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.

@Breathlessness

Don't show yourself up by stooping to personal insults.

@Isatis

Of course we don't know all the details but neither do you so none of us can really say if it's the right decision by the courts.

Taking this at face value I can't see how a forced abortion is any better than allowing nature to take its course or even an early planned c-section. How is this any less scarring I don't get it.

You don't have the full judgement either, so your opinion is just as ill-informed as anyone else's.

Point me to any post I have made that speculates information not in the public domain. All I have done is explain the processes involved and the legal environment parties are operating within.

I've made no specific speculations about the circumstances of the woman, her mother, the SWs, the judge, anyone, other than the fact that the mother lacks capacity. Which is in the public domain. Because, FFS, she's subject to the court of protection. And that there was disagreement between involved parties about the best way to proceed. Which is in the public domain. Because, FFS, this vulnerable adult's case was referred to the court of protection.

Quote me. Go on.

+Hmm I can only imagine how many abusive men would love to manipulate this court case in the future. You know, the kind of men who cheat and gaslight their partners then say the woman is just "crazy". It would be a dream for them to be able to force through an abortion, I bet. This seems anti choice and against women's rights.*

Oh, get a fucking grip of yourself. Hysterical nonsense.

The end result is that this woman is not going to be able to keep her child, even if she wanted to.

What is the least traumatic way to achieve this end result?

An operation whilst under general anaesthetic is probably going to be far better mentally for her than having to go through the entire pregnancy then having to hand over a baby that she will inevitably have become attached to.

I think the court has made the right decision.

I'm pretty sure you can become pretty attached to your unborn child at any gestation, actually.

The irony of a poster who clearly has not one iota of knowledge of the law in this area calling a poster who clearly does “ill informed”.

I’m stepping away from this now. The over emotion is stifling any form of decent intellectual debate.

Any rulings of this nature are going to divide opinion whatever side of the fence they land. It’s a tragic case with no Disney ending.

There is no option in which this 22 year old with a mind of a 6-9 year old gets to live happily ever after with her baby. She either has a termination now or carries the baby to term when it will be removed and she will never see it again having suffered the agony of child birth and having seen the child.

In the circumstances, I can’t help but agree with the ruling that the first option is kinder to the woman based on the information provided. Clearly this is what all the evidence from psychiatric experts concluded. Sadly when adults lack mental capacity, the state has to ‘force’ decisions upon them as they are not capable of deciding for themselves. The state does not discharge this heavy burden without carefully considering the evidence from numerous experts.

Obviously it’s sad that a 22 month old fetus so close to the viability cut off is terminated, but it doesn’t have rights. The issue it what is best for the mother.

MrsMiggins37

If you are swearing at me, I would say you are the emotional one. I think you need to take a break and calm down, then proceed to have a normal discussion without the expletives or insults.

The state and its institutions are riddled with misogyny, we already know this on the feminist boards, so I'm not really sure I can trust the state's opinions about mothers who "lack mental capacity".

If a woman is judged as lacking capacity to be a mother why is she only told this after she has conceived? Why does the state lead women to believe they can have a baby like anyone else only to decide mid-pregnancy that she can't? This is where it does sound like eugenics. The state knows it can't assess women's capacity properly, all it can do is guess, but fundamentally the point is it won't offer women the support they need to keep their babies, whatever support that might be ( 24 hour care, mother and baby units)

Feminist theory posits that sexual intercourse is not a biological urge or natural but is socially constructed and pushed onto women. There really are people who believe that intercourse is something equal for men and women. Of course men, and a patriarchal society, will insist sexual intercourse is fine and non problematic. That's because it is.. for them.

Sexual intercourse is highly problematic for women, because we face the repercussions. People talk about pleasure but there are plenty of ways to pleasure a woman without subjecting her to something that has such damaging consequences.

All the people who have judged her as lacking the capacity to be a mother, should have been there to prevent her from having sexual intercourse. Or At the very least making sure she had contraception. Or she should have known before she conceived that the state wouldn't let her keep her baby. Why does the state wait until after a woman gets pregnant before they make decisions about her capacity. Her capacity hasn't changed, it's a constant.

But anyway , because we know the state will take her baby from her, I feel that under these circumstances the best decision has been made. I believe it is more traumatic and distressing to have a baby removed after childbirth, than to have a late term abortion.

