Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

524 replies

Cringemum · 24/06/2019 14:16

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?

OP posts:
hatgirl · 24/06/2019 22:39

Mental health has always been a very misogynistic field

Mental health is entirely separate from mental capacity. One can have very poor mental health and still have full mental capacity, and you can be deemed to lack mental capacity without having any kind of mental health problem.

Your average drunk on a Saturday night in a&e most likely lacks mental capacity at that time, despite not otherwise being disordered in the brain or mind.

Someone with schizophrenia can be acutely mentally unwell but still have mental capacity to understand and make informed decisions relating to their care.

The whole point of the mental capacity act is that it is time and decision specific. Which is why I frequently get cross with doctors who declare someone wholesale to have or lack capacity

franklyshankly2 · 24/06/2019 22:39

I am a feminist but studying feminism and noting its attitudes (sometimes) towards disability rights makes me really sad.

PouncerDarling · 24/06/2019 22:40

@Cringemum

I'm the same. I'm so relieved for her that she won't be forced to go through with a termination. It's been on my mind constantly ever since I heard about it.

PCohle · 24/06/2019 22:40

The CofA hasn't yet published the full judgment so the reasons for overturning the original decision aren't yet clear.

The appeal was brought by the woman's catholic mother. It's clearly a very sad case.

GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit · 24/06/2019 22:42

In the link I posted the UN criticises our processes in the UK for substituted decision making and compulsory medical treatment amongst other things.

It could be that the UK systems aren't perfect and that people who think this aren't just totally ignorant.

I must admit until this case came up I knew little about this court. However I have been busy educating myself.

gingerpaleandproud · 24/06/2019 22:43

@carla1983 that should have said "deemed to be in her best interest". We have the appeals process for a reason.
My point was the decisions made were not so because of misogyny and an attack on women and their reproductive rights. And I stand by that.

merrymouse · 24/06/2019 22:44

One judges decision overruled by three others, and yet the first judge still made the right decision?

That is how the law works in this country. A decision can be over turned by a higher court.

Nobody on this thread has the necessary information to judge this case either way, and nobody who has tried to explain how the process works has claimed to possess that knowledge.

The right to appeal is a strength, not a failure of the system.

hatgirl · 24/06/2019 22:44

grapefruits you might want to read that link again.

It references the mental health act not the mental capacity act.

Two entirely different things.

merrymouse · 24/06/2019 22:47

Hopefully it will be of some comfort to you that the opinions expressed on this and the other thread that you didn't agree with now have legal backing.

We don’t know the background to the original decision or why it was overturned was overturned.

Anybody who does know certainly shouldn’t be posting about it on Mumsnet.

LangCleg · 24/06/2019 22:49

the opinions expressed on this and the other thread that you didn't agree with now have legal backing

No, they don't.

The case - about which I have expressed no opinion other than I cannot form an opinion without the full judgement as it would be both partial and ignorant to do so - has proceeded to a higher court and the decision has altered as to what is in the best interests of a vulnerable adult who lacks capacity.

I do not have an opinion on whether adults who lack capacity and are pregnant should terminate or give birth. I think the evolved and mature systems we have in this country to make decisions for those who lack capacity should be followed and every case should be treated as protecting the welfare of a unique human being. This has happened here. No court is infallible but vulnerable adults in Britain would be much worse off without this system.

As I have said over and over and over again. The case is not about the rights and wrongs of abortion. It is not about the rights of people with LDs. It is about one vulnerable adult who lacks capacity. Who should not be disrespected by being spoken about in intrusive, speculating, offensive ways nor used as a cipher for the sociopolitical opinions of others.

Original poster
Cringemum · 24/06/2019 22:50

It was highlighted and accepted that making her undergo a termination against her will was a breach of her human rights, but I got shot down for saying as much earlier on.

It was also remarked upon that the young woman was flexible and adaptable, so a far cry from the way some have assumed her to be on here.

OP posts:
PouncerDarling · 24/06/2019 22:57

No one said it was about the rights and wrongs of abortion. In fact, we've specifically said over and over again that it's nothing to do with whether abortion is wrong. It's about whether forced abortion is wrong. And I'm very, very glad that the court now agrees that it would be wrong to do that to her.

What would be ideal for me is if a court was never asked about forcing an abortion on someone, outside of life saving measures.

merrymouse · 24/06/2019 22:58

but I got shot down for saying as much earlier on.

