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?

Yes, if they don't have mental capacity then they can make bad choices and not comprehend consequences of such decisions and actions.

No one can stop someone from just making a bad choice.

*It might be because I don't have the most active of sex drives, but ... I do not think not being able to have sex is a fate worse than death.

In fact, I think being coerced - which will with almost absolute certainly be the fate of a woman whose mental capacity is not sufficient to use condoms (which is not really that complicated) or violently raped, is much, much worse than celibacy*

Didn't say it was a fate worse than death but its certainly a fate worse than enforced sterilisation. When the mother is unable to keep the baby after its born, then it is much much kinder to prevent her going through the dangers and discomforts of pregnancy and then the possible heart break of having her newborn child taken away from her.

And why do you assume that just because they are unable to effectively prevent pregnancy (many NT women don't effectively prevent it either) they are almost certainly going to be coerced or raped? If their mental abilities are very diminished then they are normally living in a care home anyway so there is some supervision but no reason to prevent them from having relationships (i.e. no reason to segregate care homes by gender)

I'm a social worker & have seen / worked with mothers where multiple children have been removed, one mum had 12 children removed over approx 10 years & forced sterilisation was never (and in my opinion should never) be considered - family courts would NEVER rule on this. The only court that could would be Court of Protection, this is when mum does not have mental capacity to make an informed decision to have a child & there are serious implications to the health of her & child if she did - like in the example of the mum with severe learning difficulties.
Forced sterilisation would never be brought in by family courts because people CAN change, circumstances change & it breaches someone's human rights.
I'm sorry to say I don't believe OP because their friend would have to have serious learning disabilities & she makes no mention of this.

Just to say - that example given earlier of the mum with LD is the only woman it has ever happened to I think in the UK. I think there was a man with LD where family & GP supported the idea of him having forced vasectomy in Court of Protection.
Re-reading original post I note that mum had mental health problems - I can't see this ever leading to forced sterilisation because unlike learning difficulties this can be treated & lack of mental capacity would be short term not lifelong.

On the one hand I'd disagree due to body autonomy.
But in cases where all previous children have been taken into care, it's clear there are serious vulnerabilities so sterilisation might be a way of the mother reclaiming a sense of body autonomy.
I know of one case where the person kept getting into relationships with sex offenders/paedophiles so taking their babies into care was a way of safe guarding their own body autonomy.
and where does the idea of body autonomy stand when the person misuses alcohol and drugs so they are in fact handing over control of their body to a harmful substance (the factors leading to misuse notwithstanding)?

A difficult one as getting pregnant and having those children removed at birth could be devastating for her and contribute to mental health problems.

I've only read some of the thread, so apologies if this has already been said, but forced serialisation reminds me of the eugenics program in the States (mainly California). edition.cnn.com/2012/03/15/health/california-forced-sterilizations/

My problem with forced sterilisation is where do you draw the line?

Yeah i agree. In the right circumstances.

I would agree based on the extreme examples stated here. But we are entering a very shady area. Miscarriages of justice are not uncommon. Look at the forced adoptions. Families become hostages of bureaucrats who not always honest or competent.

My problem with forced sterilisation is where do you draw the line?

This is my issue. The example quotes from the BBC, earlier in the thread, is a time I can see it's the right thing to do.

I think we should have bodily autonomy, completely. But when someone could die and isn't capable of making the a decision for themseleves I can see that's not always possible.

I would like to see the reasons these men aren't being arrested. The courts are saying that this woman can not consent to sex. In my head if she can not consent to sex, these men have done something wrong. If there is no way these would know that she can't consent and she is able to carry on relationships is secret, how can she really be incapable of consenting. As that shows some awareness. I feel she may need more care and supervision.

But my overwhelming issue is, where does this end? If it becomes normal that people with low IQ are sterilised 'for their own good', how long before that spreads to the rest of society. How long before 'for you own good' is used as an excuse to remove our autonomy.

If there is no way these would know that she can't consent and she is able to carry on relationships is secret, how can she really be incapable of consenting.
It could very possibly be that those men also have learning difficulties.

Contraception isn't 100%. Even with depo there is still a small chance of pregnancy. Same with the implant and coil

Actually sterilisation isn't 100% either. If I remember correctly sterilisation fails more often than IUDs (coils) or implants.

I know a few people have said IUDs and implants can be removed. You can cut the strings very high - you would then need someone medically trained to remove it. Implants are pretty tricky to remove.

"The courts are saying that this woman can not consent to sex"

The linked BBC case? If so, no they didn't say that. The Court of Protection (not the criminal courts or family courts) found that a woman with an IQ of 70 in complex and exceptional circumstances, and whose own life was potentially at risk if she had a seventh pregnancy, can be sterilised.

In other words, they gave medical consent for a procedure that the patient was incapable of giving. This is a role not limited to sterilisation, but all medical procedures for those who cannot give their own consent (especially when doctors and guardians/POA holders disagree).

That is not the same as capacity to consent to sexual intercourse.

I think the language 'forced' has been chosen deliberately to be emotive. Is it used for all medical procedures on wards of court, where the court decides consent? Because I don't remember seeing it.

That is not the same as capacity to consent to sexual intercourse.

I see what you are saying, but if she can't understand the impact of having sex and getting pregnant, I don't see how she can consent.

