Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

what gov run healthcare gets you

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

    Originally posted by FearandLoathing View Post
    Okay, we want to be real slow here...

    first I don't see where the health care system is in any way involved, but rather a decision of Social Services. The two are vastly different.

    Second, there are mental health issues involved. When I read "in the best interests of the mother" my first reaction was horror until I realized that forced abortions are more the norm in such instances; it does not say it but self mutilation comes to mind.

    We don't know if it was a wanted pregnancy, what demons the woman was battling facing heading into childbirth.

    As horrible as it sounds I start with the fact two people are alive where neither may not have been otherwise and work backward. If the C-section was unwarranted then those responsible should be held to account.

    However this appears to be an isolated incident due to existing circumstances not the beginning of death panels.
    The C-Section isn't the big part of the problem (though performing the operation without the patient's knowledge or consent is rather disturbing). The big problem is that it seems that this woman didn't receive any kind of third party advocacy until AFTER the operation was performed.

    I don't see where anyone contacted her physician in Italy.

    I don't see where anyone contacted her family.

    This woman was in the nut house for 5 weeks before the operation so it's not like time was an issue.

    And as far as "it wasn't government health care"....HOGWASH!!!! It was still government that made all these decisions...is STILL making these decisions! When are you people going to realize that turning your life over to government isn't a panacea? When are you going to realize that it's SLAVERY!!

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

      Originally posted by reality View Post
      So multiple doctors in the NHS didn't have to a) sign off on her psych hold
      She was already in psychiatric custody by the point of the inducement...but they may not have had to, under the law for immediate cases of harm.

      sign off on tranqing the fuck out of her
      Err you used that word above...what does trang / tranging mean?

      c) sign off on a c section without consulting her or acquiring her consent or saying "well gee gosh I have this ethical duty to get consent or make sure my patient at least has counsel, or has been appraised of whats happening maybe I should refer this to our legal counsel who will promptly shit a brick the size of texas over the liability involved"
      Actually the unborn is also the patient by the time of her delivery ; or at least after 20 weeks in the UK. There would be zero liability and only if she is determined to be mentally unfit would they require power of attorney counsel / Medical counsel but they are not required to do so under sections of the MHA.

      In fact there would be greater liability if the baby was harmed because he / she is determined to be a living human being by that point under UK law.

      d) sign off on NOT releasing her or sending her back to... you know.... her own nation etc?
      Reality, you must understand something sweetheart. This is not how it works in the UK. Sending someone home = on par with genocide / thinking the Earth is flat etc in the UK. Plus it is UK jurisdiction while she is there.

      Cause I don't believe that shit for a full second.
      Oh, well i'll stop replying to you in that case, sorry to take your time. You are free to find more credible sources if you desire.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

        I think this has less to do with single payer and more to do with what happens when you give the government the power to declare who is loony and who isn't. Inevitably those the government disagrees with will be declared loony.

        I am certain that even if this women was a threat to herself or her unborn child, they could have restrained her in a way that did not require a surgical kidnapping.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

          Originally posted by Lutherf View Post
          The C-Section isn't the big part of the problem (though performing the operation without the patient's knowledge or consent is rather disturbing).
          I am glad we agree that itself is not an issue but the patient is also the unborn so they had to do what they could to save him or her. Not just the mother.

          The big problem is that it seems that this woman didn't receive any kind of third party advocacy until AFTER the operation was performed.
          In emergency / imminent situations, no time is given to consent / counsel as some of the information can be and is often withheld from the counsel that does not have clearance and requires instant decision or approval one way or another.

          I don't see where anyone contacted her physician in Italy.
          She may well have been in the UK before she got pregnant but again, why would they need or want to? They are plenty qualified and able to make their own judgements in the UK.

          I don't see where anyone contacted her family.
          Given that the order was a "High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb." (quoted from the article), the guess is, that they probably didn't want her to know about it...

          This woman was in the nut house for 5 weeks before the operation so it's not like time was an issue.
          Apart from the fact the baby was not due to full term by then i would guess but why would they contact her family? She is a resident in the UK at the time, so under British law, they are not required to, even if time was not an issue back then.

          And as far as "it wasn't government health care"....HOGWASH!!!! It was still government that made all these decisions...is STILL making these decisions! When are you people going to realize that turning your life over to government isn't a panacea? When are you going to realize that it's SLAVERY!!
          Well, at least you admit that it is not the healthcare issue that is of importance.

