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 don't think it's that much of a stretch to get from where we are now to that, but I don't think it will in this country. As an 'effective solution' if you could leave out the moral side of it entirely there is a logic to it of sorts.

Many countries did practice it up to about the 1930s including the US and Sweden. I 'think' it may be legal now for those deemed incompetent in one or more US states and possibly even here. Perhaps someone knows for certain.

Whether it is or not there were serious people who thought it made sense at the time. I imagine their arguments must have seemed persuasive.

You see, I think it is that much of a stretch.

"As an 'effective solution' if you could leave out the moral side of it entirely there is a logic to it of sorts."

This is also true of genocide, yet , as a society, we stop short of this.

Interesting about the US states, though- I will have a look.

But the operation is reversible?

sterilisation is reversible but the operation is not always successful

I find it quite amusing that there is all this hand wringing about my job. I never behave anything less than professionally and I hold all sorts of opinions that are not in line with the policies I follow in my job as do many of my colleagues. It does not mean they have any impact on how I do my job and it is fairly horrifying that some posters seem to think that some jobs should only be open to people who hold the same moral viewpoint as them. I should imagine that these posters are the same type who think that it is right to ban members of certain parties from the teaching profession. I am pro-choice and I disagree vehemently with those who are anti-abortion but I would never suggest that a doctor who held an anti-abortion point of view should quit, if that privately held point of view didn't interefere with the way they did their job. It is easy and lazy to label anyone who is willing to entertain the idea of sterilising anyone a nazi but I have yet to see anyone offer a workable and or viable alternative solution to the complete mess we have at the moment.

tethersend - I hate to point it out to you but it is possible for 2 people to have had similar experiences but come out of them with very different viewpoints.

Whoever it was saying that I was in a minority of one. On this board maybe but given the tiny number of posters on this thread I am not really going to take it as a huge indictment. If you look at the original post it is clear that opinions are split, indeed there are posts on this thread that are somewhat ambiguous. Also being in the majority doesn't make you right, the majority of people believe in the death penalty, does that make it right?

"tethersend - I hate to point it out to you but it is possible for 2 people to have had similar experiences but come out of them with very different viewpoints."

No shit, sherlock

So, err.. does this supersede your previous post:

"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."

or even:

"given the families i deal with it would be a fairly good idea to sterilise men in prison as some seem to have an ability to come out for a month or two and father 2 or 3 children in that time!!"

I'm beginning to think that debating's not your strong point, lemonadedrinker

I am beginning to wonder if comprehension is not yours tethersend!

In both of those sentences I am talking about my own opinion and what has influenced it.. Why are you so bemused that I have a different opinion from you.

I was not proposing that you should not be allowed to do the job of your choice if you do it competently. I believe that if your job has affected you to the point that you have decided that such an extreme action is acceptable then for the sake of your own peace of mind I would suggest a change of career.

I'm a finance director - if I ever got to the point where I resented companies making money and thought the best thing would be for the government to take over all businesses and run them, I would leave and do something else. Why would I want to stay in a field making me feel that way?

The issue about your attitude to your clients is not comparable to a doctor who has an ethical objection to abortion. You despise some of the people you work with and claim that it is your honest belief that they should be forcibly sterilised. What you are proposing would be an assault.

Your position is more akin to a doctor who thinks people should be forced to have abortions. In fact that's where your views are heading, isn't it?

No-one is talking about preventing you from doing your job. We are questioning your wisdom in staying in this field when you are so very jaundiced that you seriously argue that the policies pursued by the Nazis and other totalitarian regimes are reasonable and should be applied to your clients.

I don't really do hand-wringing over other peoples jobs only my own. My guess is that Edam (who was the other person who mentioned change=ing career specifically) isn't much given to hand-wringing either.

Reading this story it seems more likely to me that people thought that they had her consent, rather than the idea that a whole surgical team set out to sterilise someone against her will, without anyone complaining or whistleblowing.

Are IUDs ever inserted immediately after a CSection?

No edam it is not my view that they should be forcibly sterilised, it is my view that that is not something that should be summarily dismissed out of hand.

kewcumber - finance director, it's not really a job that is likely to be emotionally challenging is it!

I have done a little more with my life than be a finance director - if you like to know of my personal emotional challenges or my experience of other peoples do feel free to ask. Though I'm not sure why that's relevant?

lemonadedrinker - you clearly have no idea if you think Kew hasn't been through some emotionally challenging times!

Oops, just re-read that post, igmnore me!

"Why are you so bemused that I have a different opinion from you.[sic]"

I am beginning to feel like I am in a parallel universe.

I am not bemused that you have a different opinion to me.

I am bemused that you attribute your opinion solely to the fact that you work with this section of society, insinuating that if other posters knew what you knew, they would think like you. Well, I know what you know and I have a different opinion. I am trying (almost desperately now) to get you to concede that therefore, that your opinion has been formed not just by your job- because if that were true, I would also feel the same way. I don't. Do you see?

I am not really interested in your personal emotional challenges. I was merely commenting on your job which you chose to hold up as an example of something which may provide you with some sort of moral challenge.

Tethersend - My opinion has been changed by the work I do, yours hasn't, what is so hard to understand? Some other peoples opinions might be changed if they did my job some peoples wouldn't.

Hilarious.

Great response.

I don't think I can put my point across any simpler- are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you just not understand what I'm saying?

You attribute your opinion solely to the work you do.

I am saying there must be other factors influencing your opinion.

Please don't post back that we have different opinions, I am well aware of that.

"Great response"

Well, it's not really up there with the classic "WEll IMO it is.", but thanks very much

In the current economic climate, I would not dismiss the idea of emotional challenge in any job involving finance...

If I can respond to your comment suggesting that I "think it is more important to respect the "right" of a convicted paedophile to reproduce than it is to prevent the almost inevitable abuse of a child". No, I don't respect the rights of a paedophile above those of others. I respect human rights and prefer not to see them tossed aside unthinkingly.

It is not for the paedophile's sake that I object to your argument. It might seem obvious that certain people should not reproduce. We could all nominate categories of people we think should not have children - they wouldn't all be the same categories, of course. But where would you draw the line (even leaving aside the question of who would decide)? On what criteria and what evidence would the decision be reached? What about the committed couple - if one is banned from reproducing but the other is not? And the issue of people with learning disabilities/SN is in intrinsic part of this argument. If you are going to argue that those who cannot care adequately for a child without significant state support should not reproduce, you can't bodyswerve that issue however uncomfortable it makes you.

Sorry to break it to you, MsHighwater, but we are not allowed to discuss SN on this thread, lemonadedrinker said so