Reunion arranged

[Carol Clements]

My sisters and I have been talking this week, and our reunion is now
arranged for the weekend of the 24th of January.

We have been taking things slowly and carefully in our chats, we've
exchanged photographs (and the likeness Susan has to me is really
jaw-dropping - many people have asked me if we're twins), letters and
text messages. Susan is excited, but a little overwhelmed, so we are
letting her set the pace. It's a great deal for her to take in, so
she is wise to take time to digest each new piece of information as
it's passed along.

The thing we are all looking forward to very much is having a
photograph of all three of us together again. It's such a shame we're
all so far away from each other - but it could be worse. At one
point, we thought she might have been shipped off to Australia!

I told our Investigator yesterday that the case was closed, subject
found, told him how I'd cracked it (he was impressed - nice man), and
then I asked him for a job. I was only partially joking.

The great thing is, if I hadn't got hold of Susan by telephone, I'd
have found her anyway, because she also picked up a message from me on
Friends Reunited the same day. She was double-found - and today, just
for a piece of delicious irony, I got confirmation from the General
Registry office that I'm on the national adoption register. It only
took them two months to process my application! And now, of course,
it isn't required.

Wishing you all well in your searches, your reunions and all other
areas of your lives,
Carol

[Carol Clements]

Well, I said I'd post a follow-up, and here I am. I'm not going to
write a long post about the weekend (I don't have time!). Basically,
the three of us had a ball. We got on great with each other, and Sue
was over the moon to be finally meeting us. She took us to the place
where the house was from which we were adopted (the house is no longer
there, but the street is, and the park where we used to play together
- though I have no memory of that). She walked us round the area, and
my oldest sister remembered a lot of things once she saw the streets
and the buildings. We experienced a number of very strange
coincidences, which all added to the general splendidness of being
back together again.

We are going to keep in touch, and are planning further meetings -
this time with our partners involved.

It was an exhausting weekend, emotionally, physically and in lots of
other ways - but very rewarding. I know a lot of people say they wish
they hadn't bothered finding their relatives because it was just too
much hassle. I'm happy to say I'm not saying that, and I don't
envisage EVER saying that. We have so much in common, despite growing
up far away from each other, and our bond is our blood. We're already
very good friends, I'm looking forward to developing that.

Thanks for your time, and good luck to everyone else who is currently
searching.

Carol
PS Where is everybody?

[Don Moody]

Post by Carol Clements
Well, I said I'd post a follow-up, and here I am. I'm not going to
write a long post about the weekend (I don't have time!). Basically,
the three of us had a ball. We got on great with each other, and Sue
was over the moon to be finally meeting us. She took us to the place
where the house was from which we were adopted (the house is no longer
there, but the street is, and the park where we used to play together
- though I have no memory of that). She walked us round the area, and
my oldest sister remembered a lot of things once she saw the streets
and the buildings. We experienced a number of very strange
coincidences, which all added to the general splendidness of being
back together again.
We are going to keep in touch, and are planning further meetings -
this time with our partners involved.
It was an exhausting weekend, emotionally, physically and in lots of
other ways - but very rewarding. I know a lot of people say they wish
they hadn't bothered finding their relatives because it was just too
much hassle. I'm happy to say I'm not saying that, and I don't
envisage EVER saying that. We have so much in common, despite growing
up far away from each other, and our bond is our blood. We're already
very good friends, I'm looking forward to developing that.
Thanks for your time, and good luck to everyone else who is currently
searching.
Carol
PS Where is everybody?

Where almost everybody always is when the news is either absent or good:
asleep or apathetic. Almost everybody goes public only when they've got
a gripe.

You are in a 'honeymoon' glow from a contact which has gone right so
far. Like any other kind of honeymoon, once the glow is over remember
that it is a relationship and - like all such - has to be worked at.

I give three examples from my own life. I have a birthrelative who has
known me all my 72 years. We see eachother rarely, but always joyfully.
As I put it last time, I can be friendly with anybody who, at 88, can
have an aperitif, a starter, half a duck roasted, a half bottle of wine,
a sweet, cheese, coffee and a liqueur in one sitting! But then the
entire damn family are foodies so the old girl is well in the mould.

Conversely I have birth relatives I have never seen, and will never see,
because my mere existence cannot be acknowledged in their culture. If I
attempted a relationship it would be fraught and hurtful for them. That
is not an opinion. That is a fact of their introverted culture.

In the middle I have birthrelatives I have met, but with whom I have had
no contact for nearly 30 years. We simply do not get on. Their values
are not my values. Boozing, fighting and womanising interspersed with
spells in prison don't gel with my way of life. There is no point in
denial. Though the two of them are my closest living relatives (apart
from my kids and grandkids) they might as well be dead for all the
difference it makes to me and my descendants. Attempts to prolong the
relationship were futile, and attempts to resurrect it would be even
more futile.

So there is the full spectrum. You must make an honest try at working at
any relationship, and hope it goes brilliantly well. But you must also
have the steel to cut off a relationship if it is doing harm to you and
your descendants.

Don

[Carol Clements]

Post by Don Moody
asleep or apathetic. Almost everybody goes public only when they've got
a gripe.

I can't say that's been my experience on this newsgroup, but I have to
bow to your longevity, as I am a relative newcomer here. I have had
only good things to post, some questions and have occasionally voiced
my frustration when my search seemed to go cold. From my point of
view, that's what a newsgroup such as this is for, and I've had a
great deal of positive and generous help in private mails also. I
can't thank these people enough for putting themselves out, and using
THEIR OWN TIME to advise and guide me.

Post by Don Moody
You are in a 'honeymoon' glow from a contact which has gone right so
far. Like any other kind of honeymoon, once the glow is over remember
that it is a relationship and - like all such - has to be worked at.

:-)

Post by Don Moody
So there is the full spectrum. You must make an honest try at working at
any relationship, and hope it goes brilliantly well. But you must also
have the steel to cut off a relationship if it is doing harm to you and
your descendants.

Bless you, Don...but I'm 44 years old. I'm a mother, a wife, an
ex-wife, a step-mother, a sister, a sister-in-law, a daughter, a
daughter-in-law, an aunt, a great-aunt and a fallible human being.
I've been in many situations where I've had to cut people out of my
life - including, at one time, my own son, believe it or not! That
was the hardest thing I ever had to do, and in the long-run, it did
him the world of good. But it hurt me like nothing else could. I'm
prepared for anything life throws at me, and losing a sister after
finding her the way I have couldn't ever be as painful as that.

But thank you for your concern. I know you mean it with the best of
intentions.

Regards,
Carol

[Don Moody]

Post by Carol Clements

Post by Don Moody
So there is the full spectrum. You must make an honest try at working at
any relationship, and hope it goes brilliantly well. But you must also
have the steel to cut off a relationship if it is doing harm to you and
your descendants.

