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.

Squeaky, agreed absolutely, but I think there are better ways to do that than sterilisation.(contraception, dealing with her partners)

I CAN see where you're coming from yellowvan - it's about the limits of what it's acceptable to decide on behalf of someone else. and it's such a huge deal to deliberately deprive someone of their fertility - we need to be REALLY sure that it's the right thing to do and to do that we need to be clear on why - in a similar situation - it's NOT the right thing to do.

the Nazi sterilisation programme was inspired by the USA's programme which had been running from the 1920s onwards. it continued until the 1970s and more than 60,000 mentally ill and physically disabled people were compulsorily sterilised without consent.

it is eugenics to me and ethically a horrendous thing to do to someone.

I know of a young adult male who was sterilised by his parents. he had severe disabilities affecting his reason, judgement and mental capacity, but critically he also had a rare and fatal genetic disorder that he would pass on if he conceived a child with a woman - something he was physically capable of doing, but not understanding.

i still struggle with their decision and who made it/why it was made.

it's very good that this court exists and is able to convene and pass judgment on such difficult moral and ethical dilemmas.

Yellowvan as a parent I'm allowed to refuse to let my children have sex, it's not their human right, no social worker will say I must allow it, and a Dr will agree they must have an implant if they're doing it anyway and getting pregnant even if they don't want one.
The same rules don't apply for an adult child with a lower understanding, but it's still me who has all the responsibilities, but everyone else who gets all the rights.

BTW where do you sit on aborting repeat pregnancies so that an L/D lass can have autonomy? Because that's the hidden eugenics taking place, but it seems to be quietly accepted.

Pleads for case by case, no blanket rules.

Balance of quality of life for the individual, their offspring, the person caring lifelong for both.

Agree with the last two posters - it's good that we have a court to decide on these things case by case. It seems to me that we worry less about this individual case, than that it might be the thin end of the wedge where the ethics are less clear cut.

'sterilisation doesnt, and should fail either.

untrue unless sterilisation did not invovle surgical intervention.

Surgeryc an be immensely traumatic for soemone with a LD.

There's a big difference between saying no to sterilisation and being OK with the status quo; of course a aprent should eb able to get contraception, indeed I've known it happen so sounds like yet another PCT thing. I would give contraception to ds3 is it were an option. his LD are not severe but combined with his ASD cause enough impairment to prevent independence; ds1 OTOH has ASD but could IMO possibly have a child with support.

ScramVonChubby our lass wasn't born brain damaged, it happened in her teens. (The person she was would be horrified at how she now is and would be voting for no consequences to her actions.)

She refuses contraception to Dr's and social workers and says she's not interested in sex, but doesn't realise her response is an auto throw back to her pre brain damage young teen self standing up to peer pressure.

All anyone else hears is she doesn't want it and is capable of saying so.

tbh I don't really see the difference between long-term contraception and sterilisation.

The fact is that if this woman is given long-term contraception it's going to be permanent. She will be given it for the rest of her childbearing years, something isn't going to change that is suddenly going to make her parents turn around and say "oh, yes, I think that perhaps you would be able to have a child after all, let's stop the injections,"

yet no-one seems to have an issue with long-term contraception even though presumably most on here think that she is incapable of raising a child and should be prevented from falling pregnant.

People are IMO attributing their own feelings to this case, perhaps thinking that sterilisation seems like such a permanent solution, someone might change their mind/want another baby etc, when actually this woman doesn't have the capasity to change her mind. She's not going to be allowed to have another child. If she does it will be removed from her.

So IMO the only difference between sterilisation and long-term contraception is that sterilisation is a one-off procedure. The long-term contraception would still be religiously administered, it would still be permanent because she wouldn't be taken off it in order to be able to have another child.

As for her partners - well we don't know who they are or what involvement they've had. For all we know they may have the same mental capasity that she does, in which case they are no more able to take responsibility than she is.

I can see both sides. Allowing this could be a step backwards towards eugenics. However, I do think it is in her best interests. Childbirth would be very traumatic for someone who doesn't understand what is happening to her. People with severe learning difficulties are easy to take advantage of. Even when sex is consensual and with someone also with LD, they may not fully understand the implications of it and not be able to use contraception reliably. I am on the fence too.

It is a difficult issue.

DH works in a school for EBD pupils. And more often than not the children he teaches are 2nd and 3rd generation at the school. It does seem a bit futile.

Gosh orm, I'd never thought of that as the reality.

the problem i have with this is that if this one case is allowed it leaves space for others to abuse it. as in, those who maybe dont have their family member's best interests at heart and those who make the decision when actually, the adult with LDs is capable of deciding to use contraception but maybe, faced with a room full of strangers can't articulate themselves in a way that makes this clear. it is no secret that people with LDs are one of the most vulnerable groups in society. i can see this being used in the wrong circumstances and as a tool to abuse by some.

