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?

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

People across the country have operations performed on them daily when they haven't themselves given permissions.
Daily there are people who are given medication who don't have a say. Again legally.

Should sterilization also be done without the persons consent? It should always be a case by case situation.

It's so far from black-and-white, I have no idea and would hate to be the ultimate decision-maker! To me it feels exactly like the 'right to die' debate - although one thing's about an individual's autonomous right to end their life, where the other's about overriding autonomy to prevent lives being created.

I can see that yes, there's a strong argument for voluntary euthanasia and, yes, there's a strong argument for sterilising a woman whose history shows she has babies who are automatically at risk and at risk to herself.

In both cases, there are questions of sound mind & capacity, undue influence and wider agendas. That's what makes it so unanswerable, to me: the slippery slope argument.

Regarding sterilisation - nature 'sterilised' me. It's not the end of the bloody world! But ... wider agendas & slippery slopes ...

If the man is too selfish to use a condom this is not a happy relationship

Hypothetically, both partners have a learning disability. Man never remembers to use a condom or doesn't like it, he isn't selfish but just doesn't see the consequences. Couple are being devastated by babies being taken into care and there are health reasons woman can't have longterm contraception. As long as there are no babies the couple can exist together quite happily with some support from a social worker.

Or another hypothetical - woman has learning disability, man does not and is too selfish to use a condom. However woman is in love with him and wants to carry on having sex with him although any babies will be taken into care. Again all social workers think he is a git but relationship seems to work, he genuinely cares about her in other ways, there is no legal measure that could keep them apart. She is consenting to sex and not being raped. Having repeated pregancies is now damaging woman's health and there are health reasons she can't have longterm contraception.

You can see how legally the situation would come up and each individual case will be tough and need to be decided on it's own merits. Both situations above are in their way happy relationships although the first is I would say better than the second.

How many chances should anyone be given to completely destroy their own child's life? If you've been in prison for sexually abusing and neglecting and hurting your own child, I'd say that was a good enough reason for you to not be able to have any more children.

As for the men - being sterilised would not stop them from living with another woman with children. That's why I'm in favour of very long prison sentences for sexual and physical abuse, so that they are taken out of the community.

It must also be very hard to assess the level if understanding at times too.

women go ahead with pregnancies and against medical advice all the time knowing full well the risks involved.

must be very difficult.

I'm curious, given multiple pregnancies are very common amongst the extremely religious, how it's possible to distinguish between honest beliefs and those that are forced upon her by the man. especially as to those who don't believe they are one and the same.

take the duggers for example. where she would jump. off a cliff if her husband so wished amn smile/ say how wonderful he is whilst doing so.

the very fact that whilst attempting to save a person's life you also potentially cut her off from.her support group...

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

Parents of twelve year old refuse life-saving operation because they've been convinced it's God's will that they are ill or that the procedure is sinful (involves blood transfusions for JWs, various other things for Christian Scientists, your guess is as good as mine for some of the stranger churches meeting in school halls). Child, when asked, also refuses consent, because even if they might be held to be Gillick-Axon competent, they are in the grip of their parents' beliefs.

Do you think the state should just shrug its shoulders and say "OK then, your problem, do you want morphine when the pain gets too much?"

But you're assuming that all women who abuse their children are vulnerable and under the control of men. Not all female child abusers have MH issues.

If a parent, any parent, abuses their child to the point that child has to be removed then that should be it. You abuse one child you don't get the chance to abuse another one IMO. I don't care about your bodily autonomy then. And no, I make no distinction between man or woman...

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

There's a number of ways in which people can be locked up and have their freedom limited without it being prison. It is done with people who are at danger of committing suicide, so this is apparently legally possible. Extending it to women who get into abusive relationships shouldn't be too hard.

Of course, one would have to end the whole transgender nonsense to allow the women locked up in such institutions to socialize with other women there, without putting them at risk again.

@Wolpertinger: If the man has a learning disability, too, then why sterilize the woman by major surgery instead of just giving the man a vasectomy?

Your second example ... again, if she is with the same man all this time, why not sterilise him?

The only instance where you could reasonably argue in favour of sterilising a woman is if she is with so many different men that you can't get hold of them.
In which case you really can't claim that it would destroy a happy relationship to keep her away from those men.

Not all female child abusers have MH issues.

If a woman abuses a child intentionally, then she belongs in prison, so I don't see why there would be need for sterilisation - except of course that the UK apparently has abolished the sex segregation in prisons, but I think that is very stupid and needs to be changed again.

Extending it to women who get into abusive relationships shouldn't be too hard.

Jesus Christ: did I miss a meeting and wake up in 1924, with the workhouse for fallen women? You're proposing that women should be sectioned and held in secure units for "get(ting) into abusive relationships"? Wow! Of course, that's not an absolute gift to abusers: if they stay quiet they're abused, if they tell anyone they risk a locked ward.

The reason you would sterilise the woman is because (in the case the BBC reported on) it is her life that is potentially at risk if there is a further pregnancy.

Vasectomising her partner does not help should they split up or should she not be monogamous. And if she has multiple partners, especially if ONS, then there is no way to predict who needs to be done.

Or to persuade them they need to have a procedure 6-8 months before the time they might have sex with her (or longer, as it can take a year or more for a man toget the all clear, whereas a woman is infertile from the next cycle).

I have really conflicting feelings about this. I hate the way women have to fight in so many places for bodily autonomy and the basic idea of forced sterilisation is horrific.