Bless you, Don...but I'm 44 years old. I'm a mother, a wife, an
ex-wife, a step-mother, a sister, a sister-in-law, a daughter, a
daughter-in-law, an aunt, a great-aunt and a fallible human being.
I've been in many situations where I've had to cut people out of my
life - including, at one time, my own son, believe it or not! That
was the hardest thing I ever had to do, and in the long-run, it did
him the world of good. But it hurt me like nothing else could. I'm
prepared for anything life throws at me, and losing a sister after
finding her the way I have couldn't ever be as painful as that.
But thank you for your concern. I know you mean it with the best of
intentions.

I'm glad to know you don't need to learn the lesson again. But you must
bear in mind that a newsgroup is a forum open to the public. When you
write about your own case you are providing not only a personal story
but a case study. If the case study does not contain *all* the relevant
facts then there is a danger that someone else will charge in thinking
they can follow what you have said, and all will be well. That is why
any *all* good (or all bad) case study needs to have cautions (or
encouragement) added. Quite small changes in circumstance can make very
big changes in outcome. That some sets of cautions which fit your
original description happen not to apply to you is not the point. That
they could apply to unknown others is the point.

An excellent illustration of the same point happened immediately before
I read your article. I had a telephone call from my American cousin in
New York. He has problems with two of his grandsons - just 21 within a
few weeks of eachother. One was adopted long ago, is regaining contact
with his birthrelatives, is a lost soul, and is looking to find himself.
The other was brought up by his mother, who divorced from his rich (as
in filthy rich) father, has lacked nothing, and is turning out feckless
and in process of losing himself. To turn the screw, the adoptee who is
finding himself is much more friendly with his aunt than her own son is,
who is losing himself. The combinations and confusions of relationships
involving these two young men, and their life trajectory in the nearish
future are worrying my cousin. That is why he wants me to do something
about both of them, because they are both in England at the moment.

The history of drug addiction and alcoholism in the branch of the family
to which they belong, and the enormous damage that does to related
non-addicts, is well, expensively and painfully known to my cousin and
me. We'll try to get both young men sorted, and on their ways through
worthwhile life. But we've agreed today that if one or both goes off the
rails to the detriment of other family members, we'll cut them out as
though they have never been. If we make the cut, it'll be sink without
trace, or go through hell on your own until you've had enough and claw
your way back (if that is possible) into the respectable world where the
others in the family live and work. Then, and only then, the prodigal
will be welcomed back. It sounds ruthless, unless you know about the
bankruptcies and lost opportunities for others caused by the last junkie
in the family, and the ongoing distress she caused up to her death
including to her own son, who is the adoptee concerned.

The original Frau Rothschild in Frankfurt had five sons. She didn't lay
the foundations of the family fortune just by backing the four with the
skill and moral fibre to be bankers. She laid it by banishing the fifth
wastrel brother to a place where his antics could not impede or make
unprofitable the work of the four sensible brothers.

There are just two examples of what I meant by having the steel. Your
own story, now exposed, is a third. It is an old old lesson and there is
an old old saying which encapsulates it. 'Harden your heart.' When
necessary, but not otherwise.

Don

[Carol Clements]

Post by Don Moody
The history of drug addiction and alcoholism in the branch of the family
to which they belong, and the enormous damage that does to related
non-addicts, is well, expensively and painfully known to my cousin and
me. We'll try to get both young men sorted, and on their ways through
worthwhile life. But we've agreed today that if one or both goes off the
rails to the detriment of other family members, we'll cut them out as
though they have never been.

Don, my son, mentioned in my last post, was cut off by me in exactly
that way due to drug addiction. He's back in the fold now, and drug
free, but I know exactly what you're talking about AND how hard it is
to do. But, that it is necessary to 'harden your heart' and go
through with it was never in doubt for me. Sometimes, being a mother
is the hardest job in the world.

It's for this reason that I try to maintain an open mind about people
who search AND people who choose not to. Everyone's situation is
unique.

Regards,
Carol

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Carol Clements

Post by Don Moody
The history of drug addiction and alcoholism in the branch of the family
to which they belong, and the enormous damage that does to related
non-addicts, is well, expensively and painfully known to my cousin and
me. We'll try to get both young men sorted, and on their ways through
worthwhile life. But we've agreed today that if one or both goes off the
rails to the detriment of other family members, we'll cut them out as
though they have never been.

Don, my son, mentioned in my last post, was cut off by me in exactly
that way due to drug addiction.

Similar situation with my sister's son and alcohol, he was in the Priory at
the time I found her. She is still not able to tell him that she is reunited
with her birth family as he would almost certainly give the game away to her
adoptive parents. Adoptive father threatened to kill the social worker who
approached him strictly against my instructions (good argument for not
letting social services do the intermediary work unless they have properly
trained intermediaries with personal experience of adoption).

Post by Carol Clements
He's back in the fold now, and drug free, but I know exactly what you're
talking about AND how hard it is to do.

My sister is still tearful about it though she does have some contact with
him now, but he still does not know where his sisters live. I have said she
should tell him about the family because really he has right to know, but
she reminds me that that would be at some risk of him imposing himself
whilst in a drunken stupor, on me, as well as everyone else involved. It is
always difficult to know what to do for the best in these situations. It is
very very hard.

Post by Carol Clements
But, that it is necessary to 'harden your heart' and go through with it was
never in doubt for me. Sometimes, being a mother is the hardest job in the
world.
It's for this reason that I try to maintain an open mind about people
who search AND people who choose not to. Everyone's situation is
unique.

Unique is the keyword. No one can know what they are going to find when they
find their birth family, or visa versa when birth family find an adoptee.
But in the vast majority of cases all is well, I'd not want anyone to be put
off searching by stories of woe that they read here or elsewhere. Just take
them as a warning not rush in, to tread carefully always for their own sake
as well as for the sake of those they seek.

Robin

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Carol Clements
Well, I said I'd post a follow-up, and here I am. I'm not going to
write a long post about the weekend (I don't have time!). Basically,
the three of us had a ball. We got on great with each other, and Sue
was over the moon to be finally meeting us. She took us to the place
where the house was from which we were adopted (the house is no longer
there, but the street is, and the park where we used to play together
- though I have no memory of that). She walked us round the area, and
my oldest sister remembered a lot of things once she saw the streets
and the buildings. We experienced a number of very strange
coincidences, which all added to the general splendidness of being
back together again.
We are going to keep in touch, and are planning further meetings -
this time with our partners involved.
It was an exhausting weekend, emotionally, physically and in lots of
other ways - but very rewarding. I know a lot of people say they wish
they hadn't bothered finding their relatives because it was just too
much hassle. I'm happy to say I'm not saying that, and I don't
envisage EVER saying that. We have so much in common, despite growing
up far away from each other, and our bond is our blood. We're already
very good friends, I'm looking forward to developing that.

Congratulations, hope it continues to go well.

Post by Carol Clements
Thanks for your time, and good luck to everyone else who is currently
searching.
Carol
PS Where is everybody?

I'm still here, convalescing, enjoying a much more comfortable life without
a gall bladder. Other than that just waiting for the new draft 'Access to
Information Regulations' and for the draft regulatory reform order on civil
registration changes, when those appear y'all will be hearing at lot more
from me.

