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.

So what would you rather see yellowvan.

a SLD individual have a child and be unable to care for it?

Surely this is as morally irepprehensible as the so called "eugenics"

I call it sensible when someone doesn't have mental capacity.I am not talking about mild learning disabilities here but for instance someone in dds case who is aphasic,has physical issues and a mental age of 2.

but yellowvan the same could be said about pregnancy.presumably she isn't entering willingly and consciously into pregnancy either. It's not like she's a drug addict who one day might get clean. Presumably her condition is for life. I think sterilisation is the kindest option for everyone

By that argument you would sterilise your 10-yr old, Squeaky.

O yeah yellowvan, great arguement

Boo- deal with whoever is making her pg!

But then she can just move onto the next guy. Deal with the man by all means, but protect her too, and in this case that would sensibly mean sterilisation

Good post Maryz.

Yellowvan it may be eugenics, but do you approve of a girl becoming a enforced baby factory instead?

Will you accept responsibility for raising children in difficult circumstances again and again, for the rest of your days to avoid being guilty of thin end of the wedge eugenics?

The reality of trying to protect from pregnancy in this day and age where everyone in authorities interests are about rights is impossible.

Those who have to take the responsibility need to be given back rights, even if it raises uncomfortable issues.

I's a question of ethics. For me, it is not an ethical position to take away someone's fertility without their full consent. Taking the position 'it's in their best interest because they cannot care for the child' to its logical conclusion suggests that children are fair game for sterilisation also. (I am not saying anyone has blatantly said that, but that is the logical follow through)

I am concerned there will be 'creep' of this if absolute ethics are not maintained. As someone said upthread, it is not 1930s Germany.

Yellowvan. Yes I would. My friend would have done too if she was able. Where this is absolutely no chance that the mental capacity of the child will ever increase, the parent never stops caring for a "child", even when that child is in her 30s and beyond.

It is a very very hard life that gets more difficult as the child becomes and adult.

yellowvan - sterilising children is not the logical conclusion of the argument. Children will one day grow up to be able to make fully informed decisions of their own. We are talking about people who are not going to be able to take that responsibility at any time ever.

If dd ever became pregnant,presumably I would then have 2 people to look after well into old age,dd will always be a child and is only going to get bigger and stronger.(Shes only 5 and bloody strong now,I have pinch marks on my arms and bruises to shoulder where she kicked me with her splints the other day.)She needs bathinbg and dressing and constant attention.She is still in nappies.Now maybe as she gets older she may be able to do a little more for herself-she feeds herself and is mobile and brushes her teeth and can follow simple instuctions,but tbh is going to need lifelong care.The thought of her having a child is just laughable,frankly.

It's some seriously twisted logic if you think that the logical follow through to sterilizing a severely mentally impaired woman who already has two children is to sterilize children.

And to add, in the circumstances as described here I wouldn't have a problem with sterilizing this woman.

I'd be uneasy at any sort of blanket legislation on this sort of issue, to me this seems like the sort of decision that can only be made on a case by case basis.

Where's the ethics in being forced to grow up watching your gran trying to deal daily with your handicapped mum, and never being able to have friends back because your mum will lumber in screaming and shouting at everyone before wetting the sofa because she's upset?

I am on the fence also,

my sis is severely autistic, the mental ability of a toddler,(doesnt even know what sex is) whilst shortly after having labour myself all that intenxe pain and dependency of the people who are there to care for you, Thie idea of my sis ever having to go through that is horriffic & cruel to me she would have no understanding and probably feel a Saw victim, then to have no ability to raise a child, and pregnacy too no understanding.

thats my 2 cents I understand its an emotional topic and ppl will disagree, I can't really commnet on the specific woman

Treats, if you take children as they are now, they are in the same position wrt skills in baby rearing as the woman in question, ie, ill equipped, so I stand by the argument.

The woman has lds, and therefore (apparently) doesn't deserve autonmy over her body.

JGOWI - . You have no idea what kind of disability this woman has and I don't think that it has anything to do with the issue at hand to project your prejudices about disability onto her.

FWIW - I think the mum in this case is doing exactly the right thing. Someone needs to decide whether her right to choose whether to bring up a child trumps her daughter's right to maintain her fertility. I hope that the judgement in this case - whatever it is - is very carefully worded to ensure that it can't provide judicial precedent for every kind of forced sterilisation.

A woman who has LDS deserves someone to take a responsibility for her that she is unable to do for herself.

yellowvan the difference is that children as they are now can be expected to significantly develop globally, many people with L/D's can't. Some further development will take place but will be very slow, often small enough to be hard to measure and often not global.

But yellowvan - the comparison doesn't stand up. The case in question is about the woman NEVER having the potential to care for her own child (as far as anyone can be in a position to judge). Most children, we assume, will have that capacity at some point in their lives, so a terminal operation like sterilisation couldn't be justified in the same way.

IF the 10yr old had severe learning difficulties, and something could be done to prevent her from having to suffer the confusion and trauma of period pain and periods, then yes, sterilisation should be an option available to the parent who would be the one trying to cope with a menstruating child/woman.

tyler- No-one would sterilize children, of course not, thats absurd. But I'm thinking through my own uneasiness here, so make the point that as far as parenting skills, fear of birth, lack of understanding of intercourse etc she is in the same level of understanding as a child, who of course you would not sterilize. Therefore, it is her status as learning disabled which puts her the category of 'people its ok to sterilise', and I'm struggling with that.
Very difficult situation, and I'm glad I'm not the one dealing with it,but welcome the chance to discuss it.