Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

To think it would be kinder to sterilise Baby P's mother?

(143 Posts)
Nokidsnoproblem Sun 13-Oct-13 11:16:59

I've been thinking about this since the other day. On the Baby P thread many poster's were saying that if Tracy were to get pregnant again then the baby would be removed at birth.

However I cannot help but think that the more sensible option would be to not release her until she agrees to be sterilised?

This may seem cruel, however she has unfortunately proven that she is not capable of looking after a child. Any child she brings into the world will be taken into the care system, where there are already thousands of children needing a home.

Unfortunately there is no perfect way to deal with a case like this. You will get criticism whatever your opinion. However I feel that this would be the kindest option for all involved.

motherinferior Sun 13-Oct-13 11:20:10

No, because once you approve the principle of forcible sterilisation you are opening up a whole new set of issues.

Also, I don't agree with state-sanctioned mutilation of anyone, whatever they have done.

dopeysheep Sun 13-Oct-13 11:23:52

I realise there are lots of reasons why not but I agree. Also sterilise the men involved as well.
Not that it would stop them abusing other children mind you. But my gut instinct is to agree.

Nokidsnoproblem Sun 13-Oct-13 11:24:25

I'm not saying that she should be forced. I am saying that she shouldn't be released until she agrees to be sterilised.

motherinferior Sun 13-Oct-13 11:24:59

That's effectively forcing her.

stargirl1701 Sun 13-Oct-13 11:26:09

YABU. That's too akin to Nazism.

AuntieStella Sun 13-Oct-13 11:26:53

Wasn't there a thread about this the day the news of her release broke?

FFIW,

a) I do not think anyone, unless mentally incompetent, should ever be forced into a medical procedure, and
b) how do we know she hasn't made this choice for herself anyhow? We don't, because it's none of our business.
c) the level of monitoring and support she will receive from probation services and others mean that any PG would be obvious to those who will be responsible for checking the welfare of her (actual and potential) DC.

reelingintheyears Sun 13-Oct-13 11:27:31

No, motherinferior said why.

LaGuardia Sun 13-Oct-13 11:27:46

Quite frankly, it is none of our business.

KirjavaTheCorpse Sun 13-Oct-13 11:27:54

The difference being? hmm

Lots of people have been proven to be incapable of looking after children. It is unfortunate. That is what the care system is there for.

D0G Sun 13-Oct-13 11:30:29

I would not want to live in a society that enforced sterilisation. Imagine the box of worms it'd open. Next it'd be people who can't afford children being sterilised in order to receive benefits , people with a low iq etc.

No way.

TheMoonInJune Sun 13-Oct-13 11:33:02

I don't understand, personally, how forcibly removing a baby at birth from its mother is any more or less brutal than enforced sterilisation to be honest.

Awful, but in this instance, a necessary awful made so by behaviour that was awful.

It is rather different to sterilising random women!

hakunamatata8 Sun 13-Oct-13 11:33:51

I think to do so would be a dangerous road to travel.

ConfusedandDazed24 Sun 13-Oct-13 11:34:48

I think it's a tricky one. On the one hand, absolutely not. As a PP said, where would it stop? And who gets to decide who has to have it done? It doesn't seem like the right thing for a civilised society to do. However, imagine being that child. Imagine growing up knowing that your mother chose to have you despite knowing you'd go straight into care? I get that there are loads of amazing foster caters/adoptive parents who would love and cherish the little one, but what if they were one of the unlucky ones who ended up stuck in the care system? It's that bit that makes me think twice.

candycoatedwaterdrops Sun 13-Oct-13 11:36:18

YABU. It's a slippery slope to Nazism.

hakunamatata8 Sun 13-Oct-13 11:36:53

America has done this historically, including sterilising women without their knowledge. Their focus being on women from ethnic minorities predominantly black women. Also China recently forced a woman to have an abortion at seven months pregnant due to their one child policy. Be very careful what you wish for.

Alisvolatpropiis Sun 13-Oct-13 11:36:54

People can be and have been forcibly sterilised in the UK in recent years.

It's a controversial issue OP but I don't disagree with you in this instance. Though the same should go for the men involved also.