Robin

[Carol Clements]

Post by Robin Harritt
I'm still here, convalescing, enjoying a much more comfortable life without
a gall bladder. Other than that just waiting for the new draft 'Access to
Information Regulations' and for the draft regulatory reform order on civil
registration changes, when those appear y'all will be hearing at lot more
from me.

Robin, I won't say 'get well soon', I'll say 'get well in your own
time and don't put pressure on yourself'. Having said that, I do hope
your convalescence doesn't take TOO long, and that you are feeling
more comfortable soon.

Thanks for the congratulations,
Carol

[Sandi]

"Robin Harritt" <***@postadoption.info> wrote in message news:BC3FA79E.3143C%***@postadoption.info...

<SNIP>

Post by Robin Harritt
I'm still here, convalescing, enjoying a much more comfortable life without
a gall bladder. Other than that just waiting for the new draft 'Access to
Information Regulations' and for the draft regulatory reform order on civil
registration changes, when those appear y'all will be hearing at lot more
from me.
Robin

Hey Robin :o)
how long ago did u have GB out? Am waiting for mine to be
removed.
Did u have keyhole? would be great to have as many details as poss?
(privately if u prefer? me_here_63AThotmail.com)
Sandi

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Sandi
<SNIP>

Post by Robin Harritt
I'm still here, convalescing, enjoying a much more comfortable life

without

Post by Robin Harritt
a gall bladder. Other than that just waiting for the new draft 'Access to
Information Regulations' and for the draft regulatory reform order on

civil

Post by Robin Harritt
registration changes, when those appear y'all will be hearing at lot more
from me.
Robin

Hey Robin :o)
how long ago did u have GB out?

On 12 Jan.

Post by Sandi
Am waiting for mine to be removed.

Hope you've not had wait as long as I did, but that was partly because I
needed to find a time when it would not be a major inconvenience not to be
able to drive for a long period (in case they had to it open surgery).
Because of previous abdominal scaring the surgeon didn't know if he could do
it via keyhole until he had inserted laparoscope and had a look around.

Post by Sandi
Did u have keyhole?

Fortunately in the end yes.

Post by Sandi
would be great to have as many details as poss?

There is a good webstite at

http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/health/gallstones/gallstns.htm

I'm pleased they were able to do it keyhole as that meant only one night in
hospital. But you still need a week of doing pretty much nothing at all
after, then another week of only light activity until they take the clips
out (or stitches) and no heavy lifting or stretching for a month at least. I
had a lot of bruising around the navel, where the scope was inserted which
is still fading.

I didn't know I had gallstone problem until, I actually passed one whilst I
was in Sardinia, I'd put it down to a reaction to some of the unusual
seafood I'd been trying and took a couple of strong pain killers and some
indigestion medicine. I was due for a routine blood test a couple of days
after my return, it turned out my liver function test had gone of the chart.
So after more blood tests to rule out other possibilities I had the
ultrasound scan, then an ERCP (endoscopic retrograde
cholangiopancreatography) to look for any stones lodged in the bile ducts
and to see if there were any other problems. My stones were not of the type
that could be broken up with ultrasound or dissolved with chemicals (they
were pigment stones not cholesterol stones)

It takes a little while for things to settle down so that they get back to
how it was before the problems started and best to stay on a low fat diet as
your bile salts will not be as concentrated as they were when you had a
properly functioning gall bladder.

Just to bring the topic of adoption in somewhere, when I telephoned my long
lost half sister to tell her about it and she told me she has to have
exactly the same thing done as soon as possible. Hereditary element to it
perhaps. Then there is the matter of filling in the forms with family
medical history, luckily I am now able to do that, they sent of for an ECG
before the op just to be sure. Unfortunately many adoptees don't have the
kind family medical history that I now have and no doubt die an earlier than
necessary death as a result of that.

Post by Sandi
(privately if u prefer? me_here_63AThotmail.com)
Sandi

Any specific questions the e-mail address above is genuine, feel free to
ask. Or for a quicker answer, robin at robin dot org where I don't have to
sort through all the spam first.



Robin

[Don Moody]

Post by Robin Harritt
Just to bring the topic of adoption in somewhere, when I telephoned my long
lost half sister to tell her about it and she told me she has to have
exactly the same thing done as soon as possible. Hereditary element to it
perhaps. Then there is the matter of filling in the forms with family
medical history, luckily I am now able to do that, they sent of for an ECG
before the op just to be sure. Unfortunately many adoptees don't have the
kind family medical history that I now have and no doubt die an earlier than
necessary death as a result of that.

They do indeed. I shall be one adoptee who dies earlier than necessary
because of not knowing the diabetic history in my birthrelatives
sufficiently early. But it goes on beyond me. One of my daughters is
going to die earlier than necessary of breast cancer because she did not
'qualify' under NHS rules for more frequent screening, which she would
have had if the incidence of breast cancer in my birthfamily had been
known earlier.

This resurrects a problem I have been banging on about for a long time.
It is not covered in adoption legislation or in that concerning donor
gametes. No matter what social theories are held and no matter whether
they are right or wrong, the fact that every cell in our bodies reflects
our real GENETIC ancestry cannot be denied.

There will come a time when genetic liability to diseases will not
require any knowledge of ancestry. It will be 'read' directly off a DNA
sample taken from our own body. That time is a lot longer off than
hyped-up marketers of technology would like to admit.

Historically, roughly the same information was got by knowing a lot of
birthrelatives as persons and knowing enough about their lives to deduce
what diseases 'run in the family'.

What legislators and others cussedly will not recognise is that in the
era of in-depth medical notes and computerised exchange of information
it is NOT necessary for genetic study purposes that a descendant knows
ancestors and collaterals as persons. It is NOT necessary that there be
any contact or even identification. Contact and identification may be
desirable or undesirable for other reasons but they are wholly
irrelevant to genetic studies so long as the genetically relevant
information is available.

It always has been my opinion that adoptees do NOT have an absolute
right to identification and contact with their birthrelatives. They have
only a conditional right, and the conditions depend on many things about
the lives of the birthrelatives. Conversely, what I have always held is
that everybody has an absolute right to genetic information material to
the health of themselves and their descendants. There is nowadays no
reason in principle why such genetic information from one person's
medical records should not be transmitted 'blind' to the GP holding the
records of a descendant and be incorporated into that descendant's
medical records. It would be expensive, and a difficult management
problem, but it is not impossible in principle. Set against the expense
should be the cost of managing and treating diseases that could have
been avoided or ameliorated if the genetic information had been
available.

I did in fact know my birthmother's birthmother. I was the only
grandchild born before GrandMaMa died. And in spite of the fact that I'm
dressed in a frock, I treasure the one and only copy of the one
photograph of me with GrandMaMa. But what I didn't know until too late,
because of the adoption, was why she looked in that photograph as she
did and why she was dead a few months later. She died of breast cancer.
Had I known that earlier, my daughter would have been on screening which
caught her cancer earlier and thus very greatly increased her life
expectancy.

