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?

@Cringemum can you please point to where she has been spoken about being "practically brain dead"? I don't recall that at all throughout the thread.

A lot of people are at risk of PND. It doesn't mean they should have their pregnancies terminated.

I agree that the woman was being discussed as if she was basically a puppet. More so on the first thread, though.

@PouncerDarling where was that on this thread?

I'm not reading through every single post on this and the other thread to check, but it was definitely the flavour of some comments.

pouncerdarling You’re making it up as you’re going along 🙄 “I’m not reading through every comment to check”
Did a pp suggest that mothers to be who might develop PND should have an abortion? No. Listen the pro life stance is glaringly obvious on this thread. You can dress it up all you like. Those who are pro choice can see its mile off

@OkPedro - you don't speak for all of us who are pro choice. I'm as pro-choice as they get, that's why I don't agree with forced abortion and have argued that on this thread.

"I agree that the woman was being discussed as if she was basically a puppet."

@PouncerDarling - I noticed exactly the same, you're not making it up.

I think possibly the ‘like a doll’ comment may be overstretched by some on here. I doubt it means she doesn’t understand it’s a baby to love, but that she is incapable of prioritising the babies needs and responding sufficiently to a new newborns complex care needs. Like a doll in that she doesn’t understand the amount of care a child needs and can’t put it first. The judgement describes her needs as moderately severe, not profound, which would imply she could emotionally connect on a simple level with wanting and loving a child (the child’s best interests are a separate argument).

She’s somewhere between these it sounds :

severe – People with a severe learning disability often use basic words and gestures to communicate their needs. Many need a high level of support with everyday activities such as cooking, budgeting, cleaning and shopping, but many can look after some if not all of their own personal care needs. Some people have additional medical needs and some need support with mobility issues.
Moderate – People with a moderate learning disability are likely to have some language skills that mean they can communicate about their day to day needs and wishes. People may need some support with caring for themselves, but many will be able to carry out day to day tasks with support.

So she’ll have some language to communicate, likely be looking after some if not all personal care needs and is communicating her wishes.

It’s not about being pro-life, it’s about being very very very careful about this decision against her wishes. I’ve said before on the thread I have a sister with moderate LD and whilst some care has been great a consistent issue has been professionals intellectualising and dismissing her emotional responses. I’ve been told she’s not upset by things for example because she’s just sat and stared, when she’s been deeply affected for years. She was at one point sexually misused and it went no where legally as she was sectioned (unreliable witness) and unable to communicate well. They also felt she did not display signs of typical distress understanding it was abuse, yet I know she does.

Let's assume the woman in question does have her baby by c-section, would it be ethical to also tie her tubes at the same time?

@PouncerDarling @Cringemum as far I I can recall there haven't been any posts implying what you have said, it's really disingenuous to those who have been trying to explain about the MCA. None of us want this poor woman to be going through what she is. Some of us, however, have an understanding of how that initial judge may have come to her decision.
"The most fundamental human right is the right to life" was said by a pro-life group, not about the needs of the mother but of the foetus. In our society it's the needs of the pregnancy women and her needs alone that are taken into account.

I think it would be ethical to frame it in very very simple terms, ‘you are sad’, talk about pain, not keeping babies and attempt dialogue- then consider her feelings on the matter. If she was very resistant unwaveringly to sterilisation I wouldn’t force any procedure, but if receptive, possibly without absolute understanding and care givers thought it was best it’s an option. Otherwise IUDs/ implants I would think more appropriate, if they could be used.

The exception would be medical risk, eg if another baby would endanger her life then it would need to be explained, for example a woman who has a pph and hysterectomy to safe her life but cannot consent under GA in an emergency has life saving treatment without consent.

It’s tricky, my best suggestion is maybe a reasonable person test. Ie if consent could be obtained what would the average woman be likely to want as a starting point. The average woman would be sterilised to prevent death or injury, she would not have a late stage abortion against her will. It’s imperfect but there are similar tests in law, and it’s a starting point for equal treatment, not as a conclusive rule, but a default position when evidence is unclear.

That’s @Kpo58

There's two outcomes for the pregnancy. Terminate it now or wait until she gives birth. Both end with the woman having to go though some form of procedure that'll be painful and, given her mental capacity, without informed consent and full understanding. The different between the two is her having to go through another approximate 18 weeks of pregnancy (to state the obvious) and her lose an unseen foetus or an either seen or unseen baby.