Acanthus it really is reality- absolutely there is a significant minority of service users who have an LD, usually low level and end up in a poverty cycle. However IME these do tend to be people with a low level need who woudlnt; be candidates for this sort of treatment, and also I can see these people gradually being picked up under a better understanding of their needs and supported- the classic examples I guess are dyslexia and Asperger's Syndrome: rarely recognised until the 1990's but people whom can generally achieve when supported correctly (I eman severe dyslexia, something one of y sons and DH have and has always held them back).

And I think that's partly why I am anti sterilisation: we amy be talking about the most severe of LD here but once on that road will that always be the case? I ahve 4 children who all seem to hover around the spectrum: perhaps I would be a good candidate for sterilisation? (actually a waste as I ahve zero intention of producing more children but YKWIM).

Certainly I am nto as Wannabe thinks putting my own desire for more children on to this but I may well be projecting my own absolute horror of surgery and that's relevant becuase hospitalisation and surgery is very difficult for many with SN and should be avoided when possible.

It's also worth noting that there are cases where people's isues have seemingly resolved- quite common for children on the ASD spectrum who seem severe to progress far more than anticipated, and I know parents of children with a very severe SN who have insisted their child to have a quite high IQ (above 100 certainly) and been ignored only for them to be proven right- exclusively IME cases where the child has a severe PD thatc an mask ability until communication etc is established.

For me that emans that the parent should be the ones deciding the path in most cases. Usually, although not always, they ahve the best concept of how their child will develop.

Orms right, there used to be a family nearby the mum had 4 children, she had lds and attended the sn school my son is at now.

All four of her children attended my sons school, she kept them at home with a lot of ss help but the reality was, they weren't taken care of. They roamed the streets constantly and the whole street basically kept an eye on them, they weren't fed proper meals, were filthy, didn't go without material posessions but had little emotional input and were very neglected. Some of the neglect was through not knowing what to do, although a lot of it was not being bothered.

The eldest dd was very sexually active, teenage boys would tease her and shout up at her window, she'd stand in her window naked, showing off. People would knock on the door and tell mum and dad and often 5 minutes later she'd be back up there.

Things came to a head a while back, the youngest boy had a seizure (he was 11, still in nappies and could often be found wandering the shops, in a daze, on his own. ) think he'd fallen off a wall or something and hurt himself. Police visited mum, who was off her face on drink, the true extent of the neglect was revealed (the filth in the house) and this extremely vulnerable woman is now being prosecuted for child neglect. Although lord only knows how a woman like that will cope if she goes to prison.

All four children are now in care, one is in a special unit miles away because of his MH problems (he kept starting fires)Very sad all round, maybe things wouldn't have been so bad if she'd only had one or two children ? I wouldn't be surprised if her dd has a child in the next few years and the circle continues.

The problem with not doing xyz in case others abuse it, is you end up with a messed up situation through doing nothing.

Teachers shouldn't put savlon etc on children in case it leads to some cases of abuse springs to mind.

Sometimes you just have to accept that it is a numbers game and put in the best safegaurds you can, knowing that no system is perfect, and there will always be some abuse of any system.

apocalypse where was the dad while all this was going on?

ACT that is sad.

But it is possible to help a lot of cases like that with proper intervention- I know Homestart was able to do it on occasion with famillies who ahd a child under five and saw a lot of success; maybe there needs to be a similar charity for those over five?

Famillies like this do tend to end up in crisis which is a shame as quite often they respond well to skilled mentorship

i think justgetting, is that i am swaying towards this happening on a case by case basis but, even then i can see where it can be abused. i don't know. i see your point about the teachers and savlon, i really do, but i find it very hard to agree with giving the go ahead for this with the acceptance that it will be allowing abuse to happen where it couldn't before. to me it is like saying a few abused people are ok if it's for the greater good. that isn't ok in my book.

Someone said earlier that children have not been sterilised. I know that there have been cases of children (specifically girls with severe disabilies) who've had hysterectomies whilst still under the age of 16.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/157/157we46.htm

She lived with the dad, it all came to a head when he left. To be fair to him, the little bit of actual care that was done was by him.Think he'd had enough. He had lds too, very sad, personally I don't agree to it being taken to court. I only know so much because my Auntie is friends with the womans family, although EVERYONE knew them, one of them banged on my door about 10 one night, had to get my neighbour to walk her home as my two were in bed !

i just wonder how it is only the mother that is being done for neglect. he had a responsibility to them aswell.

The point is that in every situation abuses are going to take place anyway, it's a question of which one's, how often, and at what cost, and that's what society like's to protect itself from admitting.

No blanket bans or blanket rights protect everyone from everything.

I'm not sure if he is being prosecuted or not. As I said, my Auntie knows the family. She may know. I imagine not as at the time he was registered to a different address and she was caring for the children, the children were roaming (as usual tbh) and she was very drunk, to prosecute the mum would be like prosecuting dp if we split up and I decided to let the house run to ruin and drink rum all day !

A previous article on a mother requesting it for her 15 year old.
www.mencap.org.uk/page.asp?id=1935