Nor is that the end of the consequences of the information gap arising
out of my adoption. When she dies my daughter will leave three young
children motherless, and that will affect their lives.

This case study is good for showing the difference between personal
contact and information transmitted without contact. My daughter was not
born until 26 years after her greatgrandmother died. Clearly there never
could have been any personal contact between these two females. What was
important to the younger was NOT knowing her ancestor as a person but
knowing that her ancestor died of BC.

Don

[Alisonjones1965]

Subject: Re: FAO Robin Was --- Reunion arranged
Date: 31/01/2004 10:33 GMT Standard
This resurrects a problem I have been banging on about for a long time.
It is not covered in adoption legislation or in that concerning donor
gametes. No matter what social theories are held and no matter whether
they are right or wrong, the fact that every cell in our bodies reflects
our real GENETIC ancestry cannot be denied.
Conversely, what I have always held is
that everybody has an absolute right to genetic information material to
the health of themselves and their descendants.

I agree totally. Family reunions are a matter for personal choice BUT genetic
health information is too important to be left to choice or family
circumstance.

Alison

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Don Moody

Post by Robin Harritt
Just to bring the topic of adoption in somewhere, when I telephoned my long
lost half sister to tell her about it and she told me she has to have
exactly the same thing done as soon as possible. Hereditary element to it
perhaps. Then there is the matter of filling in the forms with family
medical history, luckily I am now able to do that, they sent of for an ECG
before the op just to be sure. Unfortunately many adoptees don't have the
kind family medical history that I now have and no doubt die an earlier than
necessary death as a result of that.

They do indeed. I shall be one adoptee who dies earlier than necessary
because of not knowing the diabetic history in my birthrelatives
sufficiently early. But it goes on beyond me. One of my daughters is
going to die earlier than necessary of breast cancer because she did not
'qualify' under NHS rules for more frequent screening, which she would
have had if the incidence of breast cancer in my birthfamily had been
known earlier.
This resurrects a problem I have been banging on about for a long time.
It is not covered in adoption legislation or in that concerning donor
gametes. No matter what social theories are held and no matter whether
they are right or wrong, the fact that every cell in our bodies reflects
our real GENETIC ancestry cannot be denied.
There will come a time when genetic liability to diseases will not
require any knowledge of ancestry. It will be 'read' directly off a DNA
sample taken from our own body. That time is a lot longer off than
hyped-up marketers of technology would like to admit.
Historically, roughly the same information was got by knowing a lot of
birthrelatives as persons and knowing enough about their lives to deduce
what diseases 'run in the family'.
What legislators and others cussedly will not recognise is that in the
era of in-depth medical notes and computerised exchange of information
it is NOT necessary for genetic study purposes that a descendant knows
ancestors and collaterals as persons. It is NOT necessary that there be
any contact or even identification. Contact and identification may be
desirable or undesirable for other reasons but they are wholly
irrelevant to genetic studies so long as the genetically relevant
information is available.

It is not entirely unrecognised by government, in the case of adoption, it
is in fact the responsibility of the NHSCR Adoption Section, it is the fact
that that department is so abysmally poor at doing that particular part of
its work and like every other aspect of the Office of National Statistics
responsibility in adoption it's existence seems to remain a secret to those
who need to know, as it never get publicised any way. It is surely that
neglect of responsibility that we should all be 'banging on about'.

Post by Don Moody
It always has been my opinion that adoptees do NOT have an absolute
right to identification and contact with their birthrelatives.

But it is know widely recognised by almost everyone professionally involved
in adoption that adopted people do have a right to the information that will
enable them to make contact with their birth relatives.

Post by Don Moody
They have only a conditional right, and the conditions depend on many things
about the lives of the birthrelatives.

Birth relatives equally have a right to refuse contact and can use the
Prevention of Harassment Act, against anyone who persistently refuses to
take no for an answer.

No guarantees were ever given to birth relatives in the UK that they would
not found by the adoptee they relinquished. Such a guarantee would have been
impossible to make. See http://robin.robin.org/ao

Post by Don Moody
Conversely, what I have always held is that everybody has an absolute right to
genetic information material to the health of themselves and their
descendants.

Unfortunately that is right that the law in England and Wales simply does
give us. The government seems intent upon eroding what right we do have by
depriving us of the 'cause of death information' currently available on all
death certificate.

Post by Don Moody
There is nowadays no reason in principle why such genetic information from one
person's medical records should not be transmitted 'blind' to the GP holding
the records of a descendant and be incorporated into that descendant's medical
records.

Fine as far as living people's records are concerned but it has been my
experience in trying to obtain medical information regarding deceased
relatives, that most medical records are discarded within seven years of
death, sometimes less than that.

Post by Don Moody
It would be expensive, and a difficult management problem, but it is not
impossible in principle. Set against the expense should be the cost of
managing and treating diseases that could have been avoided or ameliorated if
the genetic information had been available.

Do you think it really would be that difficult given the amount of
computerisation that has already taken place within the NHS?

Post by Don Moody
I did in fact know my birthmother's birthmother. I was the only
grandchild born before GrandMaMa died. And in spite of the fact that I'm
dressed in a frock,

There is a picture somewhere of my adoptive father as a baby in about 1910
with his father and grandfather. I would call the garment he was wearing a
frock, (he had five sisters by the way) I thought it was quite common for
young male children to be dressed in such garb back then.

Post by Don Moody
I treasure the one and only copy of the one photograph of me with GrandMaMa.
But what I didn't know until too late, because of the adoption, was why she
looked in that photograph as she did and why she was dead a few months later.
She died of breast cancer. Had I known that earlier, my daughter would have
been on screening which caught her cancer earlier and thus very greatly
increased her life expectancy.
Nor is that the end of the consequences of the information gap arising
out of my adoption. When she dies my daughter will leave three young
children motherless, and that will affect their lives.
This case study is good for showing the difference between personal
contact and information transmitted without contact. My daughter was not
born until 26 years after her greatgrandmother died. Clearly there never
could have been any personal contact between these two females. What was
important to the younger was NOT knowing her ancestor as a person but
knowing that her ancestor died of BC.

All too common a class of story, evidence if any were needed that we should
all be banging on much harder and louder than we are about this particular
issue.

Robin

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Robin Harritt

Post by Don Moody

Post by Robin Harritt
Just to bring the topic of adoption in somewhere, when I telephoned my long
lost half sister to tell her about it and she told me she has to have
exactly the same thing done as soon as possible. Hereditary element to it
perhaps. Then there is the matter of filling in the forms with family
medical history, luckily I am now able to do that, they sent of for an ECG
before the op just to be sure. Unfortunately many adoptees don't have the
kind family medical history that I now have and no doubt die an earlier than
necessary death as a result of that.

