Giving Birth: Thailand Or England?

[gunnyd]

As to the other issue, it is not a competition as to who is right or wrong, gunnyd has given very valid resaon as to why he thinks there is no proper ICU in the government hospitals he & his wife looked at. They were looking for very specific reasons of which you have not experinced (unless your wife has given birth to very early triplets recently) so there is no need to post in such an agressive manner or to try to prove you are right. You thkn the governemnt hospital is fine, he does not. Leave it at that.

The op of this thread has been given a very wide range of opinions, that you disagree with gunnyd is just that, a difference of opinion.

So tone down your agression & stop with the name calling. That applies to GunnyD as well.

You are absolutely right Boo,

for the B.S.

I am in very dark place right now..

Right now I only wish we were all home

Darrell "GunnyD"

Edited December 22, 2008 by gunnyd

[leftcross]

my wife gave birth at bkk christian with c section for around 36k and that included three days and four nights stay in the hospital. the service was excellent. actually after i paid my bill they telephoned me and said they had charged me a couple of thousand too much and i hadto return for a refund

the reason we chose to go private is because we were given quick, professional care throughout my wife's pregnancy. we did look into going to a thai hospital (chula) but we had to wait ages to be seen and just gave up on the idea.

also there can be a big difference to the scarring on a c section. my wife's scar is very small and hardly noticeable - which was worth the extra money alone (from her point of view).

as gunnyd points out though (so sorry to hear about your situation) there could be problems if things go wrong. that's just one of the drawbacks with being in thailand in general though - no safety net. i would have my next baby in bkk too.

Edited December 23, 2008 by leftcross

[coventry]

pm a mod instead of ranting about your issues on the open forum. But FYI, I can't find any posts of yours from this thread in the trash from the last 2 days so no one has deleted them but if you pm me with when you posted them I can have a look through a bit further.

It is entirely possible you thought you posted them but didn't or a conenction error happened whilst you were posting.

What's wrong with voicing an opinion. It's an open forum. I actually tried 3 times to reply to 'Gunnyd' and 3 times my reply died. I'm not sure if TV has a problem but it has happened to me before on this forum. Thanks for you reply anyway.

[coventry]

As to the other issue, it is not a competition as to who is right or wrong, gunnyd has given very valid resaon as to why he thinks there is no proper ICU in the government hospitals he & his wife looked at. They were looking for very specific reasons of which you have not experinced (unless your wife has given birth to very early triplets recently) so there is no need to post in such an agressive manner or to try to prove you are right. You thkn the governemnt hospital is fine, he does not. Leave it at that.

The op of this thread has been given a very wide range of opinions, that you disagree with gunnyd is just that, a difference of opinion.

So tone down your agression & stop with the name calling. That applies to GunnyD as well.

I understand that it isn't a competition to score points when debating. Boo if you are going to quote 'Gunnyd' please quote him correctly. In his first post he indicated that he went private for 3 reasons, one being "No NICU" in government hospitals. After I corrected him I was called names. He then changed his next statement to "no proper NICU". You state in the above that he said "he & his wife looked at". I can't find that quote in 'Gunnyd' posts.

'Gunnyd', 15 years a nurse, his wife, a physician, choose to have triplets in a 3rd world country knowing full well that triplets carry a 91.03% chance of premeture birth and death. On top of that the triplets would carry a extremely high chance of suffering from Cerebal Palsy if they survive. Sorry to say this, but for being professional people as 'Gunnyd' claims they are I think they didn't act professionally. Being professional people they should first have looked at 'Selective Termination'. Something that is recommended when first confirming triplets. In not doing so puts the other babies at risk and also the mother. Better to have one or two relitively healthy babies than jeapodise all three, plus mother, to live an unhealthy life or premature death. For what ? The lack of professionalism ?

I don't have a difference of opinion with 'Gunnyd'. I just tried to correct him on a point where I know him to be wrong. In doing so I may have helped someone from being mis informed. That's not a bad thing in my opinion.

I'm sorry if my writing comes over aggresive Boo. Please don't blame me as I only write as I was taught. So I blame my English teachers. If you met me personally you would see and think that I'm probably the nicest person you've ever met. I kid you not.

A last word to 'Gunnyd'. "Sir" doesn't bother me. I used it as 'a come' on to see how hateful you are. You bit. In the reply, straight after I refered to "Sir", you wrote "Sir" as "SIR" to enhance it as a way to get at me. You just showed yourself up to be what you are, unprofessional. Have a nice day.

Thanks to TV for allowing free speach and allowing me to finish my reply, As to wether it gets posted ....... ?

Edited December 24, 2008 by coventry

[gunnyd]

Paranoid much coventry?

And giving birth at 6 months was not our choice. We had return plane tickets for early January her 7th month, plenty of time to get home, or so we thought... That's is why they call them EMERGENCIES!!!

