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.

What happens if the family don't comply? The spectre of the Police forceably removing a pregnant woman from her home to perform an abortion against her will.

This has gone global now, US senators are talking about it, I have a feeling it will become very messy.

Because in order to prevent this harm, you are causing harm. Very, very significant harm.

I'll hone my argument.
A state that does not know what a woman is and cannot acknowledge women as a class, cannot speak for or serve women. Therefore the state is no longer legitimate.
Any decisions it makes, then, about or on behalf of women, are illegitimate.

Oh God, imagine the police arriving to have her removed from the family. I hadn't even considered that. This is sick

This has gone global now, US senators are talking about it, I have a feeling it will become very messy.

Why would US senators deliberately misrepresenting UK protection procedures make this case any more or less messy than it already is?

@Isatis Courts are state sanctioned and the laws they enforce laws and punishments that are state sanctioned

This has gone global now, US senators are talking about it, I have a feeling it will become very messy.

And?

This thread is absolutely fucking ludicrous.

We have evolved procedures with regard to capacity and the safeguarding of vulnerable adults in the UK. The system is not fallible but it ensures that the lives and wellbeing of those vulnerable people are not hijacked to their detriment by ideologues with an agenda.

Many of the posts on this demonstrate the need for the court of protection in the first place!

The young woman in this case lacks capacity and is therefore a vulnerable adult. She is not a badge for feminists campaigning for women as a class (and I'm one such woman). Nor is she a badge for those unhappy with abortion legislation (I am not one such). She is a living human being with rights enshrined in law and, where she lacks capacity to exercise those rights, the CoP steps in to protect her and her individually, with no respect to any political agenda.

She is the only concern for the court. Her best interests are the only consideration.

There is so much speculation on this thread about the woman’s mother or the reasons why the argument has been made that the baby cannot be raised by the grandmother.

Not once has it been reported that the baby wouldn’t be safe or the reasons why the mother would have to move out.

I think we need to wait for the judgement, however I am remembering the case of the baby removed from a mother and given to to 2 men after she supposedly reneged on a surrogacy agreement.

The judge ruled it was in the baby’s best interests to be given to 2 strange men because the mother wasn’t encouraging the child’s independence. She was still breastfeeding and using a sling. The baby was 15 months. The mother was also slammed for interrupting proceedings for needing to express milk.

But of course the female judge didn’t take this decision lightly and thought it all through carefully.

And taking unreasonable measures to force late abortions on disabled women strengthens the pro-life arguments about the viability date of foetuses, thereby impacting on future law making decisions globally, which then affects poor and vulnerable women around the world when their right to abortion becomes restricted.

twicemummy1
I'll hone my argument
A state that does not know what a woman is and cannot acknowledge women as a class, cannot speak for or serve women. Therefore the state is no longerlegitimate.
Any decisions it makes, then, about or on behalf of women, are illegitimate

Well aside from the nonsense about the state not knowing what a woman is, this case concerned one, individual, pregnant woman. The court was looking at that individual person - it was not "speaking for or serving women" so your argument is still irrelevant.

A few more pages and this will become..

SWAT team kidnaps woman,drugs her and removes her baby with a butchers knife. The baby will be sold on the black market for organs. The woman is returned home half dead and still bleeding with her wounds sealed with super glue.

This is hardly a whimsical matter.

Not once has it been reported that the baby wouldn’t be safe or the reasons why the mother would have to move out

think we need to wait for the judgement,

It has been reported (though not with any detail because of confidentiality) that social services wouldn't allow the woman to ever be alone with the baby, and that it wouldn't be practical for her own mother to be able to avoid that.

And the judgement has already been made. The judge's statement has been posted on here.

I’ve thought on this all night. My sister is in some ways this woman. Mood disorder, erratic behaviour and probably not a dissimilar mental age if you just went on IQ. Her behaviour has been risky many times, from suicide attempts to violent, with a range of other risks added in. Brian damage, probably asd, LD, serious mental health issues. Couldn’t be allowed to parent. Cared for in the family.