They do indeed. I shall be one adoptee who dies earlier than necessary
because of not knowing the diabetic history in my birthrelatives
sufficiently early. But it goes on beyond me. One of my daughters is
going to die earlier than necessary of breast cancer because she did not
'qualify' under NHS rules for more frequent screening, which she would
have had if the incidence of breast cancer in my birthfamily had been
known earlier.
This resurrects a problem I have been banging on about for a long time.
It is not covered in adoption legislation or in that concerning donor
gametes. No matter what social theories are held and no matter whether
they are right or wrong, the fact that every cell in our bodies reflects
our real GENETIC ancestry cannot be denied.
There will come a time when genetic liability to diseases will not
require any knowledge of ancestry. It will be 'read' directly off a DNA
sample taken from our own body. That time is a lot longer off than
hyped-up marketers of technology would like to admit.
Historically, roughly the same information was got by knowing a lot of
birthrelatives as persons and knowing enough about their lives to deduce
what diseases 'run in the family'.
What legislators and others cussedly will not recognise is that in the
era of in-depth medical notes and computerised exchange of information
it is NOT necessary for genetic study purposes that a descendant knows
ancestors and collaterals as persons. It is NOT necessary that there be
any contact or even identification. Contact and identification may be
desirable or undesirable for other reasons but they are wholly
irrelevant to genetic studies so long as the genetically relevant
information is available.

It is not entirely unrecognised by government, in the case of adoption, it
is in fact the responsibility of the NHSCR Adoption Section, it is the fact
that that department is so abysmally poor at doing that particular part of
its work and like every other aspect of the Office of National Statistics
responsibility in adoption it's existence seems to remain a secret to those
who need to know, as it never get publicised any way. It is surely that
neglect of responsibility that we should all be 'banging on about'.

Post by Don Moody
It always has been my opinion that adoptees do NOT have an absolute
right to identification and contact with their birthrelatives.

But it is know widely recognised by almost everyone professionally involved
in adoption that adopted people do have a right to the information that will
enable them to make contact with their birth relatives.

Post by Don Moody
They have only a conditional right, and the conditions depend on many things
about the lives of the birthrelatives.

Birth relatives equally have a right to refuse contact and can use the
Prevention of Harassment Act, against anyone who persistently refuses to
take no for an answer.
No guarantees were ever given to birth relatives in the UK that they would
not found by the adoptee they relinquished. Such a guarantee would have been
impossible to make. See http://robin.robin.org/ao

Post by Don Moody
Conversely, what I have always held is that everybody has an absolute right
to genetic information material to the health of themselves and their
descendants.

Unfortunately that is right that the law in England and Wales simply does
give us.

Of course, I had meant to type; that is a right that the law in England and
Wales simply does NOT give us.

Post by Robin Harritt
The government seems intent upon eroding what right we do have by
depriving us of the 'cause of death information' currently available on all
death certificate.

Robin

[Don Moody]

Post by Robin Harritt

Post by Don Moody
Conversely, what I have always held is that everybody has an absolute right to
genetic information material to the health of themselves and their
descendants.

Unfortunately that is right that the law in England and Wales simply does
give us. The government seems intent upon eroding what right we do have by
depriving us of the 'cause of death information' currently available on all
death certificate.

Post by Don Moody
There is nowadays no reason in principle why such genetic information from one
person's medical records should not be transmitted 'blind' to the GP holding
the records of a descendant and be incorporated into that
descendant's medical
records.

Fine as far as living people's records are concerned but it has been my
experience in trying to obtain medical information regarding deceased
relatives, that most medical records are discarded within seven years of
death, sometimes less than that.

Post by Don Moody
It would be expensive, and a difficult management problem, but it is not
impossible in principle. Set against the expense should be the cost of
managing and treating diseases that could have been avoided or ameliorated if
the genetic information had been available.

Do you think it really would be that difficult given the amount of
computerisation that has already taken place within the NHS?

Yes. For two reasons. First and foremost the government record on
large-scale information management and computer procurement is
appalling. Think 1901 Census for a start.

Second there is a big cultural change required in the NHS itself. A few
months back I went to see a nephrology consultant. Test were ordered on
a Wednesday, and the results came back from Chem Path in the same
building, on paper, on the Friday. The nephrology secretary had just
keyboarded the consultant's report, from a dictation tape, when I rang
up. She read the results off the screen. That told me what I (and the
GP) needed to know before our meeting the following Thursday. I asked
the secretary when the report would get 'officially' to the GP. 'It
takes 10-14 days, depending on postal delays.' That was a distance of 12
miles. The madness of all this? Chem Path, nephrology, and GP are all on
the same intranet. Chem Path could have pressed a 'send' button instead
of a 'print' and put the thing directly onto the nephrologist's
computer. He could have added his comments and pressed 'send' again. He
didn't even need to pick up a dictating machine or wait for his
secretary to catch up with her backlog. The secretary, having done an
entirely unnecessary re-keyboarding, didn't need to print and post.
Again she only had to hit 'send' to get it on my GPs computer. I happen
to know all of chemical pathologist, nephrologist, secretary and general
practitioner. They are all nice, decent, intelligent people. And not one
of them could see the sheer lunacy of the procedure they were following.
Or that I could have got the results through faster almost 40 years ago
in darkest Africa by using a messenger with a forked stick.

Don

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Don Moody

Post by Robin Harritt

Post by Don Moody
Conversely, what I have always held is that everybody has an absolute right to
genetic information material to the health of themselves and their
descendants.

Unfortunately that is right that the law in England and Wales simply does
give us. The government seems intent upon eroding what right we do have by
depriving us of the 'cause of death information' currently available on all
death certificate.

Post by Don Moody
There is nowadays no reason in principle why such genetic information from one
person's medical records should not be transmitted 'blind' to the GP holding
the records of a descendant and be incorporated into that
descendant's medical
records.

Fine as far as living people's records are concerned but it has been my
experience in trying to obtain medical information regarding deceased
relatives, that most medical records are discarded within seven years of
death, sometimes less than that.

Post by Don Moody
It would be expensive, and a difficult management problem, but it is not
impossible in principle. Set against the expense should be the cost of
managing and treating diseases that could have been avoided or ameliorated if
the genetic information had been available.

Do you think it really would be that difficult given the amount of
computerisation that has already taken place within the NHS?

Yes. For two reasons. First and foremost the government record on
large-scale information management and computer procurement is
appalling. Think 1901 Census for a start.
Second there is a big cultural change required in the NHS itself. A few
months back I went to see a nephrology consultant. Test were ordered on
a Wednesday, and the results came back from Chem Path in the same
building, on paper, on the Friday. The nephrology secretary had just
keyboarded the consultant's report, from a dictation tape, when I rang
up. She read the results off the screen. That told me what I (and the
GP) needed to know before our meeting the following Thursday. I asked
the secretary when the report would get 'officially' to the GP. 'It
takes 10-14 days, depending on postal delays.' That was a distance of 12
miles. The madness of all this? Chem Path, nephrology, and GP are all on
the same intranet. Chem Path could have pressed a 'send' button instead
of a 'print' and put the thing directly onto the nephrologist's
computer. He could have added his comments and pressed 'send' again. He
didn't even need to pick up a dictating machine or wait for his
secretary to catch up with her backlog. The secretary, having done an
entirely unnecessary re-keyboarding, didn't need to print and post.
Again she only had to hit 'send' to get it on my GPs computer. I happen
to know all of chemical pathologist, nephrologist, secretary and general
practitioner. They are all nice, decent, intelligent people. And not one
of them could see the sheer lunacy of the procedure they were following.
Or that I could have got the results through faster almost 40 years ago
in darkest Africa by using a messenger with a forked stick.