I don't know why I am even justifying myself to an obvious cock who doesn't know when to shut his big mouth, such as yourself.

This will be my last post on the subject. Get off of it already. Can you not tell when a subject has been discussed enough? Isn't a Mod making that point sufficient or are you that dense.

Oh and you never said where me and my wife could have had our children properly cared for in Bangkok and not run up a 5-10 million bill for their care.. You don't have an answer do you, I didn't think so. Can't you be respectful of a person that is obviously going through a hard time? Have you no compassion? Maybe you are just so vain that you always have to have the last word and have to be right in your eyes.

Good Day to you SIR.

Edited December 25, 2008 by gunnyd

[Farang0tang]

hi guys, i have read this particular post with interest and i am baffled. my son was born in thailand and has dual citizenship. he is now living in the uk.

i was under the impression that if in the future he decides to have kids then they will be entitled to become a british citizen no matter where the child is born. can someone please clarify this for me. thanks

These are the rules. The bit i have highlighted in Red is, i think, specific to your question.

British Citizenship by descent

'British Citizenship by descent' is the category for the children born outside the UK to a British citizen. Rules for acquiring British citizenship by descent depend on when the person was born.

From 1983

A child born outside the UK on or after 1 January 1983 will automatically acquire British citizenship by descent if either parent is a British citizen otherwise than by descent at the time of the birth.

Only one parent needs to be British otherwise than by descent - either the father or the mother.

An unmarried father cannot pass on British citizenship automatically in the case of children born before 1 July 2006. Although, if the parents marry subsequent to the birth, the child normally will become a British citizen at that point if legitimated by the marriage and the father was eligible to pass on British citizenship.

Failing the above, the child can be registered as British if it would have been British if parents were married and application is made before the child is 18.

Where the parent is a British citizen by descent additional requirements apply. In the most common scenario, the parent is normally expected to have lived in the UK for three years and apply for the child to be registered as a British citizen within 12 months of the birth.

For British nationality purposes, the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are treated as though they were part of the UK.

Before 21 May 2002, British Overseas Territories were treated as 'overseas' for nationality purposes. The exception was the Falkland Islands. For children born on or after 21 May 2002 in a British Overseas Territory (other than the Sovereign Base Areas of Cyprus) there is an entitlement to British citizenship on the same basis as UK-born children.

Children born overseas to parents on Crown Service are normally granted British citizenship otherwise than by descent. In other words, their status is the same as it would have been had they been born in the UK.

In exceptional cases, the Home Secretary may register a child of parents who are British by descent as a British citizen under discretionary provisions, for example if the child is stateless.

With regards to the "normally expected" rule above (highlighted in red), a common scenario would be:

UK Father, Thai Mother living in Thailand, daughter born in Thailand and registered as British citizen (dual nationality).

In the future, the daughter (who is British citizen by descent) becomes pregnant and opts to travel from Thailand to UK to give birth, with the main intention of qualifying the newborn as British citizen.

There must be readers who have followed this route - what was the outcome? Is the "normally expected" enforced?

[MikeyIdea]

Another thread at T/V that aggressive internet farangs high-jack with personal attacks / to protect their ego. Apologies if you don't agree but that is how it looks to me

Mods: Please delete off-topic posts and posts containing personal attacks more rigorously please

Coming down to earth again, I would say that the stress that a girl get from giving birth in another country without the support of her family and also with possible language problems could very well help to trigger quite a few of the issues that hospitals in England supposedly are better to treat

[caf]

The mods are doing the best they can and have made the point quite clearly.

If they delete they are criticised for not allowing free speech; if they let the post stand they are criticised for allowing too much flaming and personal vendettas

Come on guys, lighten up and just stick to the topic and help the op

There are arguments on both sides for going to the uk or not. Importantly what does the wife want, remembering having a child in her own country would also mean that she is in her own language environment

[Boo]

the disagreements on this thread date back a whole year. As caf rightly points out, we can't do what pleases everyone but a year old thread isn't worth getting stressed over.

[TexasRanger]

If you end up going private and you need to use an NICU, will the hospital expect immediate payment of such large sums or is there some way you can pay after the event? I am wondering wether it would be wise to get a large sum together in anticipation of this.

[Mario2008]

They willl want some surity for it, but don't expect immidiate payment on the spot. Contact the hospital you want to use about this.

[Trembly]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, I couldn't be bothered to brave the flames . . .

Medical or financial considerations aside, I would give birth in the UK based on citizenship :

If your child is born outside of UK and then goes on to have a child with someone who is not a UK citizen, your grandchild will only be eligible for UK citizenship if born in the UK.

The Thais have yet to become so defensive. As long as one of the parents holds a Thai passport the child is also eligible for Thai citizenship under any circumstances whatsoever.

Edited July 21, 2011 by Trembly