JT-vanhemmat hylkäsivät lapsensa

Untamo kirjoitti

"'Uutisessa' täytyy siis olla taas jotakin hyvin pahasti vialla."

Tuossahan ei ole kyse mistään uutisesta vaan Britannian parlamentin osan virallisesta, dokumentoitusta keskustelusta.

Niin kirjoitti:

Untamo kirjoitti

"'Uutisessa' täytyy siis olla taas jotakin hyvin pahasti vialla."

Tuossahan ei ole kyse mistään uutisesta vaan Britannian parlamentin osan virallisesta, dokumentoitusta keskustelusta.

Tässä kohta, jossa todetaan rakkaudettomien, tunnekuolleiden jehovavanhempien hylänneen lapsensa:

"the transfusion was given, and the child recovered. However, the parents refused to have the child back because they said that it was no longer the same child."

--------

Tässä asiaan liittyvä teksti kokonaisuudessaan:

25 Jan 1996 : Column 1162

to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, if this was a matter with which she had to deal. I do so because it actually happened in Oxford.
The child of two Jehovah's Witnesses aged eight was knocked down, severely injured and was bleeding to death. The parents refused to sign the form giving permission for a blood transfusion, as they would because of their religion. A judge was summoned to the child's bedside; a care order was made; the transfusion was given, and the child recovered. However, the parents refused to have the child back because they said that it was no longer the same child.

I believe that the judge and the hospital in that case did right. However, it goes to show quite how much one must pause and consider the unknown reactions that may arise. If one attempts to enforce access with a legal big stick, the reaction of one or the other parent may be quite unpredictable. Such a generalised discretion as the one suggested would, perhaps, force the court to run upon a waterfall. I believe that it should have discretion to hold back from that waterfall if it sees fit.

As regards subsection (a) of Amendment No. 158A, I would also be interested to know how the reference to "the conduct" of the parties impinges on the very long debates that we have had about fault during the course of the proceedings on the Bill. I am not able to work that out in the time available; and, indeed, I certainly do not intend to detain Members of the Committee. However, if fault is to come into the Bill, I believe that it should come in through the front door and not accidently by the back door. If we bring such a provision into the Bill accidently, it may create no end of legal confusion afterwards.

The Earl of Onslow: I had read that phrase in the amendment which refers to,

"the conduct of each of the parents",
and found myself in exactly the same dilemma on the fault question. In the actual granting of a divorce, I believe that the fault question should be left outside. However, it is impossible to talk about custody arrangements without taking into account the behaviour of one or both of the parents. That suggests to me that we should have a little bit of "front door", "back door" or twin tracking--or whatever the latest cliche is.

I can see two distinct considerations. One is bringing a contract to an end in the most civilised way, with all the hoops that one has to go through to do so: the other is the matter of dealing with the fall-out from that contract being broken. One cannot divorce--I am sorry that was a rather silly pun which was not intended; I meant to say that one cannot separate the conduct of parents from child responsibility, but you can and should separate it with the end of a contract.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the amendments. It is helpful that the courts should have guidance. The guidance that is given here is quite firm and will ensure that the interests of the child are safeguarded.

>>Verensiirto ei muuta tilannetta..

Verensiirto muuttaa tilanteen jos vanhemmat antavat suostumuksensa verensiirron suorittamiseen.

Rasvattu jämä kirjoitti:

>>Verensiirto ei muuta tilannetta..

Verensiirto muuttaa tilanteen jos vanhemmat antavat suostumuksensa verensiirron suorittamiseen.

Tästä opillisesta jaarittelusta ei nyt päästy käsitykseen siitä, että ottivatko ne vanhemmat nyt sen lapsen takaisin vai ei?