That¹s every bit as big a balls-up as we get locally here in the one star
Princess Alexandra Hospital Trust area (Harlow/Bishop's Stortford/Epping),
but I was referring to the central records that are kept, of which patient
is registered with which GP, which is all that is essential to find one
person's GP so that s/he can send relevant information to another patient's
GP. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Source.asp?vlnk=1317&More=Y

My understanding is that exchange of such information is supposed to happen
already when requested in adoption cases and is the responsibility of NHSCR
Adoption Section, but few medical practitioners or social workers seem to
know anything about it.

Robin

[Don Moody]

Post by Robin Harritt
That¹s every bit as big a balls-up as we get locally here in the one star
Princess Alexandra Hospital Trust area (Harlow/Bishop's Stortford/Epping),
but I was referring to the central records that are kept, of which patient
is registered with which GP, which is all that is essential to find one
person's GP so that s/he can send relevant information to another patient's
GP. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Source.asp?vlnk=1317&More=Y

My point was no more and no less than that medics as a whole are still
culturally trapped in sending and accepting information on bits of paper
signed by registered medical practitioners. For a nationwide system to
operate they'd have to change their culture, and accept for patient
records what they and their kids accept on their home computer:
electronic exchange.

Post by Robin Harritt
My understanding is that exchange of such information is supposed to happen
already when requested in adoption cases and is the responsibility of NHSCR
Adoption Section, but few medical practitioners or social workers seem to
know anything about it.

I've forgotten how long ago I made up my response to the first medic I
find who knows about the Adoption Section. I haven't found him or her
yet. When (s)he volunteers a remark about the Section I'll say 'So
you're adopted too; and you have a potentially genetically transmitted
disease.' It appears that being part of the problem is the sole
qualification for knowing the answer.

Don

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Don Moody

Post by Robin Harritt
That¹s every bit as big a balls-up as we get locally here in the one star
Princess Alexandra Hospital Trust area (Harlow/Bishop's Stortford/Epping),
but I was referring to the central records that are kept, of which patient
is registered with which GP, which is all that is essential to find one
person's GP so that s/he can send relevant information to another patient's
GP. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Source.asp?vlnk=1317&More=Y

My point was no more and no less than that medics as a whole are still
culturally trapped in sending and accepting information on bits of paper
signed by registered medical practitioners. For a nationwide system to
operate they'd have to change their culture, and accept for patient
electronic exchange.

Post by Robin Harritt
My understanding is that exchange of such information is supposed to happen
already when requested in adoption cases and is the responsibility of NHSCR
Adoption Section, but few medical practitioners or social workers seem to
know anything about it.

I've forgotten how long ago I made up my response to the first medic I
find who knows about the Adoption Section. I haven't found him or her
yet. When (s)he volunteers a remark about the Section I'll say 'So
you're adopted too; and you have a potentially genetically transmitted
disease.' It appears that being part of the problem is the sole
qualification for knowing the answer.
Don

I never meant to imply Don, that there was any more or less to your point.
But I still think it is a mater of there not being the will to do anything
about it. Rather than a lack of infrastructure to achieve it. You have to
remember that it has become crystal clear in the recent parliamentary
deliberations on both adoption and civil registration that some are far more
concerned with a right to privacy and avoidance of the embarrassment that
they think adoption might cause, than they are with a right to life.

Robin

[Don Moody]

Post by Robin Harritt
. You have to
remember that it has become crystal clear in the recent parliamentary
deliberations on both adoption and civil registration that some are far more
concerned with a right to privacy and avoidance of the embarrassment that
they think adoption might cause, than they are with a right to life.

I'm a strong supporter of the right to privacy but, like post-adoption
contact, I think it is a conditional right not an absolute right.

For example, if I find out privately that you have a non-infectious
disease which doesn't affect bystanders, then I believe I can never
breach your privacy by disclosing that to anyone else. On the other
hand, if I found out privately that you were a carrier of bubonic
plague, then I'll disclose it to every relevant party whether you like
it or not. You have no right of privacy in such circumstances.

The problem always arises when some bureaucrat tries to fossilise in law
the conditions of a conditional right; and little hitlers in bureaucracy
then blindly apply the law regardless of the facts. Human affairs can be
set out in a few simple principles but they cannot be set out in any
number of rigid prescriptions. Circumstances alter cases. That is why in
some human affairs 'enabling' legislation is all that can be done and
regulations should be avoided. That leaves it to intelligent people 'on
the ground' to figure out the justice of a particular situation, which
is an entirely different pastime than 'complying with the law.'

I believe, very strongly, that post-adoption is one such area of human
affairs where having detailed law and regulations is one mistake, and
any one person screaming about 'my rights regardless' is an even worse
mistake. The range of complexities is vast, and the difference from case
to case as to what is 'fair' is enormous. Hence the value of derogating
many decisions to intelligent and moral intermediaries who apply
relatively few principles to find the best (often, the least worse)
compromise between a whole bundle of conditional rights and a few
absolute rights.

Don

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Don Moody

Post by Robin Harritt
. You have to
remember that it has become crystal clear in the recent parliamentary
deliberations on both adoption and civil registration that some are far more
concerned with a right to privacy and avoidance of the embarrassment that
they think adoption might cause, than they are with a right to life.

I'm a strong supporter of the right to privacy but,

So am I, but the governments recent changes to the Electoral Register and
proposed changes to Civil Registration will ultimately erode privacy not
protect it. There will be all manner of situations where people have to be
contacted on mass in order to find the person sought. The government have no
idea what most of us regard as our privacy, it did have, it would not have
recently tried to introduce legislation that would have given any little
jobsworth in the local authority the right to intercept our e-mail.

Post by Don Moody
like post-adoption contact, I think it is a conditional right not an absolute
right.
For example, if I find out privately that you have a non-infectious
disease which doesn't affect bystanders, then I believe I can never
breach your privacy by disclosing that to anyone else. On the other
hand, if I found out privately that you were a carrier of bubonic
plague, then I'll disclose it to every relevant party whether you like
it or not. You have no right of privacy in such circumstances.
The problem always arises when some bureaucrat tries to fossilise in law
the conditions of a conditional right; and little hitlers in bureaucracy
then blindly apply the law regardless of the facts. Human affairs can be
set out in a few simple principles but they cannot be set out in any
number of rigid prescriptions. Circumstances alter cases. That is why in
some human affairs 'enabling' legislation is all that can be done and
regulations should be avoided. That leaves it to intelligent people 'on
the ground' to figure out the justice of a particular situation, which
is an entirely different pastime than 'complying with the law.'
I believe, very strongly, that post-adoption is one such area of human
affairs where having detailed law and regulations is one mistake, and
any one person screaming about 'my rights regardless' is an even worse
mistake. The range of complexities is vast, and the difference from case
to case as to what is 'fair' is enormous. Hence the value of derogating
many decisions to intelligent and moral intermediaries who apply
relatively few principles to find the best (often, the least worse)
compromise between a whole bundle of conditional rights and a few
absolute rights.