The judge's decision will be based on this and which is preferable to her well-being. Or to be more honest, which would be perceived at having the least negative effect on her.

Both the pregnancy and termination are 'forced' upon her. The very fact this is in court is because she is incapable of informed consent or decisions making.

She did not get pregnancy by choice due to wanting a child. She has an adult body with the mental capacity of a 6-9 year old. She has sexual desires without the mental capacity to understand the possible consequences of sex.

Her 'will' to continues the pregnancy very much echo her own mother's doesn't it? Do people imagine that she wants to continue the pregnancy knowing the baby will be taken away? Or is it more likely it's because he mother has told her there will be a baby; and babies are cute?

Personally, the fact that the pregnancy is at this late stage before any attention was drawn to it and her mother wants to take the baby makes me uncomfortably. It feels like the woman is, indeed, being treated as a puppet to produce a baby for her own mother.

The Catholic church being involved doesn't suggest that there's any concern for the woman is at the heart of it. No for me anyway. But they and her mother have taken their wants over her well being and appealed. Resulting in the pregnancy progressing further and any termination that might occurs more traumatic.

"“Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, and that of her close family, "

And that of her close family?

WTAF??

Surely it's a decision between the parents??

She might have expressed a wish to keep the baby-but how does that help if she won't be capable of bringing it up & it will be handed over to someone else?

FakeUserName, I think the problem in this case is not just the level of learning difficulty but the fact that the mother has a mood affective disorder and, it would appear, some psychosis.

She is a person who has expressed a wish not to terminate the her baby.

Why do you keep saying this when it's been pointed out that the only evidence is that she said she wanted the baby, which is not the same thing at all?

@Isatis as I’ve said before my sister has both, in speculating as others are, but saying her emotions are still complex. It’s not as simple as she doesn’t understand/ this is better for her mental health. Even more complicated- my sisters extreme mental health deterioration was actually found to have a physical cause eventually and brain surgery mostly solved it.

@gingerpaleandproud what do you think of the UN criticisms of our processes for dealing with people with disabilities and mental illnesses?

Do you think there might be wider problems with our system? I think there was also a case with an Italian woman being forced to deliver via cesarean.

I am worried that in general medical staff tend to treat pregnant women in quite a dismissive way and that care in this country for pregnant women and during birth is not great.

The same could be said of people with mental illnesses and disabilities as @Fakeusername has said.

I wonder if where the two intersect we might not have some quite poor practices.

Earlier I said that I thought it might be ok to force a woman without capacity to have an abortion against her will if there was clear evidence of harm to her health including mental health. Now I am no longer sure. It seems like from the mind site that provisions to forcibly treat people with mental health conditions do get abused.

Also the judges comments that the grandmother might go back to Nigeria. Anyone else think this sounds a bit racist?

The Catholic Church clearly have opinions on this case, but I don’t think there is any evidence that the the original decision was overturned on religious grounds.

Until the judges have made their reasoning public we don’t know why they made their decision.

@FakeUsernane the reasonable person test as is an interesting idea as opposed to best interests. Reasonable people often make choices which are objectively against their best interests especially where their children are concerned.

That is one of the things I was saying on the other thread. Women very rarely chose to have abortions at 22 weeks. Usually when they do its because of fetal abnormalities. That is really because they place value on the life of the baby. But any attempt to give a legal weight to a babies life before viability restricts women's rights to bodily autonomy.

Also the judges comments that the grandmother might go back to Nigeria. Anyone else think this sounds a bit racist?

Not if there is evidence that she plans to return to Nigeria.

@merrymouse she said she would help to care for her grandchild and is currently caring for her daughter. So that isnt her stated intention for sure.

The reason I started to think about it was the critical UN report which I read about on the Mind site. It said it was concerned that black people in the UK were disproportionately forced to undergo medical treatments.

Sorry I haven't RTFT but the decision has been overturned I believe
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/24/catholic-church-hits-out-at-court-over-abortion-ruling

she said she would help to care for her grandchild and is currently caring for her daughter. So that isnt her stated intention for sure.

If everybody who stated an intention to care for a child actually did so no child would ever need to be taken in to care against the wishes of their parents. Family law is difficult. The court have to take into account all the information available to them. We do not have access to that information.