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.

"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." But they're not talking bout a hysterectomy - they're talking about tying her tubes during a caesarian. Nowhere has hysterectomy even been mentioned.

yes wannabe, I already said I agree with you!!! Help!!! Stop!!! No hysterectomy!!!

Doesn't female sterilization have a failure rate of about 1% - similar to that of contraception? Also it does increase the risk of an eptopic pregnancy if you do get pregnant. Women are told to get to their doctor ASAP if they do suspect they're pregnant to check this out befoer it becomes life threatening. Presumably this woman would be unable to do this?

Hard cases make bad law. Trouble is where does it lead? It sets a dangerous precedent - who decides how badly learning disabled someone has to be before their rights are curtailed and how can society agree on that. Slippery slope I'm afraid - leave her be and deal with the consequences.

Agree its a slippery slope. Someone I know is a midwife in an eastern European country and she says that there if they have someone they consider to be a "chav" having a section. The Dr makes sure he just fucks the fallopian tubes up during surgery. oF COURSE THE WOMAn is never told, its never documented, etc.

A friend of mine had her mentally & physically disabled daughter sterilised when her DD went into sheltered adult accommodation aged 21.

Body of a woman, mind of a 6 year old, and although mobile with crutches (for now) quite physically disabled too.

I think the situation was clarified for her parents as follows:

• could she care for a baby/child? No.

• was she sexually mature? Yes.
• were her parent's able to protect her? Not once she moved into sheltered accommodation, and certainly not once her parents had passed away.
• was she likely to be sexually active? probably.
• would she be in a position to use/insist on used of contraception? Not at all.

In fact it surfaced that an old and very trusted "friend" of the family (ie knew this woman since birth) had sexually assaulted her when she was 20 - people can be so vulnerable and sadly there are people who will exploit this.

"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 this, but i also understand that soemtimes the people who are caring for someone more vulnerable and not so great at communicating are well practisied at manipulating facts, translating 'wrongly' to those who make the decisions. dont tell me it doesn't happen.

"Hard cases make bad law. Trouble is where does it lead? It sets a dangerous precedent - who decides how badly learning disabled someone has to be before their rights are curtailed and how can society agree on that. Slippery slope I'm afraid "

this is my worry.

slippery slope my arse. Doubt you'd be saying that if you were her mother.

buzz, you have `no clue what any one of us would do in this situation. stop projecting.

I'm not projecting, I'm saying that its easy to sit around and idly discuss the ethical implications when you aren't the one who is caring for you grandchildren as well as your learning disabled child. There's a lot of talk here about the rights of the young woman, fair enough, but what about the rights of her parents and children?

If these cases were being heard every day in the county courts with decisions being made by hard pressed district judges with limited experience on the basis of a precedent shoved under their nose by counsel, then I might agree with you that there was a risk of the floodgates opening.

But they aren't and they won't be. These are all heard by a very small number of judges very experienced in the field, and there are very few such applications, which is why we are hearing about this one.

I think you have to let the judge make a difficult decision and appreciate that it will not necessarily be decided the same way next time as every case is different.

you still dont know what we would be saying if it was our child buzz. you only know what you would be saying.

freshmint, again, i am aware of this, but again i point out that it isn't the judges who know the people they are deciding on. the judges can only look at the information given to them. that information is gathered from the people/parents who are caring for the adults with LDS. some of those carers/parents will not be honest about the persons ability to make a contraceptive decision for themselves.

If someone has such severe learning difficulties that they aren't ever going to be able to care for a child and are incapable of using contraception, who are you protecting by not sterilising them? Not their children. And I think you're harming them too. Being pregnant and giving birth carry risks. If you do that without any understanding of what you're doing, is it really in your best interests?

If it was your own child I think you'd be concentrating in them and not abstract ethical arguments about possible theoretical future ramifications of your own decisions.

If you'd like to insist that would be at the forefront of your mind, you can go right ahead and tell me I'm wrong.

well fucker those people will be very well known to social services in their areas, they will have had statements from childhood, medical reports etc. If parents are being dishonest about cognitive ability that would be very likely to be uncovered as part of the process.

i am telling you you dont know what anyone else would be saying. i am not telling you that i would be saying different to you. just that you dont know.

freshmint i am not naive enough to believe that abusive people do not get away with fooling the authorities. it happens.

I do know that I would be more concerned about my child than future theoretical impact on anyone elses. Have you read my post at all?

well you could say that about anything, couldn't you. Any difficult decision. But this decision will have very little weight placed on what the parents think and much more weight placed on what the medics and social workers say. It will be made in the best interests of the woman concerned not her parents.

buzz. i am not talking about what you would do. you commented on what i would do. i am telling you, you dont know what i would do.

of course you would buzz. but as the parent you only have to concern yourself with your child. don't you? You would, however, be at the mercy of the judicial decision at the end of the day. And that is difficult.
But often in these cases (and I'm thinking of cases involving removal of medical assistance of seriously ill children etc) the parents just want someone to consider it all, listen to them, and make the decision. And if it doesn't go their way, they accept it.
It is very difficult.

none of us know what we would do
we can guess but we don't know
(and I am excluding parents of children in the same situation from this)

freshmint - is there any evidence that this would have gone to court if the parents hadn't wanted their daughter sterilised?