Because you are making general statements without any specific knowledge of this case.

It was also remarked upon that the young woman was flexible and adaptable, so a far cry from the way some have assumed her to be on here.

Judges with specific knowledge of this case are in a position to make that judgement. Everyone one else is just making assumptions.

The point is not that one judgement is right and the other wrong, but that the only people in a position to make those judgements were sitting in court, not posting their opinions on Mumsnet.

GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit · 24/06/2019 23:02

The UN is criticising our rules on mental health AND mental capacity both of which are relevant to the case being discussed.

Equal recognition before the law
The committee expressed concern about:

The legislation restricting legal capacity of persons with disabilities on the basis of actual or perceived impairment
The prevalence of substituted decision-making and lack of full recognition of the right to individualised supported decision-making that respects the autonomy, will and preferences of persons with disabilities
The insufficient support to all asylum seekers with psycho-social and/or intellectual disabilities, in exercising their legal capacity
The high number of black people with disabilities compulsorily detained and treated against their will.
It was recommended that the UK, in close collaboration with organisations of persons with disabilities (including those representing people from black and minority ethnic groups) abolish all forms of substituted decision-making concerning all spheres and areas of life. It went on to suggest adopting new policy and legislation in terms of mental health and mental capacity.

CorBlimeyGovenor · 24/06/2019 23:10

Gosh, I don't know where I sit on this. Actually, I think that 22 weeks is too late. A baby is viable at that stage. So surely it also has rights?? And would it be worse to allow the pregnancy to continue and then have a c section at 37 weeks under a general, rather than a late abortion under a general/sedation at 6mths? Is the thought of her having a baby adopted (if she is even aware that she's pregnant) worse than her having it taken away through other means and destroyed? The decision doesn't sit well with me due to the age of the foetus.

PouncerDarling · 24/06/2019 23:11

Luckily, they've overturned the decision now.

TastingTheRainbow · 24/06/2019 23:17

Such a sad case.

Option a - Force a termination

Option b - Force pregnancy, force antenatal care, force scans, force either induction and labour or force a Caesarean section, force vaginal examinations, force drugs being given, force postnatal care, force the removal of the baby.

I know which I would rather have but I don’t envy those having to make such a difficult decision that should be make in HER best interests only, not her mums, not the baby’s, not the idiots signing a petition. All that matters is what is best for her.

Kanga83 · 24/06/2019 23:20

CorBlimey, legally the foetus isn't deemed viable until 24 weeks. It's a horrible horrible case, with no winners.

gingerpaleandproud · 24/06/2019 23:23

"
It was highlighted and accepted that making her undergo a termination against her will was a breach of her human rights, but I got shot down for saying as much earlier on."

@Cringemum
where did you read that? I can't see it in any of the reports that I've read.

TastingTheRainbow · 24/06/2019 23:25

It was overturned because the Catholic Church got involved, an appalling reason. They go on about the baby’s rights and fail to consider that the girls mother likely won’t be raising this baby no matter what so she’s not going to get what she wants either way, she’s just going to put her daughter through a traumatic time and see the baby forcibly adopted instead. Very very sad

PouncerDarling · 24/06/2019 23:30

I'm not religious, but if a termination is against the woman's religious views, it does make a difference. I don't think it should when it comes to medical treatment, but I can totally see why forcing someone to do something that is fundamentally against their beliefs is even more of a violation.

GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit · 24/06/2019 23:35

None of the people who have posted about us having such a good system for dealing with those that lack capacity and who have said that posters who have questioned it are ignorant or ridiculous seem to want to comment on why the UN committee on disability disagrees with them.

Actually the UN seem to be implying they think our system is racist.

TastingTheRainbow · 24/06/2019 23:38

The woman doesn’t have any religious views, her mother is catholic. Her mother’s views are irrelevant. If there was new evidence or something relating to the pregnant woman herself why the verdict was overturned I would understand that. Overturning it based on her mums views is wrong.

gingerpaleandproud · 24/06/2019 23:38

@PouncerDarling yes her religious beliefs would be taken into account, most definitely. However depending on her intellectual and cognitive impairment, she may not have the depth of understanding of her religion to be anti-abortion.
It'll be very interesting to hear the reasoning for the overturn. As many of said, there are no winners here. All paths followed will have a very sad end.