          The government role in family care is another, but this is not some slippery slope that will come to fruition because someone has the ability to go see a doctor that they didn't before.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

            Originally posted by Commodore View Post
            I think this has less to do with single payer and more to do with what happens when you give the government the power to declare who is loony and who isn't. Inevitably those the government disagrees with will be declared loony.
            I wouldn't go that far, every single Brit probably disagrees with most if not all of the Government's since Thatcher (she had some support, and then some, lol) so either everyone is declared loony or British governments really do have a lot to answer for.

            All that being said, that is a factually correct and academically honest analysis of the larger philosophical debate over government power / role in family / society etc.

            Not this "DA GUBBEMINT DEATH PANELS SAFED DIS BABIES LIFE" tripe that so many on the right will equate this to. They saved the child's life, the mother is better and now the question is of fostering the re-union between the two where there is some disagreement. Nobody really is disputing that saving the child's life was the right thing to do and that she needed medical care, either.

            I am certain that even if this women was a threat to herself or her unborn child, they could have restrained her in a way that did not require a surgical kidnapping.
            She was already sectioned / in the clink long before they gave her child its own life outside of the womb.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

              Originally posted by Chloe View Post
              I am glad we agree that itself is not an issue but the patient is also the unborn so they had to do what they could to save him or her. Not just the mother.



              In emergency / imminent situations, no time is given to consent / counsel as some of the information can be and is often withheld from the counsel that does not have clearance and requires instant decision or approval one way or another.



              She may well have been in the UK before she got pregnant but again, why would they need or want to? They are plenty qualified and able to make their own judgements in the UK.



              Given that the order was a "High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb." (quoted from the article), the guess is, that they probably didn't want her to know about it...



              Apart from the fact the baby was not due to full term by then i would guess but why would they contact her family? She is a resident in the UK at the time, so under British law, they are not required to, even if time was not an issue back then.



              Well, at least you admit that it is not the healthcare issue that is of importance.

              The government role in family care is another, but this is not some slippery slope that will come to fruition because someone has the ability to go see a doctor that they didn't before.
              She was in the UK temporarily for work. Apparently she had to have some kind of airline training and was staying in a hotel so it wasn't some long term thing. She was also in the mental health facility for 5 weeks before the decision to force the C-Section was made so "imminence" would be a rather extraordinary claim.

              She was in no way a citizen of the UK. She is an Italian who was in the UK temporarily for work. Unless there is a HUGE piece of this story missing it was a gross violation of the public trust.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                Originally posted by Lutherf View Post
                She was in the UK temporarily for work.
                Yeah, that changes nothing as to why she was there...still the UK's jurisdiction, no matter what. She (well, both of them) were physically in the UK.

                Apparently she had to have some kind of airline training and was staying in a hotel so it wasn't some long term thing. She was also in the mental health facility for 5 weeks before the decision to force the C-Section was made so "imminence" would be a rather extraordinary claim.
                Yes but the baby became due all those months later so the natural cycle and process of child birth is what made it "imminent". By the time the baby was due it was a matter which pressing and urgent don't even begin to cover.

                That is why, even in the US labor / pregnant women / expectant women about to give birth etc are always treated. It is something that needs dealing with when the woman is due or goes into labor. It is not imminent at 1 to 3 months, though, is it? At 36 weeks it is a different matter from when she was sectioned at 31.

                She was in no way a citizen of the UK. She is an Italian who was in the UK temporarily for work. Unless there is a HUGE piece of this story missing it was a gross violation of the public trust.
                I never said that she was a UK citizen (and even the baby won't be as Britain is never as pro anchor baby as Mexican run AZ and Texas ) but the only thing that would have been a violation of the public trust is if this woman had tragically lost her baby due to the mishandling of British authorities, which in this instance, was not the case. She is not a British citizen but on British territory, it is British authority that has jurisdiction, end of discussion. The EU / Italy / ICJ etc can bitch all they want, it is the one part of British sovereignty not yet lost.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                  Originally posted by reality View Post
                  This is what I see when people talk about single payer systems.

                  Child taken from womb by social services - Telegraph

                  Shit like that. I am not in any way interested in having to deal with that level of horseshit.
                  I'd be just as interested in POSITIVE stories as negative, but I'm thinking that stuff like this is pretty much par for the course. (yes I read in the article that forcing a C-section is a new tactic. still in the same vein of things I've seen so far)

                  Anyone care to defend?
                  Ah yes the old tactic of taking an event such as this and using it to tar an organization used by millions ever year.
                  I could just as easily point out an event where someone in the US military has done something horrendous and claim the entire US military were a bunch of thugs but I'm sure I would be to shut up.