I shouldn't have said they said she couldn't consent. But if she can not make this decision for herself, how can she consent to sex if she doesn't understand the implication.

It could very possibly be that those men also have learning difficulties.

That's an excellent point. But (playing devils advocate) if they don't understand the implications, should they be sterilised too. They are having sex with a woman who could die if she gets pregnant again. They could be having sex with other people with learning difficulties who will be severely traumatised by being pregnant and having the baby removed.

This is why I can't say I agree or disagree. Where does it start and stop.

see what you are saying, but if she can't understand the impact of having sex and getting pregnant, I don't see how she can consent

I think possibly there is a difference between understanding that sex leads to pregnancy and having the capacity to consistently prevent a pregnancy (use contraception).

Women with no learning difficulties struggle to remember to take the pill or get pregnant because they thought it was very unlikely they would get pregnant (friend of mine didn't realise sperm survive for 5 days - she has a PhD).

Contraception fails all the time because women don't take it right / men and women don't use condoms right. They are still consenting to sex even though they are massively underestimating the risks of pregnancy.

I think the very fact that there is no easy answer shows what a complex minefield this must be and I would hate to be the person that even suggests it, let alone has to argue for it.
However...
A family member is married, and willingly gets pregnant with her husband nearly every year. She knows that the babies will be taken from her at birth. They have been told this and they have had 7 maybe 8 babies taken, due to their inability to provide or care for them.
They believe that it is Gods will that they continue to provide babies for the world. The toll on her body has been horrific. She's living in the body of a woman maybe twenty years older than she actually is because she doesn't have any real recovery time between pregnancies. She's been 'brainwashed' into thinking she's doing a marvellous thing and the reasoning is that God wants her to get pregnant otherwise it wouldn't keep happening.
It's going to kill her one day. The kindest thing in my opinion would be to quietly make it impossible... I may well get flamed for that but if I could take her choice away I would.

For me it's about the rights of a grown adult versus the rights of vulnerable, innocent babies and children who didn't ask to be born.

No matter what a woman's difficulties or troubles, surely if she repeatedly gives birth to children who are neglected / abused / abandoned then our priority should be to protect future children?

And that applies equally to men who go around reproducing without a thought for their offspring.

It's sad to live in a society where any child requires protection from their own parents but that is the reality of the world we live in.

I don't know if forced sterilisation is the answer but I certainly don't think anyone - man or woman - should have an automatic 'right' to have children if their behaviour towards previous children has been neglectful or abusive.

It is kinder than letting her have another child, knowing SS will have to remove them.

I don't really buy the argument to sterilise women who have abused children to save future children from abuse/ neglect etc.

If a woman has been found guilty of abuse any future children will be taken into care. It's not like SS will be thinking, "If only we could sterilise this woman to stop her having more children to abuse. Oh well, as we can't we'll just stand by whilst she abuses any more poor babies she gives birth to." If somebody like Baby P's mother had more children they would go straight into care from birth.

In situations where a woman who has abused children, had them taken into care but then is allowed to 'keep' subsequent children I assume the abuse would not have been deemed bad enough for hypothetical sterilisation or the woman has turned her life around (eg: given up the drugs, left abusive partner, got MH treatment) and deserves a second chance.

Only women who have been caught abusing children would be able to receive court-ordered sterilisation and their future unborn children should be protected by social services ensuring no future babies will be allowed to stay with the abusive woman. The danger of abuse is for babies born to abusive women (or men) who've not been caught yet, but obviously they would be impossible to sterilise until they were caught, when the need is gone.

But a child born with FAS has already been abused by the time it's removed Tortoro.

I agree with Pearlman. The only cases where forced sterilisation has ever happened is when it's been considered to be in the best interests of the parents. Courts don't even consider potential children when making their decision- there is a system in place to remove children from those considered unfit to raise children, even if it doesn't always work.
I have a colleague who recently looked after a patient whose case went to the Court of Protection. This lady has schizophrenia and a learning disability. She was heavily pregnant but totally denied it and claimed that it was 'just food'. This wasn't a case of someone just being 'in denial' ie knowing that they're pregnant but just hoping it will go away if they ignore it. She absolutely 100% did not believe that she was pregnant. She had a number of issues that meant that she was at an increased risk of needing a CS but wouldn't be able to give informed consent to this. Obstetric staff asked for the case to be referred as they wanted clear guidance of where they stood in case of the need to perform an EMCS as they could be in a position of being charged with assault.
The organisation that someone linked to earlier is brilliant but there are only two of them in the country. They work with women who have had two or more children removed. Women agree to have an implant for 3 years and, in return, they get therapy, addiction support, help with housing and education/training etc. They can also pay reasonable costs towards supporting any interests the woman has. A patient of mine that they worked with had dance classes paid for and they bought her a saxophone.
Although I personally think that, for some people, sterilisation would be in everyone's best interests, it's just too difficult to know where you draw the line- is it after the fourth child has been removed? The sixth? The tenth?

I mean I know we're on dodgy ground with regard to reproductive rights, and it's arguably a very slippery slope. But it's certainly not as simple as saying that if the babies are removed instantly they're born then it's all fine.

I don't ever agree with it and I'm shocked it happens in the UK tbh.