Beware! It Could Happen to You

Beware! It Could Happen to You

By: Christina England, BA, Hons

Over the years, the medical profession, child protective services and our governments have come up with a variety of elaborate syndromes, labels, accusations and various phrases, to blame unsuspecting parents, of child abuse. Their children, often vaccine injured autistic and in many cases, severely disabled, are then medically kidnapped and put into care.

These labels and accusations include:

• Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy
• Shaken Baby Syndrome
• Non Accidental Head Injury
• Fictitious Illness Syndrome
• Non Accidental Injury

The list is endless.

Until now, these accusations have sufficed. They have enabled governments from around the world, to steal hundreds of thousands of vaccine injured and disabled children and put them into care.

However, many of the children fell through the net and consequently were not caught up in the government’s web of deceit and lies. Many of them went on to live fairly normal and happy lives at home with their loving parents.

That is, until now.

A New Child Catcher has Moved into Town

Welcome to the Mental Capacity Act

The Mental Capacity Act was introduced to the UK in 2005. Although complex, this Act if used correctly enables a person with a learning disability, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, or a head injury, to make their own decisions.

In theory, the act makes perfect sense. If a person with a disability is able to make a decision for themselves, then this Act gives them the ability to do so.

The MCA states that:

“The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is designed to protect and empower people who may lack the mental capacity to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. It applies to people aged 16 and over.

It covers decisions about day-to-day things like what to wear or what to buy for the weekly shop, or serious life-changing decisions like whether to move into a care home or have major surgery.”

It continues that:

“Someone can lack capacity to make some decisions (for example, to decide on complex financial issues) but still have the capacity to make other decisions (for example, to decide what items to buy at the local shop).”

Until this point, it appears that all of the above is correct and that the MCA does make perfect sense, empowering the most vulnerable in society, to become more independent.

However, everything is not as simple as it first appears because after reading the Act in full, it is obvious even to the untrained eye that the Act is flawed and if it is not used correctly then it could potentially be extremely dangerous.

The MCA states that:

“The MCA also allows people to express their preferences for care and treatment, and to appoint a trusted person to make a decision on their behalf should they lack capacity in the future.

People should also be provided with an independent advocate, who will support them to make decisions in certain situations, such as serious treatment or where the individual might have significant restrictions placed on their freedom and rights in their best interests.” (Own emphasis)

The MCA continues by stating that:

“It’s vital to consult with others for their views about the person’s best interests.

In particular, try to consult:

• anyone previously named by the individual

• anyone engaged in caring for them

• close relatives and friends

• any attorney appointed under a Lasting Power of Attorney or Enduring Power of Attorney

• any deputy appointed by the Court of Protection to make decisions for the person” (Own emphasis)

As you can see, I have highlighted what I believe to be, particularly worrying sections of the Act. I have highlighted these sections because I have recently been involved with a case, where according to the family these statements were not adhered to in their entirety.

What Went Wrong and Why

Earlier this year, James, a young lad with learning difficulties in his forties, went out to see a film with his girlfriend and a group of friends. On the way, he became ill. He became increasingly unsteady on his feet and began to slur his speech.

After a while, his friends became so concerned about James’s bizarre behaviour that they decided to phone his mother and ask advice. After speaking with her son, she advised them to call an ambulance immediately.

James’s mother, Mrs Jenkins told us that:

“When I spoke to James, I could barely understand a word he was saying. I was immediately concerned that he could be suffering from a stroke, particularly since his girlfriend Amy had told me that earlier he had been suffering from a very severe headache.”

According to Mrs. Jenkins, both James and his girlfriend arrived at the hospital before she did and on her arrival, she was informed by Amy that James had been taken for a CT scan.

Jenkins explained what happened next:

“On arrival, I was immediately informed by the consultant, that James’s girlfriend, Amy, who also had severe disabilities, had informed him that she was his next of kin.”

Mrs. Jenkins told The Liberty Beacon that, during the next few hours, she became increasingly concerned about Amy’s behaviour.

She explained that:

“I immediately put the consultant straight and informed him that she was incorrect and that in fact, I was his next of kin.”

Jenkins continued that, although the consultant swiftly changed the information, Amy appeared to be trying to take control of the whole situation and that her mother, Janet, who had also suddenly appeared on the scene, was doing nothing to correct her daughter’s behaviour.

It was decided that due to a large bleed on the brain, James needed to have immediate brain surgery and he was transferred to another hospital, where on his arrival, he was taken straight to surgery.

Over the weeks James began to improve and consequently he was sent back to his local hospital. However, on his return, Mrs. Jenkins, began to notice that Amy’s difficult behaviour began to increase.

