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?

"I have simply said that my position has been shaped by my experiences and others who have not had those experiences may have a different opinion if they had."

lemonadedrinker, that's exactly what 'bourn of ignorance' means.

And to answer your question, the situation you describe is utter shit for the children, and very damaging. I am not saying that the current situation is ideal- far from it. Does this mean enforced state sterilisation is the alternative? No. There are other alternatives; adoption is one.

no but you haven't actually answered have you - me and the sand have.... go on give it a spin

And if your idea of a question is do we think ferrying poor children between foster homes is a good idea then that's not a question really is it - it's just rhetorical to try and make your point, which without any detail you are really failing to do

If the SN question was a real question then tethersand answered and I can answer too, I completely concurr with her - absolutely not ever is it justified

so lemonade, who is on the panel?

social workers? health workers? please enlighten me

"And with the greatest of respect you and thh have spent the last few pages firing questions at me so don't complain when you get a few back."

Actually, lemonadedrinker, I think you'll find that it was mostly the same question repeated over and over in the absence of an answer.

and are they legally accountable if they make a mistake?

FFS I have answered. I would use a similar structure as we have at the moment for care proceedings. Sorry if you don't like that answer.

tethersand, do you ever get the feeling it is not going to happen??

Yup, thh...

Have to say though, this makes a refreshing change from the usual BF/MIL/DH threads that are in abundance at the moment... an enjoyable debate. If a little one-sided.

I'm off to bed, but will check back in the morning to see if it kicks off in my absence (usually does )

Goodnight all.

You know, that's a bit tame, I was genuinely favouring the jeremy kyle smack down on weekday mornings with a phone vote over the weekend.

Lemonade, you are wrong, just very wrong about this and I think the superiority you believe you have has gone to your head. You are not an intrinsically better person than anyone else, we are all dealt a different set of cards in our lives and you should not have more fundametal rights than anyone else.

It is really scary that you actually have contact with real life people who could be subject to your half-baked theory and judgement.

off to bed - i need to rest my ethics

nighty night

thh - I think you are wrong as well as rather naive, you don't think the system as it stands works but do not offer any alternatives. I find it comical that you characterise me as feeling I am superior and then you your post to tell me how wrong I am therefore simply casting yourself as superior. A touch ironic.

Excerpt from an editorial written by a solicitor on this situation:

"How will the Mother's lawsuit fare? Malpractice insurance companies try very hard to settle even "nuisance" lawsuits which lack merit because they want to avoid being at the mercy of jurors whose emotions are readily manipulated by skilled attorneys. So it is likely that she will be offered a financial settlement.

For how much? Well, the size should reflect the degree to which the patient has actually been damaged. It will be exceeedingly difficult to demonstrate that the Mother has been greatly damaged by having to limit her brood to only 9. An award of one dollar would be a Solomonesque determination in such a scenario."

Obviously an American solicitor as indicated by spellings....

"neutered like a dog"
Exactly Peachy, that is what has happened here. Why is everybody discussing the whys and wherefores?
WHo else should we neuter? WOmen with disabilities? Blind women? Oooh, who else? Where do we draw the line? But of course, lets not neuter the men who are also making these children...
If this story is true then... words fail me.

sakura, yes absolutely and a very scary slippery slope for us all morally with someone appointing themselves as the superior moral force and able to make such decisions.

lemonade, give it a rest will you. Have you not noticed that you are absolutely completely on your own in your opinion. That's because other people here see the moral and ethical implication for us all of what you are saying. You seem unable to expand your mind further than your own experience to understand the logical conclusions of what you propose and the philosophical implications for our society.

I have not at any point claimed that I know better per se, what scares me it that you are seriously talking about forcibly neutering human beings if you deem them unsuitable. You are by definition interfering with the gene pool and this is eugenics, something as a theory you need to get your head round before you start spouting rubbish again. Eugenics was the mainstay of Nazi social theory - it has very serious implications for everyone involved. I don't think I know it all but I do know when something something stinks of fish hasn't been thought through.

Your lone voice isn't on it's own because you are privy to some special knowledge that we are all ignorant of, it is just because you are so off the mark with this that you are just wrong.

Lemonade I am afraid your ideas revolt me - simple as that.

As I said earlier I don't agree with Lemonade's plan, but I think I understand why she feels it is necessary. If you have had any experience with dysfunctional people/families (and it sounds like Lemonade has a lot) it is bound to be depressing. It's not difficult to get to the point where you say "ffs someone ought to tell them what to do"

I don't have any professional experience, but even in my own family there are examples of "better for parents and babies if they had been sterilised"

I'm really not happy with the "have a baby, neglect it until the state takes it away and then have another one" system. It depresses me too.

The only answer I can see is to educate young people so they never go that way. There is no fair and workable way to legislate it.

Any panel/judge would be biased. It's such a subjective thing that it couldn't be otherwise.

"If you have had any experience with dysfunctional people/families (and it sounds like Lemonade has a lot) it is bound to be depressing. It's not difficult to get to the point where you say "ffs someone ought to tell them what to do""

But onagar, I do have a great deal of experience of this, and I strongly disagree with lemonadedrinker.

Problem is, she is ignoring me.

I don't care how old she was when she had her first baby or how manay men she has had them with, the fact they carried out this procedure without her consent is against her basic human rights. I have had three c-sections and if I had been sterilised on the third without my consent I would have been FURIOUS

I think if you have a lot ofexperience with dyfunctionalfamillies it usually leads to sight of the human beneath the image. I've worked in the sector and my Dad was 15th child of a very dysfunctionalfamily where eating wasn't guaranteed and he has not been guaranteed a shit life, or one worse than never having existed.

Forced sterilisation is wrong.

Lemonade, I think you need to consider very seriously whether you are in the right job. Someone who espouses eugenics should not be anywhere near vulnerable families. Maybe you went into this field for all the right reasons and have become jaundiced, whatever, at this point you need to have a very serious think about your attitudes and capacity to treat service users and clients as human beings.

tethersend, I don't mean experience should make you approve of sterilisation. Just that some mornings you might get up and despair at the way some people are.

lemonade - I am sympathic to the jadedness anyone would feel working in a field where you see the same mistakes over and over again (my sympathies go out to A&E personal on a Saturday night too!) but when you get to the point where you have convinced yourself that forced sterilisation is perfectly resaonable, I think (as Edam has said) its time to move on to a different career.

But how does that despair translate into the idea that forced sterilisation is an effective solution, onagar? I'm not saying you agree that it is, I just find the idea too far removed from society's norms and values to entertain.

I think edam and Kewcumber put it very well.