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?

We've only got two cases in the UK though Lottie. Both decided purely in the interests of the patient. Both with patients in long term non-abusive consensual relationships. One to save the woman's life from risk from any pregnancy and one just rubber stamping the man's desire not to father any children because he didn't have the technical capacity to consent to vasectomy.

We haven't seen any cases quoted on this thread of people sterilised to prevent harm to potential future children.

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.

If you ask me she should be in a mental health clinic. If you think someone is so bonkers they shouldn't have the autonomy over their own body, then I don't see why you can't put them into a clinic - except of course it costs more money.

And what about her husband? Why do you think she should be sterilized, but not her husband? I think he is much more likely to look for a new partner if you sterilize her. Female religious fanatics tend to be monogamous.

One of the reasons why I am very suspcious of this idea is that people always only look at women when the topic comes up.

In a sexist and racist world, forced sterilization being legal in any way is a very, very, very bad idea.
Same reasons that apply to death sentence, really. You might think it morally justifiable in some cases, but it will not ever be limited to those few cases.

I agree that sometimes we are not capable of making choices that are in our best interests.
I would suggest an implant or coil until the person is well enough to make better decisions

The thought of a newborn going through withdrawal is truly horrifying and makes my blood run cold.

Yes. It's horrific, but it's a far cry from horrific to 'it would be better if this child had never been born'.

If you ask me she should be in a mental health clinic. If you think someone is so bonkers they shouldn't have the autonomy over their own body, then I don't see why you can't put them into a clinic

I think this is the second time you have suggest locking women up Vestal. It makes me a bit uneasy.

I do get your point regarding when sterilise the woman and not the man though. But I'm not keen on the idea of sterilisation anyway - particularly as there are some very good long term contraceptive options that can be used instead.

I would be interested to know from any social workers (or others with "inside info") how often families who have multiple (say 3+) children removed at birth are able to turn their lives around and adequately care for subsequent children? Though of course even if 1% manage it, or any at all, there's a good argument for not sterilising anyone for that reason.

Food for thought from the PP who mentioned sterilisation to prevent further children being born with FAS or similar being akin to saying disabled people shouldn't exist. The difference is FAS is preventable (but then could it be argued that any disability detectable antenatally is preventable? And why should we even seek to prevent any disability).

No answers here, just further questions.

Some of them manage sound. I don't have stats, but it's not 'none'.

I remember a case years ago where a woman with Downs was fighting for the right to have a baby. She needed a high level of care and did not really understand what childbirth and labour would be like, and couldn't care for a baby. Her partner also had Downs.

I dont remember the outcome. I wouldnt want to have to make that decision. If its done it should only be through a court as I dont think most people are equipped to decide on this kind of case.

'If you ask me she should be in a mental health clinic. If you think someone is so bonkers they shouldn't have the autonomy over their own body, then I don't see why you can't put them into a clinic - except of course it costs more money. '

This is why people like you dont get to make these decisions VestalVirgin,

Thanks, Save. That's quite heartening to hear.

Surely this is illegal?

It's not illegal under the mental capacity/mental health act to make decisions on other peoples behalf when they can't consent and have no capacity

If you think about it, in essence it's no different to parents giving consent to operations on behalf of their children.

Decisions are made all the time about the health of others when they are incapable of making decisions for themselves.
Decisions about what happens when someone is in a coma.
Decisions when a person doesn't have the ability to make a decision with regards to have an operation to fit a rod for scoliosis.
Someone who isn't competent to make the decision if medications are to be issued.

the list is endless. Yet every day across the country families and carers have to make these decisions on the behalf of someone else. Yes even adults. Occasionally these decisions have to made in court, in scenarios where there is a disagreement.

To say that the courts cannot make a decision because it is illegal also affects many more lives.

Every case is based on it's own merit, and this is the right thing to do. Deciding on the medical intervention for another person isn't and shouldn't be deemed as black or white. There are so many grey areas.

It's a question of rights and responsibilities - women have the right to bodily autonomy, but when they abuse that right by abusing/ neglecting children, or allowing them to be born addicted of with FAS, then that needs to be reviewed.