She explained to us that James appeared to be clock watching, whenever she visited him and that he also appeared to become increasingly anxious when his girlfriend was due to visit.

She told The Liberty Beacon that James was due to have more surgery and that he had informed her that he wanted Amy to be there when he came round.

However, when Mrs. Jenkins informed her son that as his next of kin, she was the one that should be there and not Amy, James told her that the doctor had told him that he had full mental capacity and therefore could make his own decisions.

Shocked, Jenkins said that when she questioned her son about this, he told her that he had seen in writing that he could have more than one next of kin and that he had chosen Amy.

Sadly, Mrs, Jenkins did not get the chance to question James, or the medical staff further about this because unfortunately, later that day, James deteriorated and had a further catastrophic bleed on the brain.

Mrs. Jenkins told us that, when she arrived at the Intensive Care Unit to see her son, Amy was already there and that she totally refused to allow her anywhere near her son.

She explained that:

“When I arrived, Amy began to scream at me and cling on to my son saying that she did not want me to go anywhere near James. She began to scream, shout and stamp her feet, saying that she had promised James that she wouldn’t leave him.”

Jenkins continued that:

“It took nursing staff four and half hours to finally remove her from my son.”

She told The Liberty Beacon that:

“Amy only finally agreed to leave my son, when I reluctantly agreed that I would only stay with him for one hour.”

Mrs. Jenkins told us that the whole situation was a joke. From that point on she was only allowed to see James for one hour a day and only after the nursing staff had removed Amy from the ward.

She told us that despite the fact that James was in a coma, it was Amy that was dictating all the rules.

Jenkins explained to us that Amy was allowed to be there at all other times and was even allowed to sleep with her son.

She told us that, it appeared as if Amy was making up all the rules as she went along and that she was even allowed to dictate who could and who could not see James and even how long they were allowed to stay for.

Mrs. Jenkins told The Liberty Beacon that when she informed the staff that not only was she James’s mother but also his full time carer and his next of kin, she was totally ignored and all her wishes regarding her sons care, were totally overridden.

Sadly, James did not recover and a few days later he passed away.

Heartbroken, his mother told us that, she finally discovered which document her son, Amy and her family had signed, a few days later.

Jenkins told The Liberty Beacon, that in her opinion, at the time that James had been encouraged to sign the document she doubted that he even understood the document’s implications.

She told us that she believed that her son would have wanted her there and that the situation was an utter disgrace.

As James’s mother, his next of kin and his full time carer, Mrs Jenkins has made it very clear to The Liberty Beacon that at no time during her sons stay in hospital was she informed about the document, asked any questions about her son’s health, his care or his understanding.

Mrs. Jenkins now believes that this Act was used incorrectly and that as a consequence, the medical staff had possibly inadvertently taken away all her rights as James’s mother and given the rights to make decisions about his medical care to another severely disabled person.

She has since learned that, the term ‘next of kin,’ means nothing in the eyes of the law. Read – Relying On The Concept Of ‘Next Of Kin’ – When Is It Enough?

Jenkins told us that, to add insult to injury, on leaving the hospital, Amy had stolen all of James’s belongings and when she later informed the police, she was told that there was nothing that they could do because it was her son who had been the victim and he had now deceased.

Please note: The Names and some of the information contained has been changed for legal reasons.

••••

TLB Note: Christina has been writing health related articles for The Liberty Beacon Project for over a decade CLICK HERE to read more of her great articles.

••••

About Christina England, BA Hons, Research Journalist and Author:

Christina was born and educated in London, U.K. She left school to work in a children’s library, specialising in storytelling and book buying. In 1978, Christina changed her career path to dedicate her time to caring for the elderly and was awarded the title of Care Giver of the Year for her work with the elderly in 1980.

After taking an A Level in Psychology and a BTEC in Learning Support, Ms. England spent many years researching vaccines and adverse reactions. She gained a Higher National Diploma in Journalism and Media Studies in 2010 and in 2016 she gained a BA Hons degree in Literature and Humanities. She currently writes for The Liberty Beacon on immunisation safety and efficacy.

Christina has co-authored the books – Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis – Are Parents Being Falsely Accused? with Dr. Harold Buttram and Vaccination Policy and the UK Government: The Untold Truth with Lucija Tomljenovic PhD, which are sold on Amazon. She also compiled the book Shattered Dreams: The HPV Vaccine Exposed. Her website is Parents and Carers Against Medical Injustice

Image Credit: Graphic in Featured Image (top) – David Karich from Pixabay

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.