A woman with mental age of 9 forced to have abortion

[Gingerkittykat]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/woman-abortion-court-of-protection-ruling-mentally-ill-a8970121.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0LrwkWGx-4dJtABJSuHLlzyLs7IArhgM_CQVisVjx4Asf3YoCeW4aKk1Y#Echobox=1561203238

I understand that this woman will not be able to care for a baby but cannot believe forcing her to have an abortion under any circumstances is appropriate, especially since she is already 22 weeks pregnant.

I am 100% pro choice, but this woman is having her choice taken away from her.

Grapefruit, this woman has a mood disorder, so we are in the realm of actual mental health conditions.

In this case, you can't really talk of the consequences of the birth as hypothetical. It is simply not hypothetical that the mother will not be allowed to live with the baby, because it would be dangerous for the baby. So the judge, who has infinitely more knowledge of this woman's condition than you or I have, has taken the view that the distress and potential mental health dangers caused by a full term birth followed by losing the baby or her home would significantly outweigh any distress caused by the termination. On what basis can we say that it is wrong to allow a judge to make that decision? Is it really preferable to allow someone to spiral into serious mental illness when there is a means of preventing it?

The more I read here, the more convinced I am that this is pro-choice drum banging, which I never in my entire life thought I would be in the position to go against.

As much as I agree wholeheartedly that any woman should have the choice to end their pregnancy, I do not believe anyone should force them to do so. With the sole exception that her life is in danger and she lacks capacity, for example, being in coma, or other very serious mental incapacity.

I also see a lot of people saying well she'll have no idea that she's even had a termination. She'll have no idea the baby is gone. That door swings both ways. If she's that incapable of understanding her surroundings, she wouldn't understand a caesarean at full term and the baby being taken away before she woke up either, would she?

Also, it absolutely does make a difference to a pregnant woman how developed the foetus is. It does make a difference. It is not just a clump of cells at that point. The legal point of viability isn't when a foetus suddenly jumps into a being we have to make moral considerations about.

You can't force terminations on people. Certainly not state or court or higher authority sanctioned forced terminations, or however people want to describe it. It's very easy and comforting to believe that all decisions made by higher authorities are correct, but the law, the court, society, mass general opinion is frequently and historically wrong, and used to turn a blind passive eye on what is actually a horrific misuse of power on vulnerable members of society. I'll say it again - this is a step into eugenics.

Itwouldtake, the grandmother is Catholic, the mother may, I assume, have been baptised Catholic. Whether she is a believer in Catholic dogma is, at best, moot.

With the sole exception that her life is in danger and she lacks capacity, for example, being in coma, or other very serious mental incapacity.

Well presumably she does have very serious mental incapacity.

Why do people think it would be less traumatic for her to go to term, give birth and have the baby removed? How is that less traumatising?

With the sole exception that her life is in danger and she lacks capacity, for example, being in coma, OR OTHER VERY SERIOUS MENTAL INCAPACITY.

Which is exactly the case here. So the rest of your post doesn't apply.

The problem with your argument, Pouncer, is your use of the term "force", and your distinction between levels of mental incapacity. If a woman is going to become seriously ill as a result of continuing a pregnancy, are we really saying that the pregnancy can be terminated if she has capacity or if she is unconscious or has what you term "serious mental incapacity"; but that if she has less serious incapacity she has to be left free to follow a delusional belief that it'll all be absolutely fine when it won't be?

Essentially the court is stepping into the incapacitous person's shoes. If the evidence demonstrates that, if she fully understood everything, she would choose to terminate, it would be wrong to prevent that.

Suppose a less seriously mentally incapacitated person has been in contact with a serious infection that can be easily dealt with by medical treatment, but they say they don't want it and clearly don't understand the implications of the infection. Is giving them the relevant treatment really using force on them, even though the would be begging for it if they had capacity? And, if it is, is it morally wrong?

mass general opinion is frequently and historically wrong

This case has nothing to do with mass general opinion. If anything, mass general opinion seems to be against the judgement.

The CoP exists to make sure that the uninformed opinion of others doesn't dictate what happens to a vulnerable person. Very very detailed information from many sources, will have been put in front of this very experienced female judge, who has made it abundantly clear how difficult this decision was. None of us here are privy to that information, and at some point we have to recognise that someone impartial has to provide the wisdom of Solomon.

Lacks mental capacity AND her life is in danger. Not lacks mental capacity AND SO we abort her children for her

Lacks mental capacity AND her life is in danger
But what if carrying a pregnancy to term, giving birth, having your baby taken away or moving from your home would reduce the quality of life you have when your mental health is worsened because of it? You don't understand that your life will be worsened, but a team of Drs can see that's the likely outcome? Death isn't the only tragic scenario.

