You're viewing a single thread.
This should work. Healthcare should be a free, no-questions-asked (within reason, obvio) service available to anyone at any time, regardless of who/ what they are.
This is the birth of a human child. Healthcare tends to want to protect children, even if the parents do not.
Which is highly situational and requires the judgment of those trained to make those judgments (aka. child social workers or family therapists), not a blanket policy of requiring invasive and non-medical information from those simply seeking medical care.
In an obviously abusive situation, the abuse is clear enough that it can be addressed in the time it takes to give birth and examine the tiny human. In less obvious abuse cases, the parents can almost certainly make it through the entire visit without raising suspicion, regardless of the information provided (though it might make them easier to identify if the abuse is discovered later). There should be an observation period where nobody gets to go anywhere, but again, that should be limited to only what is medical in nature.
I mean, they would deliver the baby. That's how healthcare generally does work - even in the US - for emergency situations. Only issue is, if you won't answer any questions, they'll probably keep the baby, for a number of arguably good reasons. Human trafficking, for starters.
When you finally sign the forms you need to sign to convince the hospital to let you have the baby, then you will get hit with the horrifying dystopian medical debt. Or you will pay (almost) nothing if you live in any sane society.
If you pull a screaming squishy blob out of the vagina of an equally screaming, slightly less squishy blob, I think it's pretty obvious who the squishy blob belongs to. If there is abuse of some kind, there is almost certainly other signs (defensive behavior, unexplained injuries, uncomfortable relationship dynamics, etc) that beg medical questions and don't necessarily rely on getting information like socioeconomic status or personal beliefs.
The mother might already be a victim, and the “father” might be her handler.
You wildly misunderstand human trafficking and abuse. The motherhood is not in question - the safety of the mother and their child is the primary concern, and should not be assessed by vibes alone. Questions and forms exist for a reason, and they're not all just for insurance.
Defensive behavior? Do you mean like refusing to answer any and all questions? Even the mother herself can be complicit in human trafficking of the child, for the record. Either in defense of her life or her other family members, or because it was her choice to traffic the child to begin with.
The post didn't specify socieconomic questions. It said any questions. And besides, socioeconomic and personal questions can absolutely be medical questions, especially when an infant is involved.
Questions like "can you provide habitable shelter for this infant? Do you have access to medical care in the event of an emergency? Do you believe that a newborn can drink unpasteurized cow's milk?"
Sovcits have actually showed up at hospitals before and CAS has gotten involved. One was a sovcit couple who were trying to deliver baby themselves out in the woods in a state park in Kentucky I think; labour stalled after 2 days so they finally came in, and during the admission told the hospital staff they planned to move back into the tent with baby when born, which was during the winter, and refused to get baby a birth certificate or give him a name, so CAS took him and their rights were eventually terminated and baby adopted out. Dad later got arrested at a library for threatening people, and they still have Facebook page demanding his return several years later.
There's also an OB nurse who has a great Tiktok about obstetrical care and birth, and she says she has helped deliver three sovcit moms after they finally gave up trying to deliver unassisted and came in, and two of the babies didn't make it.
Those are situations where intervention and questions are very much appropriate, but only because there were other factors at play that were medically relevant. Medical care shouldn't be contingent on the simple description of Sovcit. At most, it might raise a couple eyebrows, but there is likely to be far more important and empirical signs of abuse that are less prone to bias and prejudice.
Not so much giving them care, no hospital would turn them away, but they can't just take baby and leave without a birth certificate or name or any paperwork completed,etc.
Since they don't believe in government or any kind of public assist, they should either pay cash or trust their god.
Or, ya know, be given the same basic respect and rights as any other human being. Personal belief lands under the 'don't ask' category, and should never be used as a factor in medical care unless the patient themselves makes a belief-based request.
It pretty much is that way in the rest of the "free world".
Ok, try going in to a hospital in Europe and not give them any information, not including even your name or whether you're allergic to anything.
It’s possible to have an “anonymous birth”, so mother and baby get medical care, but don’t need to give a name. It is meant for cases where the mother wouldn’t or couldn’t seek help otherwise, e.g. in abusive relationships or family situations.
Well, I was actually replying to a comment and not the main post but fd that up?! You are right though, why wouldn't they want important and pertinent information to make the best choices throughout the procedure?