to be sitting on the fence with regards to the sterilisation of this lady with learning disabilites

[tomhardyismydh]

My ethical judgment tells me this is very wrong, but my moral and practical understanding of this situation tells me it maybe in her best interest.

what are others views, wishing not for this thread to turn out to be a bun fight.

Im thinking about the absolute rights of this woman and any further children she may have.

What I'd like to know is where the support and care was for this woman before she got pregnant?
She may well be cared and supported fully and with total devotion by her family.
A parent can?t get contraception for a learning disabled adult child without their consent, even when reasons for not are clearly not in anyone?s interests and understanding is limited.
Family does everything to keep a close eye, and limit situations that end in either consensual or coerced sex. Social services start demanding freedom for her to be herself. It?s a no win situation.

The other thing?s, when the family (which by then is often mum) continues to do their best and raise the children, those children grow up knowing who mum is, and sometimes in a situation where everyone knows who mum is, including the children?s classmates and teachers. There?s never an end to it, and it?s no picnic for those children, and they act as an advertisement for the unscrupulous.
And for mum picking up the pieces, she can look forward to L/D daughter still being fertile when mum?s in her 70?s.

I think sadly there will be plenty of perverts who will prey on her, I think they should be prosecuted, effectively, this woman is a child.

I;ve worked with a woman with LD considered as high risk for preganancy (and don;t be fooled; the unit I worked at was top notch comparatively but a certain level ox sexual abuse seemed to be accepted between residents- we knew that but only 24 / 7 I-1 would cut that and no system funds that for every level of need- you have to be extremely severe and at risk of causing death or escape IME).

She had LT contraceptives and I don;t have an issue with that- in many ways surgery would have been appropriate in her case I gues sbut why when there were other non invasive alternatives?

Many eyars on ds3 is in the group where if he fatehred a child and the mother could not cope I would have to care for it; autism. if there were a pill for men that enabled him to be able to experiecne sexual relationships should he want without the potential of fatheringa child, yes please. vasectomy? No, seems too invasive and non reversible if a miracle occurred (I know, but I am entitled to my delusion).

IME there is a certain level of LD where contraceptoion si justified but increasingy that seems to widen with more borderline people being prevented. Which is a shame as I have been linked to a team supportinga couple with mild- mod LD and their child, and our volunteers went in evey other day (6 volunteers, so three visits a day) and kept an eye as well as helping with learning about diet etc- eventually it was scaled back to 1 visit a day, and the family was intact, loving and a damned mroe successful than many of out theoretically able ones!

Llopylou of course chidlren like ine and with Sn are targets but again IME the bigger risk was from the peer group, individuals who themselves had a limiteed understanding. This is especially in a residential setting.

It's obvious that she shouldn't be allowed more children and in this case I would rule that her tubes be tied, but only because she is having a cs anyway, otherwise something like the arm implant could be used.

It should be up to the mother of the girl as it is her that is having to pick up the pieces. If the girl is not sterilised, who is to say she won't get pregnant every year? Who is going to look after all of the children? The mother? The state? Far more sensible to stop this from happpening.

Yes scram I understandvthat, my post was in reply to the people discussing whether any 'normal' men would have sex with her.

Whilst I agree that there should be human rights for anyone, and that a couple with moderate learning difficulties should be able to have a supervised relationship.. again depending on the severity of their LD, what about the human rights of a child?

A child deserves to have parents who are intelligent enough to know when the child is ill, or needs protection, and how to deal with the multitude of issues that come with raising a child.

While external support is commendable, it does not give that child a parent who is what a parent should be. The external support for example would not be going to parents evenings, able to guide the child as the child grows up into adulthood, and that would in my view, be very unfair on the child. Additionally, if the child themselves had learning difficulties too, a very very difficult situation.

Yes good point Mary, why was she allowed to get pregnant again?

Bad news Knitted Breast, there are plenty of them.
It?s hard to get across there?s no such thing as a free lunch to someone who doesn?t connect that going into the back for a free kebab is saying yes.
There's also a high level of both consensual and coerced sex in respite.

i dont think it should be done. i think it will open the floodgates for applications to sterilise many many more people against their will. these are people and this isn't 1930's germany.

YY scram, it's the widenibng of te borderline people, is it just 'easier' to sterilise than provide proper support and information? Also, it gives a negative nessage about ppl with lds ie ' What if the child has lds too? we don't want any more of that sort being born'. I think that thinking is implicit in the decision to sterilise.

Contraception can fail. I think there's enough evidence of that on these boards!

applause for ohfor...

I am a bit on the fence with regards to people with severe learning difficulties being encouraged to have a sex life.

As I said before, while they may have the body and in many cases the sexual urges of an adult, they are mentally not adults, and unaware of the actual ramifications of having sex.

A close friend has a daughter with very severe learning difficulties, which are not always clear on seeing her. You see a very pretty 30 something woman. On first meeting her, and on sight, you may not realise she has the mental capacity of a 5 year old even though she is fully developed as an adult. She has periods, she has PMT, she freaks out totally by this as she doesnt understand why she bleeds. Her mother would have her sterilised if she thought there was for one moment any risk of her having a sexual relationship.

I agree with OFFS

Apart from anything else we have no idea how much treatments and support for this person might improve over her lifetime. Maybe one day it wouldn't be unreasonable for her to have a child.

I don't think anyone should be steralised against their will. Long term contraception, maybe. But never anything permanent.

LadyB yes it can but injected contraception and supervision combined is a fairly reliable approach. Sterilisation IME would actually give some bad units an excuse to not bother with monitoringa nd there is trauma from the rape as well as the PG after all.

ST I know many people like that (my field obviously) but severe LD is a very narrow definition: there are great many people with borderline LD (still requries an IQ under 65 for a diagnosis) who can manage the sex life. I have seen excellent practice where two very borderline adults who clearly could consent were allowed to sahre a converted double room after their engagement, after input from social workers, family etc. For my own child I think that would be an amazing opportunity that he could benefit from.

I also suspect eprsonally that thre is a wide diference between a mother asking for a child to be sterilised and any state / Social Work level request.

I repeat: A parent can?t get contraception for a learning disabled adult child without their consent, even when reasons for not are clearly not in anyone?s interests and understanding is limited.

Please hear that, because it's the real problem. The person doing the caring, picking up the pieces, raising the offspring, and having to take all the responsibility, has no rights to prevent the situation.

Yellowvan, i don't think there is any implication of eugenics or anything in this case. I think that insults the mother of the girl, who is the one who has to pick up the pieces in this case. She is not being denied the right to have children, she has two, who she cannot, and presumably never will be able to look after.

Where does it stop though?

Contraception can have side effects, sterilisation doesnt, and should fail either.

But it is eugenics whether you like it or not. It's a thin-end-of-the wedge case. No-one should take the decision to get you sterilized except you.

If you are incapable of making that decision though, then surely your parents or guardians who are responsible for you should have that right if it is in your best interests.

It isnt eugenics to me, it is a duty of care.