However my siblings and I were abused by our parents. We lived in fear, we had broken bones, burns from the iron, we were starved then we'd be forced to eat until we were sick. My parents were abusive to each other as well, they were both addled with drink and drugs which made them worse, but my mother burned my father with boiling water and I believe that my father destroyed her contraceptive pills (not that I think she was great at taking them, but I do believe I was conceived when he witheld them).

They were horrific parents, they bullied their own parents and siblings (my uncle had his jaw broken by them once when he was defending my grandparents after they took us) and they were vile, vile people.

I don't think I could find it in myself to defend anyone who had said "We're going to sterilise them both to protect any future children..." They have rights, but they forfeited their rights when they used their position, and strength/age, to treat us brutally.

A woman who is imprisoned for abusing her child wont be there forever though she will be released and if she is of childbearing age she can go on to have more children and do it again

In certain circumstances I totally agree with forced sterilization assuming all other avenues had been exhausted.

There needs to be a balance of what is in the persons best interests. It is highly unlikely to be that they are "locked up" which in my mind is more damaging that being sterilized.

I do think that declaring that an adult woman can never be allowed to have sexual intercourse is also a pretty huge infringement of her bodily autonomy. Sometimes, with particularly severe learning disabilities it may be the right course, but it's a big deal, and not the simple solution that some pp seem to be suggesting.

Does anyone have any court reports of cases where compulsory sterilisation has been ordered other than to preserve the woman's life?

I think the word 'forced' can also make the procedure sound a lot worse, as if it is happening to a woman despite her begging and pleading for it not to happen.

Whilst I'm not saying this is never the case I believe it is more likely to be a decision made on behalf of a woman woman who is unable to understand the procedure, and this give informed consent, perhaps due to a learning disability, addiction or mental health issues etc.

I think a court ordering that sterilisation is in the best interests of a woman who is unable to understand the procedure enough to give informed consent is different to a court ordering a woman who understands the procedure and is able to refuse consent to received sterilisation.

Many women choose to undergo sterilisation and give consent to it themselves so I don't think it's reasonable to assume every woman unable to give informed consent would refuse the procedure if they could - sometimes it may genuinely be in a woman's best interest and something they would choose themselves anyway were they able.

I also think it is possible to consent to, and enjoy, sex without being able to fully understand the implications of pregnancy and birth or without being able to care for a child. I used to work with young adults with learning difficulties living in supportive housing. Romantic and sexual relationships were important to many of them - they had the same urges and physical attractions as anyone else. Most of those adults would not have been able to effectively care for children, we ensured they had access to sex education and those that needed it were supported in managing birth control. So I don't think it's as simple as locking people away or stopping them from having sex until women are able to understand the consequences of pregnancy etc - having the right to make choices about where, when and who you have sex with (where there is consent on both sides) is as much a case of body autonomy as one's reproductive rights.

Arguably I would say forced sterilisation may be a better choice for many than forced celibacy. If somebody does not want to give up there right to good, consensual sex but cannot manage contraception or understand the risks of pregnancy (either to themselves or to the potential baby) then I can see why sterilisation could be more in a woman's interest than being locked up so as to enforce celibacy (as some posters have suggested), surely forced celibacy imposes on far more of a person's rights (work, leisure, friends, relationships, sex etc) than forced sterilisation?

Oh, lala

My parents were fond of saying there should be a license to have kids! They wouldn't have been awarded one ... but I often think they had a point.

My mum looks after young adults with learning difficulties and I would advocate sterilisation for them.

They are both sexually very impulsive but with no recognition of appropriateness (one tried to sit on the vicars lap....) and are very vulnerable. Both have said they would like babies in the past - but in the way a young child would. They play with dolls etc. My mum was terrified when they were at college that they would end up pregnant, because they wouldn't understand pregnancy let alone birth, and that's before you even get onto baby care.

In their specific situation, I believe sterilisation is very much the kinder option for everyone concerned - but - I would be very worried about how / when you draw the line, and as a judge, I am not sure I would want to make those decisions day in and day out about other people's lives and bodies.

I really don't know how I feel about it

I have heard of this being done in the states not forcibly but in return for $$$$, to drug addicts in need of a fix. I always think what happens if they get clean and want to have a family later. There is hope for everyone. A forced implant possibly, reversible if the person turns their life around and asks for removal, but I don't agree with forced permanent contraception, no.

Very hard to give a blanket yes or no answer. In general though I am broadly in favour of it - while it might contravene a right to bodily autonomy, I'm more concerned about the rights of children who could be subjected to all kinds of substances in the womb or born into abusive situations.
Much better to have contraception and require court approval to have that removed though, surely?

I don't think I could find it in myself to defend anyone who had said "We're going to sterilise them both to protect any future children..." They have rights, but they forfeited their rights when they used their position, and strength/age, to treat us brutally.

I think I got myself all in a tangle with that sentence. I meant I don't think I could find it me to argue against anyone who said they were going to do that. Like defend them against it.

Sorry. I get my words in a mess sometimes talking about them.

I suspect the OP doesn't have the full facts of the case.

I would be astonished if a british judge ordered a sterilisation purely on the grounds that the woman shouldn't be allowed to get pregnant. I think it would only happen in cases like the one in the BBC link posted earlier - a learning disabled woman for whom another pregnancy would be medically dangerous enough to put her life at risk.

lalalalyra that is horrific

I'm quite shocked that you can be court ordered to be sterilised. No, I can't agree with that I don't think. I'm finding it hard to articulate quite why but it seems on a par with capital punishment to me in some weird way.