To think it would be kinder to sterilise Baby P's mother?

[Nokidsnoproblem]

I've been thinking about this since the other day. On the Baby P thread many poster's were saying that if Tracy were to get pregnant again then the baby would be removed at birth.

However I cannot help but think that the more sensible option would be to not release her until she agrees to be sterilised?

This may seem cruel, however she has unfortunately proven that she is not capable of looking after a child. Any child she brings into the world will be taken into the care system, where there are already thousands of children needing a home.

Unfortunately there is no perfect way to deal with a case like this. You will get criticism whatever your opinion. However I feel that this would be the kindest option for all involved.

I never said that she should be FORCED to do it. However there is a high risk that she would be a danger to any future children therefore her choice is to be in prison where she is unable to mate, or outside and sterilised.

Tracy is obviously a very troubled young lady. This is not entirely her fault. However she has to accept the life she now has. If she got pregnant again it would do her a lot of mental damage. What women wouldn't be mentally damaged from going through a pregnancy and having their child removed?

And then there's the future mental state of the child she has...

It is comparable to Nazism because as Birds says, do we do the same to women who are disabled and cannot parent as a result?

I have to say that appalled me. I know, logically, that the babies should not have to grow up in that environment and that by putting them up for adoption they would hopefully have a better quality of life, but I do wonder what is being done to support the birth mother. Before anyone accuses me of SS-bashing, I'm sure that they have tried to help the birth mother before now, but the fairly casual way they offered this woman her as yet unborn child makes it appear they've given up on her/she's not willing/able to change her circumstances. It seems she keeps getting pregnant in the hope of being allowed to keep one, which is heartbreaking.

Sadly it is quite common for women who have had one baby removed to have many subsequent babies removed for the same reasons the first was removed. It is sad but if the circumstances remain the same (e.g. living with sex abuser, inability to parent) then nothing will change. You cannot force women to use contraception or to leave abusive/sex abuser partners, all you can do is try to help them and then remove the children in danger. I think your post is a little naive, as if SS couldn't be bothered to help the mother. The thinking is now moving in the other direction, that recently SS has tried too hard to keep children with their bio mother, creating terrible damage and unadoptable children aged 3/4 and actually removing them earlier or at birth is by far more preferable. My mum works with a family where the mum has had 7 children removed, the last few babies at birth, but she prefers to live with a convicted sex offender who abuses small children, what can you do?

In what way is sterilising child abusing women like Peters mother different to chemically castrating paedophiles?

I imagine I'm being dim but - what is the difference?

So we sterilise all women who have severe MH issues as well then?

What about women on long term medication that will cause their child a disability?

How do we do this, full hysterectomy, then a life time if hormone replacements? Or tubes tied? And what about compensation for any distress this causes or health issues, are we happy with the likes of TC being set up for life because the Court of Human Rights says we acted illegally?

We would have to come out if the EU and then begin to dismantle lots of our Laws and Acts, that is certainly a slippery slope, especially if we have a Tory or UKIP government.

Sex offenders are rarely chemically castrated in UK (and usually only if in somewhere like Broadmoor or Rampton). When not an inpatient in a secure facility, it is only ever done with consent.

seriously and who would decide who does and does not get sterilised?

Oh, and the obvious big difference is that chemical castration is reversible - effect stops when the treatment stops. So it's more like putting someone on the Pill, and then on release trusting them to continue to take it.

"In what way is sterilising child abusing women like Peters mother different to chemically castrating paedophiles?"

Because the crime of sexually abusing children, is born out of sexual desire (in some cases), so the offender can have the sexual desire removed, so they have no urges to act upon, thus, in theory, preventing the crime.

This is only offered to some sex offenders and is no longer given in Rampton etc.

TC crime was not based on her ability to become pregnant.

I can't understand this jump from "well if we start doing THIS it automatically follows we will start doing THAT."

I think in cases where a parent has tortured and murdered their child there is a case for sterilisation, yes. That is because what that child must have gone through in their short years on this earth is sickening and clearly indicates, to me, a hugely disturbed and damaged individual. The unfortunate fact is, given licence to reproduce again, that child would also be hugely at risk and the only answer therefore is to either a) remove the child at birth (which is what currently happens) or b) ensure the individual does not have children again.

I personally draw little distinction between the two: in both, the woman is being denied the right to parent again.

