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 don't, Filee

It's still the state stepping in to take control in order to prevent a child being born.

I'm just wondering where we decide that the cut off point is.

The problem is that it would then seem acceptable to sterilize other people, extreme cases bring forth knee jerk reactions, complex issues like this need to be carefully thought through.
Even then there will always be unintended consequences.

Op, you're not wrong that potentially being sterilised would be kinder than the trauma of repeatedly having children removed at birth. Also debatable which is worse from a health point of view, an invasive procedure like female sterilisation or repeated pregnancies/births and any resulting complications.

However, historically enforced sterilisation does seem to go down a slippery slope (Scandinavia). hypothetically I'd like to see her sterilised. In reality I wouldn't want to be responsible for that decision.

In extreme cases yes I do think sterlisation should be part of getting realised from prison.

She will never be allowed to keep a child.

I don't think it would have to be very well though of, perhaps it will need 3 judges from the high courts that would need to order it.

I am appalled that some of you think that she should be allowed a second chance and parenthood.

"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"

I have known cases where that has happened. I don't know how it is decided what is picked up by the media, posters are speaking about this as though it is rare, when it isn't.

The extent if the Baby P case and how long the family had been under the radar for, was rare.

However, TC wasn't convicted of murder, she caused the death of her child by neglect to protect, women are being convicted of this daily and at all ages ranging from teens upwards.

Some women who continue to live with DV have their children removed and are sometimes charged under that law.

A law has to written and categories put in place, this new law would cover women who are well capable of going on to parent.

Very few "caregiving" killers of children are charged with murder, it won't be easy to legislate for this to be implemented fairly and with "common sence", who on here thinks that the law deals fairly and with common sence towards child sex offenders orvtheveatchers of child porn?

I work with the court system, but have very little faith in the whole process to make correct judgements.

"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?" "

No, but they do execute mentally ill people and in some cars their sentencing structure doesn't make sence.

You can only compare the UK to the countries that are in the EU, as that is were our basis for laws and policy making, come from.

There are some cases in which rehabilitation is not possible though. It's not a sad perception our society has. It's a fact.

Peters mother will never be allowed to keep any child she may have following her release. If she does have more children and they are removed that will further damage her further. Is that better than her being sterilised? Or having the contraceptive injection as part of the bargain for her release?

She may well be rehabilitated to be point where she can function well in society but once you have done that to a child does anybody seriously think she will ever be capable of lovingly parenting a child? Really?

No I don't think all people with MH issues, low IQ's or disabilities should be sterilised - none of them are by default child abusers. Those characteristics do not make someone a child abuser.

I do think child abusers be it sexual, psychological or physical abuse should not be allowed children. Ever.

steralisation and the discussion of cannot only pertain to this one person. Once this happens where does it stop? and who judges this? at what point?

It is not difficult to conceive that when on this road, it could be extended to diminished mental capacity - what then does that entail? depression? spiteful controlling partners using your mental and physical wellbeing against you?

you absolutely cannot reduce this to headline Sun Newspaper mentality.

I think it is too far but would feel forced contraceptive implant - and make that part of a parole agreement - it allows for rehabilitation but at the same time the people ie baby conceived by a child abuser are so vulnerable can you take the chance ?

I agree maddening and I think there is call for that in a few different cases to be honest.

custardo

We could talk about it in the context of child abusers. They come from all classes,countries, mental abilities, physical abilities.

Yabu

what next where wold it stop it is a dangerous route to go down

Having reread my post I'm not sure where I said I didn't think SS had done all they could to support the mother, in fact I said I was sure that they had.

Of course a child shouldn't be put at risk before the parents sort themselves out and I definitely didn't say that.

Nevertheless, it leaves me feeling uneasy. It's not logical, it's not rational, but it's how I feel and is why I'd make a godawful social worker.

The idea that a child would automatically be taken away (as was mentioned in the OP) or the only other option being forcible sterilisation seems to leave no hope and no chance of rehabilitation.

I'm pretty sure she was pregnant again at the time she was convicted. Don't know what happened to the baby though. Hopefuly a million miles away from Tracy Connolly.

For all you might know Tracy may have already volenteered to be sterilised. Its really none of our business what medical decisions ANYONE makes.

No one should ever be be cohersed or bribed into sterilisation yet alone forced. Judges and probation boards decide on how long someone spends in jail.

Would just like to throw this into the mix. Long term contraception is not risk-free. Like any hormonal treatment, there are side-effects, a minority of them extremely serious and in rare cases, death.

If it's the human rights angle we're coming from, LT contraception isn't a panacea.

No, for the reasons MI have on the first page & custy have here.

Have = gave - blardy phone

birds, you're right that she wasn't done for murder, but let's not forget that among the things she neglected to protect her children from were having their fingers cut off with knives and being raped by her boyfriend. Nor was it that she was unaware of the rape, she saw it and did not act to save her daughter.

reallytired, if you believe the Mirror she is determined to have another child as part of her fresh start.

I'm on long term contraception and have no (extra) hormones.

Basil

3, 5 or 10 year copper IUD's would sort the hormone issue out.

The human rights angle - well, it's against everybody's human rights to be in prison but that still happens. The human rights angle is a difficult one because we could all argue a different point favouring our own point of view and still be able to base it on human rights. That why the European Court of Human Rights decisions seem to not really follow a set pattern - it's all open to interpretation in a way most other areas of law are not.

Some women get on really badly with the copper coil. I do not want Tracy Conelly to have to suffer exceptionally heavy and painful periods. There are also religous people who feel that using the copper coil is murder because it only prevents an embryo from implanting and doesn't actually prevent fertilisation. (I realise this logic prehaps doesn't apply as baby P was far more than a couple of cells.)

"reallytired, if you believe the Mirror she is determined to have another child as part of her fresh start."

I have not read the article. Tracy Conelly can have dreams like the rest of us. The chances of Tracy actually getting to keep a baby are slim.

The idea that Tracy Connelly would consider the copper coil murder when she watched two men abuse her children to death is just absurd