                  Is this a tragedy? Yes.
                  Is this indicative of the entire NHS? No.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #24
                    Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                    Ah yes the old tactic of taking an event such as this and using it to tar an organization used by millions ever year.
                    I could just as easily point out an event where someone in the US military has done something horrendous and claim the entire US military were a bunch of thugs but I'm sure I would be to shut up.

                    Is this a tragedy? Yes.
                    Is this indicative of the entire NHS? No.
                    If only you applied the same standard to firearms owners......

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #25
                      Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                      But the thing is even on the facts of this case Peter is off...this is not a tragedy and has nothing to do with the NHS! He has bought into the crap Reality is spouting about the healthcare services...has NOTHING to do with them!

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #26
                        Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                        Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                        But the thing is even on the facts of this case Peter is off...this is not a tragedy and has nothing to do with the NHS! He has bought into the crap Reality is spouting about the healthcare services...has NOTHING to do with them!
                        Why do you separate this from "government health care"? It doesn't matter if it's NHS or some other government entity, it's still government making this asinine decision.

                        Oh..almost forgot...the operative term here is "travesty" not "tragedy". I mean it's great that they decided not to just hoover the baby out and toss it in the rubbish but everything that led up to the current set of circumstances is a ridiculous abuse of government authority.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #27
                          Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                          Originally posted by Lutherf View Post
                          Why do you separate this from "government health care"? It doesn't matter if it's NHS or some other government entity, it's still government making this asinine decision.
                          Right i have been saying for the entire thread that a larger argument over the role of government seems a legitimate discussion. But the reason i separate it, is because this was done by the equivalent of something already under the control of the state even in the US. This has nothing to do with what government healthcare gets you ; this is a classic case of what the DCF can already provide for you, which you have already anyway.

                          Oh..almost forgot...the operative term here is "travesty" not "tragedy". I mean it's great that they decided not to just hoover the baby out and toss it in the rubbish but everything that led up to the current set of circumstances is a ridiculous abuse of government authority.
                          Not at all, the mental health act in the UK is pretty strong, and may need adjusting but from what i have read of it (the 83 act) it is a long long read and very broad upon enforcement. But what authorities did fit exactly into that bill and it was the right thing to do per the baby given it was due ; what would you rather happen? Birth was the only option and the fact she was sectioned was based on her own erratic behavior which she herself spoke about.

                          Ironically, getting medication to solve this, was easier under the healthcare set up in the UK more than anywhere in the world so it is sort of a case of Reality needing Reality to save Reality from Reality...incredibly circular.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #28
                            Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                            Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                            Not at all if it is determined she is an immediate threat to herself or others. (Under the MHA of the UK).



                            When and where?

                            Even if it were down to (in some form) medical procedures by Government run officials, civil servants are obligated to comply with the OSS so there is less chance of this coming out unless it was done through social services.

                            That is sort of the equivalent of DCF, but they too, do require medical assistance some times, and that is done by a healthcare professional licensed and co-operative with the state.

                            No difference here.



                            Forced abortions are never the norm ; they are the sick fantasy of the warped and perverted and i think you mean counsel, not council. If it was without council for a foreigner in the UK pregnant and she was refused housing by the council it would literally be the first time in history.

                            Btw abortions across the UK are illegal after 20 weeks (hopefully to be reduced even further soon) so they would never even consider any form of termination at all at the point she was at. The beauty of Universal Health care is that it becomes impossible for a woman to get an abortion due to the inability to have privatized abortion clinics to be licensed.



                            She was in the UK ; that is the jurisdiction of the UK authorities by any reasonable metric. Letting her in, in the first place is obviously a larger issue but will be lost on you, kind of like the joke above about council housing. (A Brit will get it).

                            Secondly, some of the medication may have effected the baby which obviously would be something they would not want, and of course the idea of putting a bi polar woman back on a plane to Italy makes sense of course, doesn't it? But at least you think there is some reason for government surveillance at the very least seeing you think they should "watch her"...there's hope for you yet Reality!
                            Yes, the medical health act. Do tell us what that governs?

                            I stated that before. She was under mental NHS supervision in the psych ward and some form of surgeon had to sign off on the c section. All of those places and interactions are governed by the drs' own medical ethics as well as the law. They have a duty to obtain informed consent and to see to the needs of their patients in obtaining said consent IE getting a lawyer. As a matter of medical ETHICS. They OBVIOUSLY did not do that. And they should be punished for that. For forcing their patient, sans CONSULTATION much less informed consent, to endure an involuntary, unnecessary, incredibly DANGEROUS, potentially life threatening (for child and mother) and permanently maiming (you never heal right. My ma has had 2 c sections and is a medical professional. Its never the same) procedure, all without checking to see if she had even been assigned COUNSEL (see better. I use them both interchangably here as this is not a court of law) or if HER interests were being looked after. That is a SERIOUS breach of medical ethics.

