Mum of 9 Files Lawsuit Claiming Her Reproductive Rights Were Violated When She Was Sterilised Without Her Consent

[Earlybird]

This emotive story is beginning to gain national play, and is causing an ethical, moral, social and economic discussion in America.

Many say what the lawsuit claims occurred was/is barbaric, but the Mum's personal past has become a sticking point in the court of public opinion.

Background highlights:

• Mum had her first baby at 13, and quit school at the same time
• Mum has 9 children from four men - first two when she was a teenager, subsequent 7 were conceived while in 2 long term relationships.
• Mum has never been employed and receives financial aid from the state for 2 of the 4 children who live with her (the other 2 are supported financially by their father)
• Grandmother has custody of 3 of the children, who live with grandmother
• Mum has a litigation history having sued a chain of chemists in 2001 claiming they sold her an expired spermicide which failed to prevent a pregnancy (she won)
• - Mum was sterilised when she was 35, so in theory, had quite a few reproductive years ahead of her.

Part of why the story is beginning to get national attention is the overwhelming outpouring of angry public sentiment toward the Mum.

Extremists hail the doctors as 'heroes'.

More measured/moderate opinions are finding it difficult to defend the Mum because 'rights come with responsibility' and this Mum has been 'irresponsible' by continuing to have children she cannot afford to raise.

news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?&articleid=1222682&format=&page=2&listingType=Loc#articl eFull

What is your view?

Rather a large and growing underclass than Nazism.

I probably trump you all in he numbers of families I come across who do this and I still don't believe forcible strrilisation is unacceptable. Some people do change and I know of one woman who lost baby number 6 to adoption, but actually listened to the advice and support she was given and is now in a solid positive relationship and is considering having a child she can parent properly.

Quite SS

bingo! Stillsquiffy - i refer you to godwin's law.

You been watching QI tooLemonade?

Thing is,sometimes its relevant

And it is here

I doubt that Godwin had quite this in mind, somehow

Although Naziism not so likely as some of the eugenics that went before on a much smaller quieter scale- both in the UK and America

And who decides who is allowed children and who isn't. Why is four the magic number? Who decides that someone is a member of an underclass - this sounds one step away from eugenics to me, cleansing the gene pool of all the undesirables? So do we have the right to sterilise those of limited intelligence too??

I agree that it is not good for anyone for people who are poorly equipped emotionally and otherwise to just keep on having babies but that said, enforced sterilisation????? Wow, that's really scary... So tell me anyone, who decides who gets done and who doesn't??? Local councils, central government, Social Services? Perhaps you could have neighbours nominate one another if they felt people in their community had had enough children or were not good enough parents or were on benefits.

Sorry, iPhone rubbish. I meant that forced sterilisation is never acceptable. People do change and that's why I remain positive about working with them.
If you can't be hopeful ( yet realistic) then find a different area of work.

Ime no-one sets out to have this sort of life, it happens because your family and community don't care enough about you. Change that and we'll change the lives of girls and young women who are pregnant as children.

expat, earlybird - agree the doctors must have thought they had permission. But it's entirely possible that they didn't and something went horribly wrong with the consent process. See my earlier post about the hospital that carried out a hysterectomy on the wrong patient...

Lemonade - on a purely economic level, it would make far more sense to provide the support families in crisis need, when they need it. However expensive that is.

The current mess means we just end up paying even more for fucked up lives through the crimminal justice system, social services and NHS. When families are destroyed (no matter who is at fault, if anyone), we end up with high rates of ill-health, with grieving women having baby after baby in the hope they can keep one, and with all too many children coming out of what we laughably call care scarred for life, with few qualifications and at very high risk of falling into crime/self harm/drug addiction/unsuccessful teenage motherhood etc. etc. (Although clearly there are success stories, as a group we fail children in care very badly indeed.)

Ah there are a few that would nominate us,nasty poorpeoplewith allour autistuic kids (sadly I kid you not,fewsnobs around here)

And thats a big aprt isn't it? Who would you hand that power to?

I remember a huge furore a few years back on the potential sterilisation of a girlwith severe LD and other SN.