It does not automatically follow that women would be sterilised at a whim of a SS order or a judge. Baby P is a particularly horrific and thankfully extreme case. It is not comparable with women with learning difficulties or similar - not at all.

I am completely against the death penalty but it exists in America without "what next? People being sentenced to death for stealing a loaf of bread?"

It's personally possible for a law to exist in certain, clearly defined circumstances and not to be applied elsewhere.

Despite wholeheartedly believing in rehabilitation, I personally believe all this compassion and understanding is a bit premature, considering the child was killed only a few years ago. Moreover, I think this is because she was the child's mother and not a stranger. We are all so preoccupied with 'Stranger' child abducters and killers in this country, that it lessens the seriousness of child abuse and child murders committed by parents! That attitude is evident from this thread. Who is rallying support for remembering Baby P and the awful way that his life ended- no parents to do this for him as in the 'Soham' murders as the parents were responsible!

TheMoonInJune are you seriously putting forward the death penalty in the US as an example of how a punitive law can succeed?

Parents were responsible on the case of baby P- obviously.

Sterilisation suggests an inability to rehabilitate which goes completely against our justice system.

Plus what if a woman was wrongly convicted and then sterilised? We, as a society, don't need that guilt on our heads.

I do believe there is some merit for long-term contraception being a prerequisite for certain benefits though.

It's disturbing that we as a society seem to accept that there can be no rehabilitation as a default. I think in some cases (too many cases) there is no chance of change and there is nothing to be done but to remove any baby if an abuser has another one. But in all cases? Really? Do people really not believe that with the right support and treatment, people can change?

What if in ten years time, she'd been through intensive therapy and counselling and had felt the proper remorse and horror she ought to feel about her actions and understood what was wrong with what she did and was perfectly capable of parenting a child lovingly and well?

I have no idea if that is possible or not. I suspect that in the society we live in as it's structured and works at the moment, it is extremely unlikely. But do we think it is forever unlikely, however we structured society? What do we know about women like this? Is the damage they suffered as children so deep-rooted that even if we lived in an incredibly compassionate, civilised society women like this could never recover sufficiently to function as parents? Is the damage done to their brains too deep and irreversible to recover? As a society we've only really just started on learning in this area and I'm not sure we have enough evidence to really see what is possible and what isn't.

Filee - but no matter what, this woman would not be given the opportunity to be a parent. Rehabilitation only goes so far.

Skyler - to phrase it differently then (and I did state I am against the death penalty) - all fish live in water, not everything that lives in water is a fish.

To say "I believe in this case sterilisation is an option that could be seriously considered" does not mean, "I am all for forced sterilisation and by the way I am also for everything else the Nazi's stood for."

I have no strong feelings either way, but I cannot agree with the arguments that state, firmly and with such assurance, that IF this were brought into existence, then without a doubt, women would be sterilised without their consent left right and centre which I don't believe to be the case.

I would say part of rehabilitation in this case would be the acceptance that she can never parent again, not just because of what happened to Peter but also to her daughter.

I can see the logic in that view Filee. That she accepts the punishment of never being allowed to parent again as part of her atonement for her crime.

What seems very harsh to me is that when people have a 360 degree turnaround - and it's very rare, but it does happen, I have seen it happen - then the person they are now, is atoning for something they would never do IYSWIM - because the person they were then did it.

I wish people would use his name. His name was Peter, not Baby P.

MooninJune if you "believe in this case sterilisation is an option that could be seriously considered" against the woman's will, then you are in favour of forced sterilisation.

Sadly TheMoon, prisoner forced sterilization is a major problem the world over and often starts with cases like these and has ended with what many see as eugenics. California, for example, has been caused sterilizing women for as little as drug possession, Mexico has a rampant problem with this both in prisons and normal hospitals, the women who suffer are those in "undesireable" groups, typically based on ethnicity and disabilities. It's not the jump to Naziism, but it's firmly based on a system of eugenics.

In a way, I do agree with the OP - I can see the merits behind it.

However, it crosses the line into what is unacceptable.

For those in favour of forced sterilisation - would you also favour forced termination if the sterilisation failed (as I believe can happen, although it's rare).

there is a long and horrible tradition of sterilising people, in their best interests and to be kind

the most cursory of searches will uncover the wealth of human suffering and injustice that has come from this urge.

your good intentions make no difference- this would be flat out wrong, and luckily, is illegal here

I think that is a separate issue oliver