http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... an-section

Even setting aside the bigger implications, you'd think they'd have made contact with her family and doctor.

been going for years just like the LCP within the NHS

just saves the Govt. money in the long run/term ...

Not necessarily. The legal payouts could be huge. I think that this is an over reaction to the recent infant fatalities, in which social services failed to protect the child.

I'm still skeptical about the truth of this story. The original "source" Christopher Booker seems to have made a career of making up or vastly exaggerating news stories.

The sheer lack of any detail behind this story leads me to believe that it is either completely false or there are other factors behind it.

1. The idea behind the LCP was a good thing. It was developed from management of terminally ill patients in hospices and created a standard to which patients should be treated with. The problems arose because not all staff were fully aware of what it meant, it wasn't always revised, and then somehow money become involved. I still believe in the LCP because when it's done right, it's exactly what hospices would do for patients.

2. There is more than meets the eye to this case. People with mental health problems are more likely to neglect their children or abuse them (whether intentional or not). Consequently, children are often taken away from "high risk" patients, sometimes as soon as they're born. Given the lack of data, all we can do is speculate. Let's say the woman (due to her mental health) thinks all children are evil and should be killed. Would you remove the baby or would you give her the child? What if she *says* she's fine? Would you be happy with that or would you prefer she was under specialist supervision? At what point would you say she was okay to have her child back?

I would wait for more info before making any further comments.

Why not make arrangements for the child to be brought up by members of her family?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

because I doubt they could be trusted to not allow her access especially when she will know where they live

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Yes they are abroad. I do see why families escape overseas if there are risks of social services getting involved. There was the case of social services taking some kids from a couple accusing them of abuse when it turned out that brittle bone disease was common in the mothers family. Yet her children were legally adopted to strangers and the family denied ever seeing their children ever again. Yet they did nothing wrong. It could happen to anyone.

http://pinktape.co.uk/cases/never-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-story-eh/ Interesting read.

Completely agree with what's written and that's why I said that there was more to this than meets the eye. The problem is that the media have whipped everyone into a frenzy (I sometimes feel they need to be prosecuted/disciplined to stop crap journalism).