It would be nice if that were what actually happened, but of course it never
is, as most intermediary work in adoption is carried out by local government
employed social workers or by social workers employed by agencies contracted
by local authorities. There are no 'intelligent and moral intermediaries who
apply relatively few principles to find the best (often, the least worse)
compromise between a whole bundle of conditional rights and a few absolute
rights'. Most LA social workers are far to deeply involved in the exercise
of personal and corporate arse covering to be able to use their own
initiative in the way necessary to fulfil what you describe. All the signs
are that that will get worse not better with the next round of legislation.
The only adoption social workers that I have been lucky enough to meet who
operated in any way similar to what you describe, were always about to
retire within the next six months or about to move to another post. At the
moment for most adoptees and birth relatives, unless they are lucky enough
to find someone like that, the best course of action is to pursue the search
for themselves, then find an intermediary who works independently of any
agency that follows the current BAAF arse covering guidelines.

Robin

[Don Moody]

Post by Robin Harritt

Post by Don Moody
Hence the value of derogating
many decisions to intelligent and moral intermediaries who apply
relatively few principles to find the best (often, the least worse)
compromise between a whole bundle of conditional rights and a few
absolute rights.

It would be nice if that were what actually happened, but of course it never
is, as most intermediary work in adoption is carried out by local government
employed social workers or by social workers employed by agencies contracted
by local authorities. There are no 'intelligent and moral intermediaries who
apply relatively few principles to find the best (often, the least worse)
compromise between a whole bundle of conditional rights and a few absolute
rights'. Most LA social workers are far to deeply involved in the exercise
of personal and corporate arse covering to be able to use their own
initiative in the way necessary to fulfil what you describe. All the signs
are that that will get worse not better with the next round of legislation.
The only adoption social workers that I have been lucky enough to meet who
operated in any way similar to what you describe, were always about to
retire within the next six months or about to move to another post. At the
moment for most adoptees and birth relatives, unless they are lucky enough
to find someone like that, the best course of action is to pursue the search
for themselves, then find an intermediary who works independently of any
agency that follows the current BAAF arse covering guidelines.

Beautiful illustration of my point that the complexities of
post-adoption are such that they simply cannot be sensibly handled under
any system of prescriptive rules. Yet they can be superbly handled, even
by the self-same 'unsuccessful' handlers, if those handlers are
empowered to chuck away the voluminous rule book and apply human decency
and commonsense.

My cousin twice removed who was given up for adoption in much the same
circumstances as me was lost to the family for 18 years. His
grandparents were systematically lied to by a local government
department, even as to the country of adoption. When the lad's
birthmother was a week or so off dying, his birthgrandmother got lucky.
She was put in touch with a senior social worker who happened to be just
off retirement. That social worker got hold of the file and sorted the
whole mess in less than a morning and with two telephone calls. The
social worker said at the time that she was breaking rules to do so, but
so what. By the time the system lumbered into action, she'd be living on
her pension and would have nothing to lose. She said in advance that if
there was an enquiry she would stick to the position that what she did
was 'right' and followed the intention of the legislation as it then
stood. Regulations and procedures themselves had no independent value.
The social worker also told the grandmother that if the approach had
been made two years earlier, she would have stuck to the rules in order
to protect her own pension.

Don

[Carol Clements]

Post by Robin Harritt
Fine as far as living people's records are concerned but it has been my
experience in trying to obtain medical information regarding deceased
relatives, that most medical records are discarded within seven years of
death, sometimes less than that.

In the case of my deceased father, the records of the circumstances
preceding his death were still obtainable from the nursing home in
which he died - FORTY TWO YEARS later. My sister was able to obtain
information about why he was hospitalised in the first place (brain
biopsy) and what caused his death (cerebral haemorrhage, which we
knew), and many other details, including who was listed as his next of
kin (our mother, although she was not his wife), and the fact that he
was married but 'living apart' from his wife. This information was
all given over the telephone very recently. I was amazed that they
still had this information after so long. However, details on his
interrment (or cremation if that was the case) are proving difficult
to find.

Sorry for the interjection, I'm finding this discussion interesting.

Carol

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Carol Clements

Post by Robin Harritt
Fine as far as living people's records are concerned but it has been my
experience in trying to obtain medical information regarding deceased
relatives, that most medical records are discarded within seven years of
death, sometimes less than that.

In the case of my deceased father, the records of the circumstances
preceding his death were still obtainable from the nursing home in
which he died - FORTY TWO YEARS later. My sister was able to obtain
information about why he was hospitalised in the first place (brain
biopsy) and what caused his death (cerebral haemorrhage, which we
knew), and many other details, including who was listed as his next of
kin (our mother, although she was not his wife), and the fact that he
was married but 'living apart' from his wife. This information was
all given over the telephone very recently. I was amazed that they
still had this information after so long. However, details on his
interrment (or cremation if that was the case) are proving difficult
to find.
Sorry for the interjection, I'm finding this discussion interesting.
Carol

Umm...different cases, different places. According to Rochford General
Hospital my maternity records were destroyed many years ago (usually
majority + 3 years as the latest date that anyone could bring a medical
negligence claim). However, my brother and sister's maternity records are
still intact at another hospital over 50 years after their births.

Robin

[Ray Ingham]

Post by Robin Harritt

Post by Carol Clements

Post by Robin Harritt
Fine as far as living people's records are concerned but it has been my
experience in trying to obtain medical information regarding deceased
relatives, that most medical records are discarded within seven years of
death, sometimes less than that.

In the case of my deceased father, the records of the circumstances
preceding his death were still obtainable from the nursing home in
which he died - FORTY TWO YEARS later. My sister was able to obtain
information about why he was hospitalised in the first place (brain
biopsy) and what caused his death (cerebral haemorrhage, which we
knew), and many other details, including who was listed as his next of
kin (our mother, although she was not his wife), and the fact that he
was married but 'living apart' from his wife. This information was
all given over the telephone very recently. I was amazed that they
still had this information after so long. However, details on his
interrment (or cremation if that was the case) are proving difficult
to find.
Sorry for the interjection, I'm finding this discussion interesting.
Carol

Umm...different cases, different places. According to Rochford General
Hospital my maternity records were destroyed many years ago (usually
majority + 3 years as the latest date that anyone could bring a medical
negligence claim). However, my brother and sister's maternity records are
still intact at another hospital over 50 years after their births.
Robin

I got the employment record for my father fifty four years later. I got it
from the company he worked for. This was how I found out his date of birth.
Ray

[Alisonjones1965]

Post by Carol Clements
PS Where is everybody?

Hi Carol, Still here but not posting much as my life is very busy and
complicated at present - major problems with my teenage daughter Had to do some
tough love myself recently and insist she was admitted to a specialist unit and
refused to have her home for 6 weeks until we saw progress. It broke my heart
leaving her after visits and hearing her beg to come home. I am also
undergoing intensive treatment for severe primary lymphoedema.(Very useful
knowing my medical history now as I know better what to expect as it is a
genetic condition.)

