, but instead driven through a legal and medical procedure in which she had no input. I remain worried about how mental capacity is removed and it does not appear that the representative of the official solicitor who was "representing her interests" actually spoke to her. One would think that if she had been asked she would have agreed given that she agreed previously. Reading between the lines of the judgment the main issue appears to have been that she did not want to give birth in England. (understandably in retrospect)

There are a number of questions about the details of the judgment. (such as what her condition actually was, whether she was being treated for the wrong disorder and the true risks of the situation) All of these issues will take some time to sort out. The wrong disorder is the most concerning as this would be the reason why she would not have been recovering (and did recover in Italy) because the treatment would have made her worse.

However, the question as to how people who are deemed "too stupid" to make decisions for themselves are treated in the process of deciding whether or not they are indeed "too stupid" (ie lack capacity) or indeed what the decision should be remains open.

Comments

http://reference.medscape.com/article/275854-overview
This lady should make an application for her Medical Records.i
AS said…
"Too stupid"????

Either you do not understand what the legal concept of capacity is, or you are deliberately misrepresenting it for your own purposes.

Either way, this comment makes it totally clear why you are not the appropriate person to be taking such a high profile role in this case.
I would like to point up that although in relation to the forced cesarean Justice Mostyn has emphasized that decisions were taken only in the best interest of the mother, it seems that overall her best interest has not been taken into consideration. In fact, she was kept under care (against her will) for several weeks, and then hastily dispatched to Italy after the baby had been delivered and when she still was in very bad conditions, as the ruling of Judge Newton explicitly highlights. One has the bitter feeling that the general interest was ONLY to have the baby safely delivered without any concern for the mother.

It is also a fact that when the woman arrived to the UK she was well enough to go through a work course with an airline, and when she was back in the UK to argue her case in front of Judge Newton she had fully recovered to the point of impressing the judge. It seems that her conditions harshly deteriorated only when she was under care in the UK, thereby suggesting that the consultant psychiatrist Dr. Adimulam might have not been provided cure for the right disorder, in spite of having potential access the to woman health record through her Italian family and through Italian health care.
This comment has been removed by the author.
RobJ said…
Mr Hemmings. Unfortunately you show a staggering lack of understanding of Mental Health issues, The Mental Health Act, and particularly the issue of capacity. Some of your observations are crass and insensitive bordering on just plain stupid.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…