Lovecat Sun 13-Oct-13 11:46:53

I don't agree, but I am left feeling uneasy at the thought that she may well go on getting pregnant and having the subsequent children removed.

A friend of a friend has adopted a little girl who is the birth daughter of a drug-using prostitute. This was the fourth child she'd had removed from her. The SS got in touch with the FOAF recently to say the birth mother was pregnant again and did she want a sibling for her adopted daughter because they were going to take this child from her at birth as well.

I have to say that appalled me. I know, logically, that the babies should not have to grow up in that environment and that by putting them up for adoption they would hopefully have a better quality of life, but I do wonder what is being done to support the birth mother. Before anyone accuses me of SS-bashing, I'm sure that they have tried to help the birth mother before now, but the fairly casual way they offered this woman her as yet unborn child makes it appear they've given up on her/she's not willing/able to change her circumstances. It seems she keeps getting pregnant in the hope of being allowed to keep one, which is heartbreaking.

I haven't read the Baby P mother story so I don't know what the circumstances are here (is she pregnant or is this hypothetical?). If she's helped and supported so that she IS capable of looking after a child, why would she need to be sterilised/have subsequent children removed? Does nobody believe in rehabilitation or redemption?

Big, no child removed under these circumstances will "get stuck in the care system".

In every case if adoption, the judge will add comments, as to whether the parent has potential to ever keep another child, even sibling contact is totally planned (or not) for. There are no loose ends. If she were to become pregnant and decides to give birth, potential adoptive parents will be "earmarked" before birth. It will all happen very quickly.

TC is one of many women who have these issues going on, she just happens to be in the spotlight.

What next? Any disabled woman who may not be able to look after a child, is forced to get sterilised? If not, why not?

There will be a father involved and another half if a family, sometimes women who have gone through the system sleep with decent men, who then get residency.

TC won't keep another baby, but I have known women who have allowed their baby's to be killed and disabled in the past, go on to parent well.

Baby P is one case, but dozens happen every week, some Mums involved are under 20, it would be very wrong to think that all of these women cannot turn their lives around.

PlayedThePinkOboe Sun 13-Oct-13 11:48:40

Oh do give over with the "Nazism" hmm - the Nazis sterilised based upon race or disability.

Baby P's mother is a child-abusing cunt.

The two are not the same.

OP, YANBU- and I think we should be part of a society which says "you are not a good enough person to raise children".

ILetHimKeep20Quid Sun 13-Oct-13 11:50:44

You already are part of a society that says that.

Nancy66 Sun 13-Oct-13 11:55:46

There was a case in America about 3 years ago of a woman (white, mother of 9, on welfare) who was forcibly sterilized.

Tessa Savicki if you want to google. Big news at the time.

Lovecat, I doubt that she is getting pregnant in the hope that she will be allowed to keep one ( having worked and had addicts in the family).

The Mother will have full support and long term contraception will of been offered, she probably has lost the ability to make rational decisions, but as it is because if drugs, she hasn't lost capacity, so cannot be forced into a decision.

SS haven't given up on her, she isn't their client, the child is. Drug charities will be working with her, as will re-Han services, she will be rejecting that help.

Some people cannot be supported to be parents, for a variety of reasons, whilst I agree that MH services are a joke and massive investment is needed, we cannot allow the 5 children murdered every week by their caregivers and the many that are injured and permanently disabled ( these rarely make the news) to rise in numbers.

Depends on whether you think baby's are worth sacrificing to give a parent chances, or children have their Mental and physical Health compromised whilst patents sort themselves out.

Quite simply, which one in the equation is more important?

Branleuse Sun 13-Oct-13 11:57:31

there are nopt a shortage of homes for babies. There are for older children

hakunamatata8 Sun 13-Oct-13 11:59:15

No decision made by children's services is done casually, i know this first hand. Yes a drug addicted mother may have the capacity to change. However her time scales may be different to the childs. The social workers make decisions based on this. Leaving a child with a mother who may change can be damaging to the child within that time and this is what social services weigh up. Before your friend was offered this other sibling, there would have been various meetings and assessments on what would be best for the unborn child. Please dont spread misinformation.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now