Look the grandma is definitely Catholic. Just posted a link. Don't know why any one thinks I am making it up that there will most likely end up being a service for this baby.
Why do you think there will be a service? I'm nearly 50, of Catholic stock and have NEVER heard of a service for an abortion. Where are you getting this from Grapefruit?

Mortality rate for abortions after 18 weeks in the US is 6.7 per hundred thousand as opposed to 8.8 for birth.
So abortion is safer than giving birth. Thanks for that Grapefruit.

The more I read here, the more convinced I am that this is pro-choice drum banging

FFS. No it isn't. It's about capacity.

You might not like it, but 22 week abortions are legal in the UK.

You might not like it, but in cases where a vulnerable adult lacks capacity and the best way to proceed is disputed, the court of protection makes decisions for them that are within the law of the land.

That, and only that, is what has happened here.

The CoP exists to make sure that the uninformed opinion of others doesn't dictate what happens to a vulnerable person.

Why, oh why, is this so bloody hard to understand?

Lacks mental capacity AND her life is in danger. Not lacks mental capacity AND SO we abort her children for her

But that is not what anyone is advocating, and is not what this case is about. So what is the relevance of this post?

This woman has already been let down by those that should have been looking out for her. She should have had some form of long term contraception and when she did become pregnant she could have had an abortion much earlier that would have been less invasive. This case seems to have been much more about what her mother wants than what she wants.

Lacks mental capacity AND her life is in danger. Not lacks mental capacity AND SO we abort her children for her

The issue is more that she lacks mental capacity and would also be a danger to her baby. Her best interest is presumably not to move away from her home to let the maternal grandmother look after the baby.

This woman has already been let down by those that should have been looking out for her. She should have had some form of long term contraception and when she did become pregnant she could have had an abortion much earlier that would have been less invasive. This case seems to have been much more about what her mother wants than what she wants.

I agree

@PouncerDarling this isn't a pro choice decision its an anti choice decision.

Next step perhaps forced abortion for mental health patients? I have already read about forced cesareans for women who have been sectioned. Maybe its in their best interests to have abortions too? They could easily have lost capacity to make a rational decision?

As I stated up thread I would like to see clear evidence presented that the women's life or health would be harmed by the continuation of this pregnancy before the court was able to agree to it.

At the moment it seems to be best interests. Just of the woman and not of the baby I don't think that's enough of a safeguard. I think the law should change.

I'm not sure that it's possible to say that someone without capacity has a faith.
She would have been welcomed into the church as a baby, and had first reconciliation and then communion at around 7. If her abilities are in line with a 6 to 9 year old she would presumably have had the same teaching since birth.

My interest isn’t a “pro-life” one but more a wary watcher of how people with LD are treated in the uk as one of my children will always need substantial support.

I’m not convinced that “professionals” are as ethical and fair as others on this thread. Perhaps that’s because of our experience and my own observation.

@GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit

I totally agree. It's anti-choice. In no world should we be doing this unless lives are at stake. Not because a mother or family are unfit or in difficult circumstances. Where is the line drawn if we allow that?

‘As I stated up thread I would like to see clear evidence presented that the women's life or health would be harmed by the continuation of this pregnancy before the court was able to agree to it’

What do you think the judge looked at?

*Next step perhaps forced abortion for mental health patients? I have already read about forced cesareans for women who have been sectioned. Maybe its in their best interests to have abortions too? They could easily have lost capacity to make a rational decision?

As I stated up thread I would like to see clear evidence presented that the women's life or health would be harmed by the continuation of this pregnancy before the court was able to agree to it.

At the moment it seems to be best interests. Just of the woman and not of the baby I don't think that's enough of a safeguard. I think the law should change.*

Utter nonsense. These kind of decisions have been being made by courts for years and there’s been no “slippery slope” yet.

How do you think the law should change so that the “best interests” of the vulnerable person at the centre of the proceedings are no longer the priority?

People are too emotional about this because there’s a foetus/baby involved. Think about it as medical treatment, which is ultimately what it is, and I think it’s a lot more clear cut.

It's anti-choice

It’s not “anti choice” if the person doesn’t have the necessary capacity to make a choice.

What is it that people aren’t grasping about the issue of capacity and consent?

The court looks at the welfare of the woman. Some on this thread seem to care solely for the welfare of the fetus.

Can someone please explain why a dead baby is better than a living one? It will be taken away no matter what, I don't understand. How can you people justify killing what is almost a fully formed baby. Unfortunately the mother's mental health may be affected either way, so why not at least save the fetus?