And the evidence here, as we have it, is that Mum does indeed care for her kids now so again, whilst I would eprsonally rather she didn't,the child would likely be cared and provided for, and preventing that won't help those who were earliest when mum was,for example, 13

I will emphasise that age again 13

I know some were afterwards but heck,when someonoe is birthing at 13 something has gone badly awry and parhaps it is she who has been let down by society, as much as she has done the same?

I didn't say it would be an easy thing to institute and I also said that cases where it is necessary are fairly rare but the current situation is unsustainable.

edam - all those costs would be saved if these individuals didn't have the children in the first place.

Lemonadedrinker it wouldn't because morally it is so out of whack the discussion could not even take place. The sad thing for you is, you work with people yet believe them to be beyond help.

I suggest you really have a think about this sort of thing, if you believe it is the right thing to do then you do need to think about who holds the power and who makes the decisions because that is at the heart of this issue.

Hey, perhaps all the candidates could go onto Jeremy Kyle, fight it out and then we could all have a telephone vote like x-factor, at least that would be democratic!

thh - I suggest you meet some of these people see the horror they inflict on their children and then you see if you feel the same way. I am currently dealing with a woman who has just returned to and got pregnant by a man who has just been released from prison for sexually abusing their first 2 children. Their has been extensive lengthy and expensive intervention but this is still the outcome but of course to prevent this man from having children is against his human rights in your book. Honestly what do you think is the best solution for these people?

lemonadedrinker- what is your view on the state sterilisation of those with severe special needs?

Regarding the issue of sterilisation for the 'good' of society:

Three years ago, California proposed elective sterilisation for women who gave birth in state prisons?which, considering these women's disempowered position, was widely seen as not really "elective" at all. The proposal did not pass.

Louisiana state Rep. John LaBruzzo raised eyebrows last year when he presented a plan to offer women who are on Welfare $1,000 to have their tubes tied.

I am not suggesting the story you have related here is OK in anyway. A member of my own family is a bit of a nightmare and I am sure would fall into the underclass you describe.

I just want to know how and who makes the decision and what are the criteria, just being criminal, just being a sexual criminal, a paedophile only, is a rapist ok?

As a nation we have fought against this kind of facism in our very recent history and to do this, forcing sterilisations would just make us inhuman.

I wonder would you feel qualified to be the person who makes the fianl decision?

At least if she wins her lawsuit she might be able to pay for all those kids she keeps shooting out.

lemonadedrinker, it doesn't matter how drastic a situation you describe our how startlingly clear it is that the woman you describe should not do what she is doing, it will never make it right, fair or acceptable for "society", either in the person of a surgeon or anyone else, to decide that someone should be sterilised against their will. It is certainly unacceptable for it to be done by subterfuge, as is being alleged here (though I entertain some doubt about whether this is, in fact, quite what happened in this case).

thh - what do you think is the solution for the family i described?

why mshighwater why exactly? Because IMO at least one of the parents I have described should be sterilised and you say no keep letting them have children because???????????

dittany - I have in fact suggested that IMO it's often the "fathers" who are the issue

It's not about 'letting them have children', it's about not removing their ability to reproduce.

Who 'let' us have children?

Could her actions/choices suggest a mental illness? Should this woman have been required to undergo psychiatric evaluation long before the birth of #9?

Doctors often evaluate patients requesting certain medical & surgical treatments (e.g., organ transplants) because the presence of a mental illness may make a particular patient a poor risk/candidate. (For instance, I was required by law to see two psychiatrists before a fertility clinic would agree to treat me.)

Had an evaluation been done on this Mum, it is very likely the dubious basis for her desire to conceive would have come to light. Would this have been enough to get her to behave more responsibly? Maybe or maybe not, but she & society both deserve the chance for this to help in such a problematic situation.

Patients have the right to make their own medical decisions in spite of their doctors disagreeing with the decisions they make. If someone (family member, friend, doctor, hospital administration, governmental agency, etc.) is concerned that the patient may lack the mental capacity to make such a decision, a mechanism exists to resolve such sensitive situations; a psychiatric consultation is obtained in order to evaluate the patient's capacity to make a properly well-informed decision.

After a psychiatric evaluation, a doctor can advise colleagues whether it is appropriate to get consent from a family member (over the patient's objections), go to court to get a judge to order an intervention on the patient's behalf (e.g., a blood trransfusion), or honor the patient's decison despite the doctor's own disagreement with their judgment.

Perhaps that would have been appropriate in this situation.