I don't know what "mental age of 9" actually means, but I really question whether this woman had the ability , or "capacity" to consent to intercourse, in which case the state has failed her massively

No, I was called ill-informed because I haven't read the full judgement. And I then made the point that we are therefore all equally ill-informed because none of us has read the full judgement.

All it can do is guess, but fundamentally the point is it won't offer women the support they need to keep their babies, whatever support that might be ( 24 hour care, mother and baby units)

This should never be an option. For the child sake I hope this would never ever be considered. But I agree that there is definitely an argument for enforced long term contraceptives for the vulnerable, when there is no chance that they will ever be allowed to keep a child. I know this is also contentious but it would avoid the trauma that this poor woman is going through now.

Would you feel the same if the woman's mother wanted the abortion and the woman didn't and the court ruled she could deliver the baby?

Because that's what the COP is there for. To protect the vulnerable person and act in their best interests. Would you still go "will of the family" then?
Not just that but there have been rulings where the woman not only got to deliver the baby but also keep it with support, despite her carers wanting her to terminate.

Each case is different and evidence is heard and weighed and then a decision made in the best interests of the VULNERABLE ADULT. It's not a box ticking exercise. It's not setting a precedent. It's in this specific set of circumstances that abortion was deemed the least worst outcome.

It's not about the family,or the community and for the last time..even about the baby. It's about what's best for a vulnerable woman , as decided by another woman who has the experience,legal training and access to all the evidence and information.

I would feel the same about any state sanctioned termination in any circumstance, other than it being ordered to preserve the life of the mother where it was deemed that she did not have capacity to make that decision. You can jiggle any of the circumstances around as much as you like. That's my line.

The same as I don't believe a woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy, I don't believe a woman should be forced to terminate either.

All the people who have judged her as lacking the capacity to be a mother, should have been there to prevent her from having sexual intercourse. Or At the very least making sure she had contraception. Or she should have known before she conceived that the state wouldn't let her keep her baby. Why does the state wait until after a woman gets pregnant before they make decisions about her capacity. Her capacity hasn't changed, it's a constant.

What are you on about? The state didn’t “wait until after a woman gets pregnant before they make decisions about her capacity”: she already was lacking capacity.

That does not mean she can’t socialize and have relationships, including with other adults who also lack capacity.

It is very obvious you have little experience with vulnerable adults or how determinations of their capacity work.

...fundamentally the point is it won't offer women the support they need to keep their babies, whatever support that might be ( 24 hour care, mother and baby units)

Again, what are you on about. This was a decision about this adult. Not a fetus. It was also clear that if she has the child she could not be around it due to her mood disorder. Period. How is 24 hour care going to solve that? Why is it fair to a child to require 24 care so they can not be at risk from the mother they live with?

We have no idea why this took 22 weeks to get the the court’s but we do know her mother was pro-life - her guardian - and wanted her to keep the pregnancy and child and so I have to imagine that has some part in why her pregnancy was not brought to anyone’s attention earlier.

Sexual intercourse is highly problematic for women, because we face the repercussions. People talk about pleasure but there are plenty of ways to pleasure a woman without subjecting her to something that has such damaging consequences.

I am not sure why you keep trying to make this case into one about sexual desire. Make a new post. This is not a thread about whether this vulnerable adult has sexual desire or not, or should be able to express sexual desires or not.

question whether this woman had the ability , or "capacity" to consent to intercourse, in which case the state has failed her massively

If you feel this way, why are you blaming the state? They weren’t her guardians. As a vulnerable adult she would have had an adult who was considered responsible for making decisions about her medical care, socialization, etc.

If a woman is judged as lacking capacity to be a mother why is she only told this after she has conceived? Why does the state lead women to believe they can have a baby like anyone else only to decide mid-pregnancy that she can't?

Are you incapable of reading the numerous replies to this question, and the rest of your post? And "the state" did not lead her to believe anything.

You have made your Sexual intercourse is highly problematic for women comment several times. The reason why this woman might have engaged in intercourse has been explained to you several times.

All it can do is guess, but fundamentally the point is it won't offer women the support they need to keep their babies, whatever support that might be ( 24 hour care, mother and baby units)

What sort of a life is that for a child?