I'm so glad you have had a ball meeting your sisters. It does feel great
doesn't it?

Robin - Glad you feel better post op. I have a dodgy gallbladder too but was
unable to have op. I think there may be a genetic element as my Mum, 2 Aunts
and my Grandma have all had it.

Don - Hang on in there with your relatives. Tough love is hard, but indulgence
is worse for everyone concerned. If anyone has the steel to sort things out,
you certainly do!

Alison

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Alisonjones1965

Post by Carol Clements
PS Where is everybody?

Hi Carol, Still here but not posting much as my life is very busy and
complicated at present - major problems with my teenage daughter Had to do
some tough love myself recently and insist she was admitted to a specialist
unit and refused to have her home for 6 weeks until we saw progress. It broke
my heart leaving her after visits and hearing her beg to come home. I am
also undergoing intensive treatment for severe primary lymphoedema.(Very
useful knowing my medical history now as I know better what to expect as it is
a genetic condition.)

So sorry to hear both those pieces of news, do hope they get you sorted out
soon I only really know of lymphoedema as secondary condition, very
uncomfortable.

Post by Alisonjones1965
I'm so glad you have had a ball meeting your sisters. It does feel great
doesn't it?
Robin - Glad you feel better post op. I have a dodgy gallbladder too but was
unable to have op. I think there may be a genetic element as my Mum, 2 Aunts
and my Grandma have all had it.

Thanks. For me the gallstones were almost certainly a by-product of Crohn's
disease. I would hate for any of the children in my birth family to have
undiagnosed childhood Crohn's and suffer the developmental problems that
usually go with Crohn's in early adolescence. Crohn's does not have a simple
Mendalian heritability, but susceptibility is definitely inherited,
associated with HLA-B27 (a histocompatibility antigen) which is marker for a
number of autoimmune diseases, some of which my birth relatives do already
have. Not the sort of thing that would necessarily be spotted just from
death certificates alone though. It is the sort of thing where there would
be definite advantage with the present state of knowledge, of actually
knowing your birth relatives and a little about their general health to
point your physician towards a more rapid correct diagnosis.


Robin

[Don Moody]

Post by Robin Harritt
It is the sort of thing where there would
be definite advantage with the present state of knowledge, of actually
knowing your birth relatives and a little about their general health to
point your physician towards a more rapid correct diagnosis.

No. You definitely do NOT need to 'know your birth relatives' if that
implies knowing them as people. Your GP definitely does need to know the
medical histories of your birthrelatives (much wider than birthmother
and birthfather) to get 'a more rapid correct diagnosis'.

Furthermore, in terms of 'counting' who has had what you also have to be
aware of the medical history was truncated in some unexpected way. A
study of familial onset of Type II diabetes at age 45 and upwards can
have its statistical basis mangled if it is not realised that the three
uncles who died without developing diabetes were all killed under the
age of 25 as soldiers at war.

Properly informed genetics, and proper use of statistics in genetic
studies, are not easy or quick. Or cheap.

Don

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Don Moody

It is the sort of thing where there would be definite advantage with the
present state of knowledge, of actually knowing your birth relatives and a
little about their general health to point your physician towards a more
rapid correct diagnosis.

No. You definitely do NOT need to 'know your birth relatives' if that
implies knowing them as people. Your GP definitely does need to know the
medical histories of your birthrelatives (much wider than birthmother
and birthfather) to get 'a more rapid correct diagnosis'.

In my experience anecdotal evidence of various non fatal signs and symptoms
of various medical conditions of since deceased birth relatives has been
very important. That simply would not have been available without direct
access to members of my birth family.

I believe for that reason as well as for many others, that every adopted
person must have right to know his or her birth family. What no one can have
a *right* to is a relationship with any or all of their birth family, that
has to be a matter of negotiation and acceptance of others wishes and not a
matter for legislation which gets in the way of a proper exchange of
information. Not every important fact is contained in a GP's medical records
somewhere. See the 'long Q syndrome' example that I got raised in the
Standing Committee on the Adoption and Children Bill.

Post by Don Moody
Furthermore, in terms of 'counting' who has had what you also have to be
aware of the medical history was truncated in some unexpected way.

All the more reason why anecdotal material from those who remember them can
be very important, and that is usually only accessible through contact.

Post by Don Moody
A study of familial onset of Type II diabetes at age 45 and upwards can have
its statistical basis mangled if it is not realised that the three uncles who
died without developing diabetes were all killed under the age of 25 as
soldiers at war.
Properly informed genetics, and proper use of statistics in genetic
studies, are not easy or quick. Or cheap.

Undoubtedly true, but I'm not sure that it is relevant to what we are
discussing, which is family medical history in situations where the
individual who has health concerns has been totally severed in every way
from the rest of his or her natural family by one of the most idiotic laws
ever passed in this country.

Robin

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Robin Harritt

Post by Don Moody

It is the sort of thing where there would be definite advantage with the
present state of knowledge, of actually knowing your birth relatives and a
little about their general health to point your physician towards a more
rapid correct diagnosis.

No. You definitely do NOT need to 'know your birth relatives' if that
implies knowing them as people. Your GP definitely does need to know the
medical histories of your birthrelatives (much wider than birthmother
and birthfather) to get 'a more rapid correct diagnosis'.

In my experience anecdotal evidence of various non fatal signs and symptoms
of various medical conditions of since deceased birth relatives has been
very important. That simply would not have been available without direct
access to members of my birth family.
I believe for that reason as well as for many others, that every adopted
person must have right to know his or her birth family. What no one can have
a *right* to is a relationship with any or all of their birth family, that
has to be a matter of negotiation and acceptance of others wishes and not a
matter for legislation which gets in the way of a proper exchange of
information. Not every important fact is contained in a GP's medical records
somewhere. See the 'long Q syndrome'

'long QT syndrome' I should say.

Post by Robin Harritt
example that I got raised in the Standing Committee on the Adoption and
Children Bill.

Post by Don Moody
Furthermore, in terms of 'counting' who has had what you also have to be
aware of the medical history was truncated in some unexpected way.

All the more reason why anecdotal material from those who remember them can
be very important, and that is usually only accessible through contact.

Post by Don Moody
A study of familial onset of Type II diabetes at age 45 and upwards can have
its statistical basis mangled if it is not realised that the three uncles who
died without developing diabetes were all killed under the age of 25 as
soldiers at war.
Properly informed genetics, and proper use of statistics in genetic
studies, are not easy or quick. Or cheap.

Undoubtedly true, but I'm not sure that it is relevant to what we are
discussing, which is family medical history in situations where the
individual who has health concerns has been totally severed in every way
from the rest of his or her natural family by one of the most idiotic laws
ever passed in this country.
Robin

[y***@search26.com]

http://www.ardice.com/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Society_and_Culture/Politics/Issues/Adoption_and_Children_Bill/