Would it be immoral to secretly sterilise a person?

[Globaluser]

A person you feel doesn’t deserve to have kids? A person who’s children are already in care? Would you, if you could?

So, in a nutshell:
Does anyone feel they could take away the right to have a baby from anyone who could potentially be a danger to a child?

Yabu - yes
Yanbu - no

FYI I’m asking because a friend thinks its wrong to make such a big decision on behalf of a person.

How would it be possible to secretly do this?

Your voting doesn't match up with your thread title. But medical procedures need consent unless life saving.

To be clear I am absolutely not in favour of state mandated forced sterilisation, but when I stop and think about it I’ve known women who have had multiple pregnancies and each and every child take from them immediately at birth because of their proven history and no evidence of any change. One of these women happily volunteered that she punished her dog by putting it in the shower because it frightened it, not because it even worked, but because that’s how she exerted her power in a situation by using fear as a weapon.

Is it really more humane to allow a woman have pregnancy after pregnancy only to step in immediately and remove her child each and every time? I’m not sure I see much space between that and enforced sterilisation tbh.

@lottiegarbanzo

Also your voting options are the opposite way around from the wording of your post, so the votes will be meaningless.

Doesn't bode well for your career as queen of crystal clear moral thinking.

I think that's intentional as OP says her friend is against forced/secret sterilisation, implying that OP is not. So they may have purposely tried to skew the results.

Secretly and without consent? I’m unclear how any right thinking person can think this is reasonable

Your YABU/YANBU aren’t clear? Is it “yes, it’s immoral” or “yes, I could do that”?

It’s absolutely immoral btw

Eugenics. Delightful.

Generally no it's not right but where there's a history of abuse or neglect, high number of removals to care etc then encouraging long term contraception or permanent sterilisation might be appropriate. The other group where it might be appropriate is where the person cannot consent to sex because of severe learning disabilities or in particular cannot understand the consequences of having sex in that it makes babies

Of course it's immoral! And also a crime. And a human rights violation. Good grief.

I'm not sure why this is all if. The UK did this to people with Learning Disabilities and chronic health conditions for years.

Yes - immoral.

I haven't voted because your YABU / YANBU options are confusing.

Absolutely not, there isn’t any excuse, reason etc for eugenics. Even if we were to ignore the huge emotional impact on the person, they would likely be subjected to invasive surgery which, depending on the surgery this could lead to them leaving HRT and facing longterm physical poor health.

My sons birth mum has made some extremely poor choices, while I don’t agree with her choices I completely understand why she made some of those choices. Poor choices in life should not result in eugenics, she is still a human being, you don’t stop being a person with rights and emotions just because you have done something wrong, no matter what that thing is. While unlikely she could change and one day be able to meet the needs of a child.

For some individuals with SEN that mean they would never be able to parent without a huge amount of support - yes, I think sterilisation is the right thing. For example, a family friend has a DD with Downs syndrome who is married to a young man with Downs. If they were to conceive a child, that baby would almost certainly have Downs, and would need additional carers to be present at all times because the parents would be unable to care for the baby properly.

It would be grossly unfair to the child in those circumstances, and grossly unfair to the child's grandparents who would have to take on the bulk of the work because they'd be unable to leave a young baby/child with parents who couldn't care for him/her adequately.

Absolutely it’s wrong

You’re playing god. At what point does it stop. We’ve put people behind bars that have been innocent. Imagine doing that to someone who didn’t deserve it. No. Couldn’t ever agree to that

Feels like a Nazi thing to do

Indeed.

It's horrific.

I don't understand why this could be relevant to you and your friend- or was this a hypothetical situation?

Worrying post, tbh

I don't think it's morally acceptable, no. What if a person sorted their life out later and wanted kids after an unstable time?

I do think more should be done to offer, say, women whose kids are repeatedly taken into care long-term reversible contraceptives like the implant, as long as they are always reversed if the woman wants them to be - just so that no one can conceive without thinking about it or accidentally because they don't or can't remember to use contraceptives.

I thought this years ago after watching a programme about child protection services where there some mums who, due to mental ill health or drug use were repeatedly having children removed at birth and I felt it would be so much better if they'd been offered the contraceptive implant to prevent them having to go through this repeatedly. And still enable them to have kids if they do manage to get their lives on track again.

You don't need to reach back in history as far as the Nazis. Mass sterilisations of unsuspecting poor men and women happened in India in the 1970s. Many operations were botched, leaving these poor people with life changing injuries and even more misery heaped upon them. The novel "A Fine Balance", by Rohinton Mistry, deals with this. It's one of the most beautiful, harrowing and haunting books I have ever read.

OP, YABVVVU. Shitty laws stay on the statute books long after a "decent" government, who is using it for "justified" reasons, has lost power. Just remember that any law can be used against you if a government comes into power that decides you are the wrong kind of person.

Forced Sterilisation in India

I’ve name changed to share an anecdote.

As a medical student I attended a C-section. This young woman had mild learning difficulties and had children already who were classed as ‘in need’ with social services and had significant behavioural problems. She had pregnancy complications before and was at serious risk. The dad was in prison and had abused her. No dad on scene for the others. She was not coping already.

The consultant did say in the staff room that for her and her kids sake he really wanted to tie her tubes when she was on the table.

Of course it would be immoral, what an affront to bodily autonomy. I felt sorry for her and her kids though and Christ knows she didn’t any more on her plate.

Welcome to step one on the path to eugenics

There have been decisions by the Court of Protection that have allowed termination for a woman without capacity.
CS (Termination of Pregnancy) [2016] EWCOP 10

In 2015 there was an enforced sterilisation of a woman with learning disabilities who had birthed six children.

The difference here to what you are suggesting is that the decisions were about protecting vulnerable women not being punitive. They weren’t done secretly and were vociferously debates in closed court but with all parties having representation.

How does one secretly sterilise a person?

How would it be possible to secretly do this?

For a woman, having it done during a childbirth-related procedure (c-section or retained placenta when the woman goes under general) or she is told she has a reproductive cancer or similar that she either doesn't actually have or does have and they sterilize her at the same time when it's not needed to treat her. It's actually kinda easier now in that IUDs are as effective and easier to do.

I'm struggling to think of a situation where secretly doing it isn't immoral. The closest ones I can think of all involve someone who can't consent to a pregnancy being at risk of forced pregnancy but no other realistic means of stopping the latter.

I can see the argument for incentivizing sterilization or IUDs (particularly where there are barriers to it, like the US and costs) but am wary of the systemic issues around it on a practical level

It can be a slippery slope but I think the children should come first and some of their lives are messed up before they’re even born.
With certain people the I definitely think it should be forced I’m fed up of reading about someone who gets pregnant every year and each time has the child removed straight away - surely they should be stopped.

@HavelockVetinari

For some individuals with SEN that mean they would never be able to parent without a huge amount of support - yes, I think sterilisation is the right thing. For example, a family friend has a DD with Downs syndrome who is married to a young man with Downs. If they were to conceive a child, that baby would almost certainly have Downs, and would need additional carers to be present at all times because the parents would be unable to care for the baby properly.

It would be grossly unfair to the child in those circumstances, and grossly unfair to the child's grandparents who would have to take on the bulk of the work because they'd be unable to leave a young baby/child with parents who couldn't care for him/her adequately.

Really you think you think they should be forcibly sterilised without consent. There’s a 30 to 50 percent chance the baby would have downs so no not almost certain that they would.