To think you can't physically force somebody to have a late term abortion?

[Cringemum]

Just that really.

I was following the thread on the feminist board about the 22yo woman with LD's, who is 22 weeks pregnant, and a judge has ordered the pregnancy be terminated against her wishes.

The thread reached the maximum amount of comments before anybody was able to shed any light on my question.

I can't fathom how she can be physically forced to go through the procedure if she refuses to comply.

Could anybody shed any light on how exactly something like this could be enforced short of physically dragging her to the hospital and restraining her.

Horrible, horrible case by all accounts and my POV is that the judge has made the wrong decision - for the mother - I'm strictly pro choice in all situations but this doesn't sit right with me at all.

Many on the previous thread strongly disagree as is their prerogative but I don't understand how she can be made to go through with a termination?

Anybody?

I can't find anything on line to say the decision has been overturned. But as I mentioned earlier, this is taking me back to the Alfie Evans case, and I recall how many times the legal decisions were challenged, so this doesn't surprise me.

I am also a little concerned at how many people on here don't understand that the government and the justice system are two different entities.

I haven’t personally checked if an appeal has been made sorry.

If an appeal is made are they trying to get over the 24 week limit?

Apparently from SPUC!!!!

Appeal judges overturn forced abortion

Can’t cut and paste

I'm yet to see it from a legitimate news source, but very, very hopeful that has actually been overturned.

We can't have it both ways. Either she's so unaware of her surroundings, she wouldn't even notice the significantly invasive process of a forced late term termination, ergo she wouldn't even notice giving birth. And she's so unaware of her surroundings she wouldn't even notice that her baby has died ergo she wouldn't notice that it's been adopted.

As the judge herself pointed out, a baby will be much more real to this woman than the concept of pregnancy. It's not a matter of being unaware of her surroundings. The removal of a pregnancy under general anaesthetic would be very similar to the removal of an appendix; whereas the removal of a baby is potentially much more psychologically painful.

If someone can't choose to have a termination, it shouldn't even be on the table as an option. Terminations are for women who are capable of giving consent

Really? A woman who wasn't capable of giving consent to sexual intercourse is raped and becomes pregnant, but she isn't allowed to have a termination because she can't consent to that? How utterly barbaric.

This is isn't a matter of life saving surgery though. There's nothing to suggest that the pregnancy is life threatening. It would be entirely different if it were.

Not entirely true. There is evidence of an increased risk of psychosis, which can be life-threatening; also that her behavioural difficulties are such that the process of birth may be very dangerous.

Ask the NHS. Don't ask me. If you have a late term termination, you are given G&A and pethidine injections.

I suspect you're extrapolating from your own experience which you said was several years ago, Pouncer - plus you presumably had full capacity and did not have learning difficulties giving rise to potentially dangerous behavioural problems and possible psychosis. You also ignore the fact that provision could potentially be made in a court order for an anaesthetic.

The safest option to avoid retained products is for the heart to be stopped with an injection into the uterus and for labour to be induced so that the contents of her uterus can be expelled whole

All of that can be achieved surgically, otherwise C sections would be avoided much more than they are.

www.premier.org.uk/News/UK/Doctors-must-not-abort-mentally-ill-woman-s-baby-appeal-judges-rule

It's on pro life sites as apparently been overturned by the Court of Appeal but nothing yet on mainstream media outlets, which is surprising.

It certainly looks legitimate in terms of the reporting, although I don't have much faith in pro-life groups.

They said they would give reasons for their decision at a later date.

I bloody hope they are good reasons, this poor women will now be forced to give birth and have her child removed from her care.

Now the law/guidelines need to change so that forced late abortions can only be ordered by a court for a woman without capacity where there is clear medical evidence of harm to physical or mental health from the continuation of the pregnancy.

Goodness.

Will it be overturned again, though?

I shouldn't have thought it would be overturned again. You'd have to go to a higher court than the court of appeal, so a European court.

@SemperIdem them who was supervising her when she had unprotected sex then?

@Carla1983 She cannot choose. She does not have the mental capacity to choose. Dear God, what part of this don't people understand?

Pounder- after the Court of Appeal it's the Supreme Court (what used to be House of Lords). After that it will be the European Court of Human Rights but obviously time is of the essence on this one.

I presume if the case has been overturned, everyone who said that the word of the judge is beyond scrutiny will be absolutely satisfied with this decision.

@Carla1983 a woman with the mental age of nine

Exactly. Capacity is not to do with chronological age, it is to do with the ability to understand complex concepts. She has the mental age of a child - and, for the avoidance of doubt, I'd point out that nine is quoted as the upper limit of her mental age, it could actually be lower.

This is a horrible situation. But there has to be a best interests decision based on her best interests alone. Not those of her mother, or of the foetus. Of her alone.

I presume if the case has been overturned, everyone who said that the word of the judge is beyond scrutiny will be absolutely satisfied with this decision.

As satisfied or dissatisfied as with any previous decision, yes, indeed!

The crux of this case isn't the outcome but the fact that it has to be argued in amcourt of law in the first place because something has gone dreadfully, dreadfully wrong.

Whatever happens now is not becaise it's "right" - only because mere people, to the best of their ability - are being tasked with damage control in what is a fucked up beyond repair situation from the get-go.

So, no issues here either way. Just sadness.

I presume if the case has been overturned, everyone who said that the word of the judge is beyond scrutiny will be absolutely satisfied with this decision.

I would be satisfied if their judgement was reached out of the best interests of the person in the situation. I would be beyond furious if they had changed the decision to appease people who thought they knew better and who only had their own self-serving opinions to consider and not the feelings and best interests of the young women.

I'm very surprised you think a court would rule because of the popularity of a particular opinion.

I'm also not convinced that folk understand what a mental age of 6 to 9 actually means in practice.

A cognitively normal / average person in this age range has started to have opinions and to express themselves with increasing eloquence, and they have a great deal of charm and sweetness to them, they can really tug on your heart strings - but they have an almost incredible lack of cause-and-effect thinking beneath that veneer, and very little what we'd call "moral development" or ability to understand ethical ramifications. Their emotions are in place but are still developing connection to things like morality, memory and personal history.

There are 6 or 9 year olds who are old beyond their years and one can imagine them suffering moral torments at the idea of abortion, emotional torments around losing one's baby, etc. etc. but this assessment will have been based on an average person in that age range. Not an exceptional one.

*Whatever happens now is not becaise it's "right" - only because mere people, to the best of their ability - are being tasked with damage control in what is a fucked up beyond repair situation from the get-go.

So, no issues here either way. Just sadness.*

Absolutely agree. I understood the previous decision, and felt the same way about it. There are no winners in a case like this.