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.

well actually apocalypse, i think even if your DH split up he woudl still have a duty to his children and should be ensuring that they are living in a safe environment. if you let the house fall down round you i think your DH has a duty to apply for a RO and have the children with him. splitting up does not absolve him of that duty. so yes i do think he should still be prosecuted.

For all of those saying what an awful thing this would be, whats your alternative? Perhaps she should have 10 children, that her mother should look after, or go into care? Is watching child after child being taken away from her a less cruel thing to do?

This is not a court or a service arbitrarily deciding she isn't allowed to have children. She has 2 already, and its her own mother asking for this for what she believes are her childs best interests. What would you do in her place?

But we aren't talking about my dp, we're talking about people with Ld's/ MH issues who at best are used to living in dirty chaotic conditions.

The issue for me is, nobody should be prosecuted, somebody should have stepped in years ago and taken charge before things deteriorated to the extent they did. They got 'help' ie respite help, but nobody bothered to check the bedrooms which were smeared in faeces, the beds which were soaked in urine, the maggots in the curtains...the utter filth and squalor in the upstairs rooms/kitchen because they only got as far as the living room when they arrived to take the children out for activities. The living room was halfway decent.

If they'd have seen that years before, things could have been taken in hand, they could have had people checking up on that side of things and the issue with the children roaming should have been tackled. But it wasn't.

People with ld's are perfectly capable of being good parents with the right help and guidance, and encouragement to take pride in doing the job well.

Some people with Ld's are capable. Not all.

I think something like the mirena or copper coil or an injection would be better. It is not reasonable to allow this woman to have 10 children.

Sterilisation is so final and irreservible.

I think thats the point.

i agree apoc. i only said about your DP because you compared it to your DP leaving. but yes i agree, i dont think the motehr should be being prosecuted, but the fact that she is makes me question how come the dad isn't. but i agree with you, i dont think thsi woman failed her children, i think this woman and her family have been failed.

I've read today that it's the girl's mother who's requested that her daughter be sterilised. They're already looking after one child and will be caring for the new baby as well - meaning that bm will still be able to see her children.

However, they're not going to be able to cope with any more and they're fairly certain that she will go out and get herself pregnant again very quickly as she doesn't have the mental capacity to know what she's doing.

Any further children will be removed, taken into care and adopted.

For this reason I think the mother of this girl is absolutely right to do what she is doing. She has the best interests of her daughter and her grandchildren at heart and I'm sure it would be heartbreaking for her to witness her daughter going through another pregnancy only to have any subsequent child/ren removed.

Without wanting to say too much, I know someone who has adopted two children who were removed from their birth mother due to her impaired mental capacity.

There's a very real risk that she'll have another baby shortly, which will also be removed.

I am firmly on the fence - on the one hand, as long as there are people like my friend who will care for the children who need it, then there is no need to sterilise. But surely in the long run, it's best all round? I still don't know TBHH.

I'm also an adopter - of three children so I'm very well aware of the trauma that ANY child removed from its birth mother will experience.

My children's birth parents had various issues which meant that they were unable to provide even basic parental care. Two were removed at birth - one bm was given the chance to prove that she could parent. My son is now 7 and we live with the consequences of her failure on a daily basis.

So whilst I understand that there will always be loving parents out there for these children, we need to remember that they will be traumatised children who will, themselves, have suffered a huge loss - simply being removed from bm is a bereavement for the child and something that any child will suffer with.

So, again, that's why I think the mother is quite right. It can't have been an easy decision for her to make but she's doing the best in a very difficult situation.

But MrsFruitcake - the mentally impaired aren't there to have babies for people who want to adopt. That's just making them into baby machines surely? (I know that's not what you're saying but children are better off with birth parents if at all possible)

I agree Buzz. some are. Many are not.

Maybe if after the second child she had been told subsequent children would be placed for adoption instead of after the fourth she would have been more able to cope. After all these are real children suffering, they must come first.

I look at my friend raising her grandson, she should be enjoying her retirement, not caring for a 12 year old (who also has lds) and worrying about her dd getting pregnant then seeing her grandchild taken into care. Very sad all round.

I'm concerend with the cuts coming we're going to see children born to people with lds taken at birth as a 'quick fix' or those left without enough support because they're 'assumed' to be coping. It's scary, I have twochildren with lds/autism myself and I really don't know what i'd do if dd were to become pregnant, she's 12 and still thinks you can 'get a baby' from kissing despite having sex education drummed into her from an early age (for her own safety) The reality is, if somebody was nice to my dd, or they touched her and it felt 'nice' she would not stop them.

I'm all for the rights of disabled people, they have the right to make their own free choices, in some cases that involves fulfilling their sexual urges and having children. But sometimes other people need to step in and make decisions for them, preferably encourage them to make the right choices of their own free will if the result of that person having a child is suffering either to themselves or their as yet unborn child.

Exactly. She is able enough to make her own decisions, whether or not they are well thought out decisions is a different issue.

Chronologically old enough possibly, but emotionally and mentally capable? Not the same thing.

why is the fact that sterilisation is permanent and irreversible such a big issue?

This woman does not have the mental capasity to raise a child. She is not a child who might develop further and whose cognetive ability might improve - she is an adult who is capable of carrying, but not caring for babies.

So what reason is there for her to not be permanently sterilised? Most people would surely agree that she should take contraception until she can no longer get pregnant, so why not make it permanent, given that she won't be able to have another child anyway if she were to use contraception?

To those who say "floodgates, it will be abused" I would remind you that in each case it will be in the Court of Protection (for people who don't have the capacity to understand/make decisions), will be fully considered with detailed reports on capacity, social issues etc and will be subject to a fully reasoned judgment from the judge. It isn't the case that once this happens once it will be happening all the time. All such cases are dealt with on a case by case basis taking into account the level of intelligence, sexual activity, history of pregnancies, support within the family, wishes of the person to the extent they can express them etc.

It is desperately difficult but I don't see floodgates.

I understand what you are saying wannabe - permanent contraception by order or sterilisation, what's the difference? And in a way I agree, nothing is going to change, if she isn't capable of motherhood now she won't be later.

But of course a full hysterectomy will catapult her into early menopause and there are obviously health implications of that. Those need to be considered.

Not sure how I feel about this. But couldn't they just rule that she must be given the contraceptive injection. That would solve things without major surgery.

oh ok, ligation wouldn't do that
sorry
in which case i agree with wannabe.
especially if it doesn't require additional surgery

Think the mother already tried that. All booked, she'd agreed to have the injection and then refused when she got there. And now she's pregnant again.