Each case is different and evidence is heard and weighed and then a decision made in the best interests of the VULNERABLE ADULT. It's not a box ticking exercise. It's not setting a precedent. It's in this specific set of circumstances that abortion was deemed the least worst outcome.

It's not about the family,or the community and for the last time..even about the baby. It's about what's best for a vulnerable woman , as decided by another woman who has the experience,legal training and access to all the evidence and information.

Exactly. The only reason people seem to be riled up about this is because there is an abortion involved.

Medical decisions for vulnerable adults have to made all the time by others. Same for children, or adults who have lost capacity due to an accident or illness.

Sometimes there is a disagreement as to what their guardians want and the vulnerable adult wants, and courts need to order it: be it chemotherapy, or organ transplant, or risky neurosurgery. Because many vulnerable adults are still capable of expressing wishes even if they do not have capacity. But as soon as a fetus is involved people think it is improper for a court to be involved, and the court’s must not know what they are doing....

But YOU are assuming that she can’t be religious, isn’t a practicing Catholic and will be able to put aside everything she has been taught and is believed by her community.

I made no such assumption, Itwouldtake. I simply said that we have no evidence of what you are saying.. If the woman's religion is a serious factor, presumably that would have been drawn to the court's attention and taken into account.

And those courts make different decisions sometimes, don't they? About the same set of circumstances?

Obviously, Pouncer, it's why we have them. And that's one of the reasons why it would be wrong to say that the courts should never make decisions for incapacitous people.

Hmm I can only imagine how many abusive men would love to manipulate this court case in the future. You know, the kind of men who cheat and gaslight their partners then say the woman is just "crazy". It would be a dream for them to be able to force through an abortion, I bet. This seems anti choice and against women's rights

And yet we've had this jurisdiction for decades without those consequences happening. Because, guess what, the courts aren't stupid enough to accept that a woman is crazy just because some man with an agenda says so.

The woman had been deemed to lack capacity, I’m going to assume she has quite severe LDs and probably faces at least some of these issues : an inability to recognise pain/illness, struggles or is unable to to communicate pain/illness, suffers behaviour changes due to pain/illness, becomes highly distressed due to not understanding the pain or that medication can take a while to help them feel better, refuses medication because of not understanding the need or consequences, distress when routine disrupted or feeling good out of control, lashing out when distressed.

Can people not see how those issues could make continuing the pregnancy extremely risky for the mother?

With the abortion she will be guided through, it will be planned and hopefully as painless as possible.

Hmm I can only imagine how many abusive men would love to manipulate this court case in the future. You know, the kind of men who cheat and gaslight their partners then say the woman is just "crazy". It would be a dream for them to be able to force through an abortion, I bet. This seems anti choice and against women's rights

Hmm yes because courts decide that someone lacks capacity based simply on the say so of a random person. No social workers, psychologists,psychiatrists or other professionals would be involved.

Of course we don't know all the details but neither do you so none of us can really say if it's the right decision by the courts

Well, SweetJasmine17, on the one hand we have a very experienced judge who has seen all the papers, seen and heard all the witnesses, had the chance to question them herself, and who has had all the arguments put to her by well-qualified lawyers. From what we have seen published, her reasoning looks sound. On the other hand, we have the views of people who've had none of those advantages. Until someone produces anything that demonstrates otherwise, I don't think it's too off the wall to decide the judge has a better chance of making the right decision.

Taking this at face value I can't see how a forced abortion is any better than allowing nature to take its course or even an early planned c-section. How is this any less scarring I don't get it.

It is deemed less scarring to this woman given her learning disabilities, lack of capacity, and mood disorder, in terms of her mental health and in her particular circumstances. Is it really beyond you to imagine that the evidence demonstrated that?

Well, they’d have to manipulate a
lot of other people first....

Do the people objecting to this judgement object to the Court of protection making judgements about health care for people without capacity in general-or is abortion a special case?

@feministcat
I am going to describe what I see to be the fundamental issue here. Which might explain to you why people are upset about this even if you disagree with them completely.

Many people are supportive of abortion rights AND also think that the fetus is effectively a fully formed baby at 22 weeks. They just think that the mother is the best person to make a decision about what is in her interests and ALSO the interests of the baby based on her unique circumstances.

They are not happy that a court will make a decision without reference to the baby at all. I wonder if there has ever been a woman who has had a late abortion who has not considered the baby when coming to a decision.