To ask if you agree with forced sterilisation?

[NeedACleverNN]

An acquaintance I know has been court ordered to be sterilised. No choice.

I don't know the exact details but I do know several children have already been removed on welfare issues.

Whilst I feel sorry for her because she loves children, I do think the judge made the right choice. She has a few mental health problems and struggles to take care of herself let alone dependent children.

Do you think judges should be able to do this or not?

*but what happens when they don't truly have it anyway?

either from abusive or manipulative partners

or from geographical or religious prevention of access to birth control*

Yup - which is why I went on to say there were certain situations where it may be the best/safest option.

How would this take place if forced. Do they strap someone down against her will?

I'd say only as a last resort and if the children are at danger during a pregnancy.
But, the problem is where to stop. Should drug addicts be sterilised? Smokers? Drinkers?

Long lasting contraception seems better, as is working to convince the woman to have it.

Regardless, it doesn't protect her from STDs, and support should be given.

And if men are knowingly abusing these women, yes, I think they should be looked for and prosecuted.

Very difficult decision, and only appropriate in a few circumstances, such as not being able to look after your children, yet having a child per year and having each child taken away at birth and looked after by ss.

I suspect, furcat that in cases like this "attend monthly or be returned to court" is multi dimensionally unlikely to have much effect.

Sorry to answer your question. Yes sometimes I think it is the lesser of two evils.

Yes.

In the case of people who have children removed due to child abuse. No-one gives those children any choice in whether they are abused and whether they will grow up in the care system. If you abuse your children to the point they are removed from your care then you lose the right to bodily autonomy IMO.

And people speak of bodily autonomy as if it's some kind of black and white concept, when in reality we make decisions all the time which compromise the bodily autonomy of some individuals, I.e. In cases where people do not have the capacity to make those decisions for themselves. So e.g. An adult with severe learning difficulties and/or profound disabilities could be prescribed contraceptives to ensure they do not get pregnant - or even to regulate their periods. Is that not also taking away someone's right to bodily autonomy? And yet an adult with profound learning difficulties could never consent to sex and is sadly more vulnerable to abuse, and it is therefore imperative to ensure their safety and to prevent pregnancy as much as is humanly possible. In which case would a one-off sterilisation operation not be far less invasive than administering the pill daily or the injection quarterly etc?

"Is forced sterilisation ever ok?"

If the person lacks the capacity to consent, and the situation is life-threatening without the procedure, then the Court of Protection must step in.

This applies to all medical procedures, not just sterilisation.

(So it won't apply to the men, because reprehensible as their actions are, the consequences are not potentially life-threatening to them)

If you abuse your children to the point they are removed from your care then you lose the right to bodily autonomy IMO.

Would this also apply to men?

Yes I agree in principle but I would hate to have to make the decision. I assume and hope that this type of decision is only made after lots of thought.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that the men should be too, or at least held accounatable for what they have done, I do think that pregnancy after pregnancy with the child removed must be very distressing for the mother involved, even if she doesn't grasp the consequences of unprotected sex.

That said, I would rather see time and money spent protecting a vulnerable person so that they don't end up in these situations where they are being manipulated and abused.

Yes but only in extreme circumstances such as the one a previous poster linked to - where the mother's life is at risk but is mentally unable to make decisions about pregnancy.

Oh im not sure how they could actually force her portia but if she doesnt attend her appointment and breaks the court order she could be arrested

I don't agree with this at all. I think its disgusting that someone can have any medical procedure forced on them.

I think if several children have already been removed for whatever reason then yes forced sterilisation is the way to go.

You can't just keep getting pregnant for the children to be put in to the care system.

My parents adopted my sister as a new born baby and she was born addicted to drugs her Birth Mum had continued to take while pregnant, the daughter she had before my sister was removed for neglect. How is it right for somebody like that to keep having babies?

Yes I think that in the instances of abuse it should apply to men too.

Keep the woman locked away and prevent her enjoying what is otherwise a happy relationship? Prevent her from meeting any men ever?

If the man is too selfish to use a condom, then this is not a happy relationship. If he isn't able to understand that PIV leads to babies, either, then why not sterilise him instead? Or just give him a vasectomy, they're reversible. (I do not think this is the case, anyway. With all children by different men, those are men who are just selfish.)

I do believe that a woman who doesn't have the mental capacity to either prevent pregnancy or get an abortion, or raise a child, would probably be happier "locked up" and prevented from being alone with men who might exploit her.
If the problem is related to alcohol and drugs, then why not lock her up while she gets therapy instead of doing something final to her body?

@NeedAClever: The only case where I think forced sterilisation would be ethically justifiable is with rapists. Not because they'd stop raping, but to limit the damage they can cause.

However, if it was legal to forcibly sterilize anyone at all, that could lead to people getting shit ideas on to whom to do it next.

Therefore, I am against it being legal.

It's a very difficult situation and goes against everything I believe about autonomy of the (female) human body. However, yes, I do agree with it very specific circumstances.

Through personal connections I know of 2 situations where it may have been a better choice. Both involved women having multiple children removed (4 each) due to DV and drug issues which they were unable or unwilling to change even with large amounts of family and professional support. Both went on to have further children (4 and 5 respectively) all of whom were born addicted to drugs and with foetal alcohol syndrome. All of whom were removed at birth and fostered. Some found families and were adopted. All have long term special needs and disabilities. Whilst I don't doubt that these children are now valuable members of society, how will they grow up and feel about their mother? Those who weren't adopted, how will they feel being moved from foster home to foster home, never having a 'home' or family to call their own. Should those women have continued to have children? They had no regard for the life they were bringing in to the world. One women just liked being pregnant, even though she knew from the start she would be unable to keep the children. One women just refused to take contraceptives or have abortions due to her religion.

I think those are the only two circumstances I know of in which I feel it may have been warranted.

Allthough it goes against everything I thought I believed in I do kind of agree for them reasons but yes the men should also be sterilised!

I think I would prefer to see enforced long term birth control.

It would be harder with men as the only option there is sterilisation.

That said, I would rather see time and money spent protecting a vulnerable person so that they don't end up in these situations where they are being manipulated and abused.

This.

Yes I think that in the instances of abuse it should apply to men too.

So you don't think knowingly impregnating a woman despite not being in a stable relationship with her / having no intention of taking care of her children is abuse?

Either the man isn't capable of taking responsibility of his fertility due to mental health issues, in which case he is just as good a candidate for forced sterilization as the woman - or he does it intentionally, which is abuse.

I don't agree with this at all. I think its disgusting that someone can have any medical procedure forced on them.

Even if she is totally lacking the mental capacity to make a decision about it, it is undoubtedly in her best interests, and it's clearly a procedure to which she would consent if she were mentally well?

"I think its disgusting that someone can have any medical procedure forced on them."

What would then happen to people who lacked the capability to consent (whether by age or diminished capability) needed a procedure? Especially if their inability to consent could mean limiting or ending their life?

It's one thing to respect the decision of a person who understand the implications of not consenting to treatment. But is it ever humane to stand by and let someone incapable of consenting and clearly not understanding the possible outcomes make such a choice? Or should someone make that choice for them?

Through personal connections I know of 2 situations where it may have been a better choice. Both involved women having multiple children removed (4 each) due to DV and drug issues which they were unable or unwilling to change even with large amounts of family and professional support.

Don't you think they might have been better off if they had been forced to go to a clinic for their drug issues, and not allowed contact with men until those issues are resolved?

We lock up people who attempt suicide, so why can't we lock up women who live with men who are likely to murder them?

and not allowed contact with men until those issues are resolved?

Short of prison, how does "not allowed contact with men" work?