                            I'm not talking late term. I'm talking "o ms ghosts in her clothes came up preggers. better nix that real fast" in house abortions. And they DO happen.

                            I'm going to ignore the abortion bit actually as neither your nor my position on abortion availibility is cogent to this discussion.

                            SHe was a foreign national on a simple travel visa who was PREGNANT and not intending to give birth in the UK. Nor was she ready to give birth naturally. Her call to the cops, and a SHORT stay in the psych ward would've been warranted depending on her behavior during her panic attack, as would A) passing her BACK to italy for them to handle or B) passing her AND the kid back ASAP. There are multiple government flights between uk and italy. IF they can pay to keep her in the psych ward and raise her damn kid, they can pay for a plane ticket for her, the kid and the minder. They have EMBASSIES for this sort of shit.
                            If someone did this to an american citizen it would be a "Bad Thing", it would spark off an international incident. People would've handled this with kids gloves. But she's an itai so no one gives a fuck.
                            (I watch a lot of british film and tv, as well as reading many novels to say nothing of my required poli sci studies for my minor in undergrad. I am quite familiar with council housing.)

                            SHe was on it the entire pregnancy and as has been pointed out, the kid is FINE. SO That claim don't hold water.
                            Not to mention all the tranqs etc they would've been pumping her in the psych ward. There ARE drugs safe for pregnant women. She was ON some of them.
                            They'll pay to keep her in the psych ward longer, and pay to raise her kid and fight the legal battles associated with her trying to get her child back, that they STOLE, but they can't pay for 3 plane tickets, one for her one for the kid and one for their minder and then hand them off to italian social services? Or send the kid back at least? Cmon chloe, this is spreading it awfully thin, don't you think?

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #29
                              Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                              Nope...yes the issue is whether to send the child back or not, but that is the only thing really up for dispute.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #30
                                Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                                Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                                She was already in psychiatric custody by the point of the inducement...but they may not have had to, under the law for immediate cases of harm.



                                Err you used that word above...what does trang / tranging mean?



                                Actually the unborn is also the patient by the time of her delivery ; or at least after 20 weeks in the UK. There would be zero liability and only if she is determined to be mentally unfit would they require power of attorney counsel / Medical counsel but they are not required to do so under sections of the MHA.

                                In fact there would be greater liability if the baby was harmed because he / she is determined to be a living human being by that point under UK law.



                                Reality, you must understand something sweetheart. This is not how it works in the UK. Sending someone home = on par with genocide / thinking the Earth is flat etc in the UK. Plus it is UK jurisdiction while she is there.



                                Oh, well i'll stop replying to you in that case, sorry to take your time. You are free to find more credible sources if you desire.
                                They call those people that sign off on your psych holds "drs" They are usually not MDs but they ARE PHDs hence we call them "drs"
                                So yes, multiple drs had to sign off at several points.

                                tranqing: Tranquilzing. She had to be sedated pre procedure, and in any psych ward I"VE ever heard of the patients are generally giving it the thorazene shuffle (or other psych meds. which for the record she was ALREADY ON the entire pregnancy. her forgetting to take her meds sparked the inciting incident, a panic attack)

                                I bolded the relevant portions. SHe was under involuntary psych holds for OVER 5 WEEKS. Guess what that means? She's deemed mentally unfit and that means she needs a LAWYER. As to the baby: All the more reason not to a)tranq the mother b)perform a c section as anything but a last resort as it is a dicey proposition AT BEST. And if the baby is a person on its own and the mother is unfit thats TWO lawyers that need to be inolved by my count.

                                And you must understand something honey (you sweethearted me, I honeyed you) that you don't just take someone off the street and hold them for 5 weeks without contacting the family or at the very least their fucking embassy. Its absurd. That woman had rights, and they were trampled upon "for her own good" without ensuring her rights were looked after by appointing her counsel, and since you brought up that the baby was also a person under the law at the time, ALSO appointing one for the kid. Not to mention that continuing to keep the kid is fucking absurd. As soon as they released the mother they should've released the kid to the family or italian social services as that kid is NOT their citizen and has NO guardian in the country yes, but SEVERAL OUT of the country funny story true story his country of origin.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X