A woman with mental age of 9 forced to have abortion

PouncerDarling don't be disingenuous. The two things are the same. Consent can't be given in one case, therefore, according to your logic, that woman should be forced to continue with the pregnancy and hang the consequences to her. That is not only discriminatory, it's cruel.

...oh yes, and they don't understand that the lawyer representing her is there to do that job, and that what they say isn't necessarily what they think.

@MrsMiggins37 It's really pretty similar to a late abortion. I linked something up thread.

it should be able to force young women without capacity to have late abortions

So it would've been ok if she was only 8 weeks?

Earlier I posted a link to a factual description of the risks of late abortion which showed the mortality rate to be slightly lower than that of giving birth in the US.

People aren’t responding to it because they don’t know what it’s relevancy is. Aside from showing risk is less with abortion, the court was not making an assessment of risk of death between an abortion in her second term and childbirth.

The mortality rates don’t include women like my friend with severe PTSD from nearly dying during childbirth, or the severe physical and psychological issues by friend who is fecally incontinent and has a colostomy bag.

Your mortality rates don’t provide an assessment of the psychological harm to this woman of dealing with a growing pregnancy when she lacks capacity to understand what is happening, of feeling her body go into labour (and knowing what to do), of going through childbirth and having to respond to instructions, of dealing with lochia, hormone drops (with a mood disorder) and either seeing her baby removed or being removed herself. It does not account for what adjustments may be necessary in her medications to prevent harm to a fetus, that may cause harm to her.

Your mortality stats don’t matter because it was never about the risk of mortality to her.

@Grapefruits
Clearly there are some people who haven't understood. They're still blaming 'the state', they're still not understanding the concept of an independent judiciary, and they're still not understanding that the Court of Protection is ONLY concerned with the vulnerable adult they've been asked to ajudicate about.

You might have got it, but plenty haven't. The conspiracy theorising is simply ridiculous. The Court of protection couldn't give a damn about eugenics or world over-population, ffs.

And it's not just her solicitor who was arguing her case, her mother and social worker both felt that this decision was not in her best interests. Her social worker did not agree with this decision. Think about that.

I question the state's ability to assess women and I question why women don't have more resources so they can keep their babies

One of the considerations in this case could've (very likely) been the fact that the woman's wish to give birth was conditional . Conditional on her getting to keep her baby,and she was unable to understand or accept that that would not happen. You can't how leaving her carry on wth the pregnancy and give birth under such a delusion would be cruel and harmful?

They understand what the court of protection is for but they dont agree it should be able to force young women without capacity to have late abortions unless there is a serious risk to their health.

But pregnancy and childbirth are a serious risk to health!

Those two things are not the same because of the major issue of consent. You cannot gain this woman's consent for a termination, therefore you do not force one upon her. Consent is everything when it comes to a termination. You do not forcibly remove a foetus from an unwilling woman.

@saraclara people have read the posts and understood but they don't agree.

They understand what the court of protection is for but they dont agree it should be able to force young women without capacity to have late abortions unless there is a serious risk to their health.

I guess it is frustrating when you know you are right but other people just don't agree with you.....

Like PPs I am dubious of claims that the court system has her best interests at heart, which is assumed here. We don’t have the full facts of the case, but I think this base assumption is faulty.

We are filling in lack of details with our own biases I think

It's also shocking how little understanding some people have of our legal and political systems, and the relationship between them.

Quite. And not only this, a lack of self-awareness, so that they think they can spout their ill-informed uneducated bilge as fact with impunity.

I would have more respect for some people if they stopped trying to dress this up as protection and just admitted they want forced sterilisation, eugenics, and population control.

ODFOD

It's SO frustrating.

It's also shocking how little understanding some people have of our legal and political systems, and the relationship between them.

You don't see the difference in harm between an abortion you consented to and one you didn't?

You don't see the difference between a woman who has mental health issues but does have the capacity to consent choosing to end a pregnancy because continuing would have a detrimental effect on her mental health, and a woman who also has mental health issues but no capacity to consent being forced to continue despite the detrimental effects it will cause her?

Have a think about it. I'll wait.

We have evolved procedures with regard to capacity and the safeguarding of vulnerable adults in the UK. The system is not fallible but it ensures that the lives and wellbeing of those vulnerable people are not hijacked to their detriment by ideologues with an agenda.

Many of the posts on this demonstrate the need for the court of protection in the first place!

The young woman in this case lacks capacity and is therefore a vulnerable adult....She is a living human being with rights enshrined in law and, where she lacks capacity to exercise those rights, the CoP steps in to protect her and her individually, with no respect to any political agenda.

She is the only concern for the court. Her best interests are the only consideration

Thank you lang. There are similar posts spelling out the facts of the system on every page, I think. But over and over, people just aren't reading them. It's SO frustrating.

Also there are still people who believe that families always act in their offspring's best interests. When we know that that isn't always the case. So every vulnerable adult needs this protection, even if they have caring and sensible parents. We can't pick and choose.

You don't see the difference in harm between an abortion you consented to and one you didn't?

Have a think about it. I'll wait.

Carowiththegoodhair the evidence was presented to the judge, for obvious reasons she hasn't shared that with the general public. Of course the evidence would have come from specialists, they don't just ask any random person to give evidence in court cases of any sort, let alone one that is as complex and sensitive as this one. You are supposed to be a journalist, you must know this.

@BetrandRussell if the the client doesn't have capacity and everything is supposed to be being done in their best interests how will their solicitor know what to argue? I had assumed they would just take a viewpoint on what would be best for their client and represent that to the court. Like the advocates (guardians?) that children have in the family court.

The grandmother had a different solicitor.

The serious medical harm is about mental health. Where is the empirical evidence suggesting that the woman’s mental health will be more severely affected by adoption than forced late term abortion?

There is no suggestion by the court that her physiological health is in any way threatened. It’s all about mental health which is a particular specialism. Were the doctors specialists in this field?

Her court appointed solicitor didn't think so either.

You realize a solicitors job is to argue for their client’s interests? They don’t have to agree with them, they don’t have to like them, they definitely do not have to feel what they are arguing is the right position.

It is the job of a solicitor to argue their client’s case- regardless of their own views on the matter. That’s what they are for. Bang to rights murderers have lawyers to try to put the alternative point of view

Not once has it been reported that the baby wouldn’t be safe or the reasons why the mother would have to move out.

The baby's safety once born isn't the issue, but the reasons why it wouldn't be safe if left with the mother have certainly been reported. RTFT.

But there is no evidence of serious medical harm that could occur if the woman gave birth. It’s all about projection and assessment of how she may feel, whichever way you cut it

There is, it would appear, plenty of evidence - unless you think in some way that mental health is unimportant.

I don't think it meets the criteria for her health being in danger.

What is the evidence on which that is based, and what are your medical qualifications for making that assessment, given in particular that medically qualified people who actually know her think differently?

Her court appointed solicitor didn't think so either.

You have no idea what her solicitor thought. As has already been pointed out, the solicitors' views don't come into it - their job is simply to present the arguments on behalf of the patient. They may well firmly believe the opposite of what they say in court, the point is that they have to present the patient's case to the best of their ability.