Page 2 | Dr sterilised a woman without consent given 12 months suspension

Hoardasurass · 2023-12-05T20:47:42+00:00

As the title says he sterilised her without her knowledge or consent the man should be struck off and jailed [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67625473?at_bbc_team=editorial&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_campaign_type=owned&at_format=link&at_link_id=79A97F18-9385-11EE-98C8-CE2555826ABF&at_link_origin=BBCNewsNI&at_link_type=web_link&at_medium=social&at_ptr_name=twitter https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67625473?at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_origin=BBCNewsNI&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_format=link&at_link_type=web_link&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_id=79A97F18-9385-11EE-98C8-CE2555826ABF&at_campaign_type=owned&at_medium=social]]

Boiledbeetle · 05/12/2023 22:21

Are you Fucking kidding me! He knew she didn't want to be sterilized and did it anyway!

Never mind suspension he should be in a prison cell for the next ten years.

That poor woman must have felt completely violated.

Sconehenge · 05/12/2023 21:53

@Hoardasurass I see that it’s not in that article - I read this in the bbc a few days ago and it had mentioned that she had 11 children. I remember very clearly as I double checked and also talked to DP about it while we were getting ready for work. But perhaps they’ve removed it as it’s personal info about her and not relevant for public to know, or perhaps it was incorrect at the time.

I’m not at all saying that this excuses the medical procedure against her will by the way, but if the 11 children thing is true it does make it more of a rare case and maybe there were relevant health factors at play. Aware you’ll have to all take my word for it that the article did say that before which I wouldn’t blame you for not as I am a stranger on the internet!

Totally agree @MargotBamborough no matter the situation it could NOT be an excuse ever and agree @MrsTerryPratchett no need to give male doctors the benefit of the doubt anymore after all we have seen so far of how the profession has treated women historically.

I just mentioned it to potentially reduce fears on here that doctors can generally get away with sterilising women at will and only get 12 months suspension.

But of course now the 11 children thing is gone anyway so I probably just come across like a hive of misinformation!

PurpleBugz · 05/12/2023 21:38

@MargotBamborough

Exactly.

It's a slippery slope. Even if this woman has 11 children and is an unfit parent. Next it could be those in poverty or those who are disabled should be sterilised

MargotBamborough · 05/12/2023 21:28

Sconehenge · 05/12/2023 20:53

I think there must have been mitigating factors not in the article. She had 11 children and they had discussed sterilisation before. Not that that AT ALL excuses it but perhaps there is something behind the scenes in the judgement.

Even if he thought it was not in her best interests to have more children, either in terms of her physical or mental health or her ability to care for them, this was absolutely not his decision to make.

ResisterRex · 05/12/2023 21:09

A related article from 28 Nov

Woman sterilised without her consent had life 'turned upside down' www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67559344

"Dr Sim and the patient had discussed sterilisation twice over a period of years, but the patient had never consented to nor ever expressed any wish to undergo sterilisation.

When she required the emergency caesarean section, Dr Sim delivered the baby and blocked the patient's fallopian tubes to permanently impair their normal function.

He admitted to the tribunal that this was in violation of the woman's reproductive rights.

Neither Patient A's nor her partner had consented to it in any way."

Why would you think someone wanted something the expressly did not consent to, and about which you'd had two conversations?

It's hard to understand how/why this isn't a criminal offence.

stillplentyofjunkinthetrunk · 05/12/2023 21:05

Sconehenge · 05/12/2023 20:53

I think there must have been mitigating factors not in the article. She had 11 children and they had discussed sterilisation before. Not that that AT ALL excuses it but perhaps there is something behind the scenes in the judgement.

is that speculation of what a possible mitigating factor might look like or is this true?

Original poster

Hoardasurass · 05/12/2023 21:04

@Sconehenge id also like to ask where you got the 11 children from

OP posts:

MrsTerryPratchett · 05/12/2023 21:04

Sconehenge · 05/12/2023 20:53

I think there must have been mitigating factors not in the article. She had 11 children and they had discussed sterilisation before. Not that that AT ALL excuses it but perhaps there is something behind the scenes in the judgement.

I don't think men in authority get the benefit of the doubt. They've proved time and again that they can't be trusted with it. Doctors, judges, police, all need to show their work. We don't believe they are acting in good faith any more.

Original poster

Hoardasurass · 05/12/2023 21:02

Sconehenge · 05/12/2023 20:53

I think there must have been mitigating factors not in the article. She had 11 children and they had discussed sterilisation before. Not that that AT ALL excuses it but perhaps there is something behind the scenes in the judgement.

Really how many times has a dr brought up the minira coil?
Add to that both times I had a baby the dr wanted to talk about birth control, what's the bet he brought it up both times and the fact is she said no both times but he did it anyway

OP posts:

breakingtheglass · 05/12/2023 21:01

Very interested in this as something similar happened to me (asked about sterilisation, said no v clearly. This was recorded on notes. Then was v unwell 2 weeks later and bullied and bullied into agreeing which was also documented quotes like ‘keep mentioning to ot’ and written plans to keep pestering me into to - given no info etc so wasn’t able to give informed consent, didn’t even know the method of sterilisation till 2 years later)

Obtained notes and the page where id said no was missing (I got it eventually but was a fight) couldn’t do anything as I had actually signed (under pressure unwell with reduced capacity and without the info to give informed consent )

Sucessfully reversed luckily

WeaselCheeks · 05/12/2023 21:00

I can't believe that this isn't a criminal matter. Suspending for 12 months a bloke who's already retired isn't much of a punishment for physically harming a vulnerable person (I'm categorising the victim as that, as she was pregnant/physically incapacitated due to giving birth).

PurpleBugz · 05/12/2023 20:59

"The tribunal previously heard Dr Sim and the patient had discussed sterilisation twice over a period of years, but the patient had never consented or expressed any wish to undergo sterilisation."

So he pushed her to consent then when she wouldn't he did it anyway.

And he's retired now so a suspension is not a punishment.

He should go to jail

RedHelenB · 05/12/2023 20:57

Said he'd retired in the article so tge suspension is neither here nor there

PersonWithInternalGonads · 05/12/2023 20:56

The tribunal previously heard Dr Sim and the patient had discussed sterilisation twice over a period of years, but the patient had never consented or expressed any wish to undergo sterilisation.

So it's not like he was confused or mistaken or did it accidentally- he knew she didn't want it but he decide to do it anyway because he wanted to.

Really how was this not prosecuted?

SoftandQuiet · 05/12/2023 20:54

Why??

Sconehenge · 05/12/2023 20:53

I think there must have been mitigating factors not in the article. She had 11 children and they had discussed sterilisation before. Not that that AT ALL excuses it but perhaps there is something behind the scenes in the judgement.

DirtyDuchess · 05/12/2023 20:52

That's actually shocking.

MrsTerryPratchett · 05/12/2023 20:51

How is it not GBH?

DysonSphere · 05/12/2023 20:49

It's only a woman, see.

AlisonDonut · 05/12/2023 20:48

Is anything criminalised for men any more?