I've never understood why bodily autonomy is so sacred that it's considered better to let women have multiple children that are removed at birth - why is that so superior?

And in cases where the individual cannot understand the implications of pregnancy and birth, let alone provide adequate care for a child, then decisions have to be made on their behalf. If that was my DD, I'd have her sterilised in a heartbeat.

Stopping women being raped and abused is an entirely separate, but very important, issue.

Forced sterilisation is never ok and it's a slippery slope into Nazi Britain. I don't know how it isn't illegal. We are slowly but surely seeing the rights of freedoms of everyone but the most rich and powerful stripped away under our noses. This is an extreme case, but once it's accepted for cases like this it becomes acceptable for many others.

I think it's abhorrent.

What about sterilising the feckless men with multiple children all over the place that they don't look after. Never seems to happen, and never will. It's always the woman.

*It's a question of rights and responsibilities - women have the right to bodily autonomy, but when they abuse that right by abusing/ neglecting children, or allowing them to be born addicted of with FAS, then that needs to be reviewed.

I've never understood why bodily autonomy is so sacred that it's considered better to let women have multiple children that are removed at birth - why is that so superior?*

Because it isn't (or shouldn't be) a foregone conclusion that those things happening in the past means those things would happen in the future.

Absolutely. It's all very well wringing hands and bleating about bodily autonomy but unfortunately some people aren't in a position to cope with bodily autonomy.

Whether because of SNs, LDs or just because they're fucking useless human beings who have baby after baby when they're not fit to look after a stick insect.

Despite being a child protection social worker and seeing the worst side of some families lives, I would say no.

Women who repeatedly have their children removed from their care generally are very vulnerable and have experienced dreadful trauma and abuse themselves. They need support, compassion and education. Not a medical magic wand.

'Forced sterilisation is never ok and it's a slippery slope into Nazi Britain. I don't know how it isn't illegal. We are slowly but surely seeing the rights of freedoms of everyone but the most rich and powerful stripped away under our noses. This is an extreme case, but once it's accepted for cases like this it becomes acceptable for many others'.

Namechanger, on my birth records which I accessed when I was 18 as I am adopted, I found out that my schizophrenic mother had been advised to be sterilised when she was pregnant with me. They didn't want someone like her to have more kids. They also advised her to abort me. That was back in the seventies. I think that's partly why I feel soweird about it.

Romani women were forcibly sterilised in the Czech Rep where I live, I think during Communist times. It does havea history of being used to get rid of people seen as undesirable.

emilybohemia - you are living proof that it is the completely the wrong path to take. Your life is as worthy as any other. We can't have people deciding that other people cannot have children.

What we need is a more supportive society, supportive to all parents, so that when a parent is struggling to cope others step in to help. We don't really have that now. We don't need forced sterilisation.

Sterilisation of women could easily lead to anyone on benefits being sterilised, parents with low-paid jobs, anyone with a disability, anyone with any kind of criminal conviction, anyone who doesn't completely conform. There are a fair number of people who would agree to this being implemented now.

This isn't about parents who are "struggling to cope" who would actually benefit from support, it's about ones who are beyond help. Did you read lala's account? These were not well meaning people who needd a few parenting classes. There are cruel and sadistic people who shouldn't have kids, as well as ones so far in the throes of addiction that they are harming their kids.

Perhaps the addicts might turn their lives around at some point in the future, but how many babies born with FAS or addicted to heroin are you prepared to see on that off chance?

Sterilisation of women could easily lead to anyone on benefits being sterilised

Life sentences for murderers could easily lead to anyone who parks on a double yellow line getting life without parole.

20% income tax could easily lead to the sequestration of everyone's assets.

Rules preventing you from defecating in the freezer aisle in -Waitrose Aldi could easily lead to forbidding you from blowing your nose while shopping.

If you can't carry an assault rifle in the street, next you won't be able to own a kitchen knife.

Slippery slope arguments are seductive, but are themselves slippery slopes.