The reason I struggle is I’ve seen her go through many assessments over the years, capacity, IQ, when sectioned etc. They’ve been erratic. Some have insisted she’s ‘fine’, another kept under section. The professionals turn over quite fast, information is at times lost and ultimately she is largely assess on her presentation right then. Which can be picked up on a bridge after an asssault by a ‘lover’ with her stomach pumped and self- harming/ showing no sign of understanding. Other times she superficially passes tests, especially as some give clues to the right answers to speed it up! Whether she’s deemed to have capacity can vary between assessors and attitude, it’s all subjective.

I can see if a pregnancy emerged whilst she was inpatient this isn’t outside the realm of possibility of being her. I’ve seen some callous assessments of her feelings and understanding, for example not acknowledging her as seeking human touch and comfort quite normally but viewing entering into relationships as self harming and to be prevented (does anybody not seek love). Other periods of her life she’d certainly be asked. Other professionals would react differently too,

I guess what I’m saying is I’m uncomfortable as someone who cares for an adult with not dissimilar needs. I’ve always known I understand her far more than what is written down or observed. Particularly her emotional understanding. She does not react in conventional ways to situations, therefore she is rarely acknowledged as upset/ traumatised or whatever emotion she is atypically displaying. Spend months or years with her and you understand that she holds things deeper and doesn’t communication much how she feels. A behaviour seen by professionals as highly reactive and unstable may actually be really the build up from being dismissed as a liar by a psychiatrist three years earlier who thought she didn’t even pick up on the insinuation.

What I’m saying is I’m uncomfortable that professionals always know and can judge, or have time to. If she’s still living with her mother the woman clearly is deemed as able to care for her and not a danger. I think her judgement has great weight. A social worker also seems to agree. Professionals probably see her infrequently or at crisis. I’m not saying she can raise the baby, but many are adopted each years and not aborted even though we know this will happen in pregnancy. If her mum and SW think at this stage birth is less traumatic, it’s a factor. Also it is a life, and not irrelevant in the picture. I’m not pro-life but I’m pro-choice. Not pro-abortion , I simply believe in respecting bodily autonomy of women. I’m uncomfortable with a court ordered what I think should only be a woman’s choice, the ending of a late stage pregnancy.

And taking unreasonable measures to force late abortions on disabled women strengthens the pro-life arguments about the viability date of foetuses, thereby impacting on future law making decisions globally, which then affects poor and vulnerable women around the world when their right to abortion becomes restricted.

Oh yes because without this case or before it(and guess what there have been others before) there were no countries where abortion is illegal or the process so complicated that it might as well be.

This test of best interests stinks. By and large in these complex situations close family are best placed to know their relatives, gauge the situation and advocate for them. They are the ones with skin in the game who, unlike the judge have to live with the outcomes of the decision every single day.

There is something so chilling about a state which holds your love for your child or your value systems against you.

I agree that if the woman’s life was threatened unless she terminated the pregnancy and she refused then there would be a strong case for intervention. I agree that where serious harm will be caused to a child or a vulnerable adult without medical intervention then authorities must step in.

But there is no evidence of serious medical harm that could occur if the woman gave birth. It’s all about projection and assessment of how she may feel, whichever way you cut it.

In which case, then surely the most humane thing to do is to support her to have the baby and seriously explore ways in which she may be able to keep contact with the child even if she can’t raise it.

And I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that adults with learning difficulties should not be allowed physical relationships.

The whole thing is a dreadful idea.

I read a bit more about it on the news. I dont think it meets the criteria for her health being in danger. Her court appointed solicitor didn't think so either. I think the problem is that it doesn't have to and the law should be changed so that it does. Her social worker also thought she shouldn't be forced.

The medical team thinks her risk of psychosis will increase later in the pregnancy. But of course she might not develop this and hasn't yet done so. And she is only probably 4 or 5 weeks away from delivering a healthy baby via c section if her mental health did start to decline.

SWAT team kidnaps woman,drugs her and removes her baby with a butchers knife. The baby will be sold on the black market for organs. The woman is returned home half dead and still bleeding with her wounds sealed with super glue.

Not far off right now.

Because in order to prevent this harm, you are causing harm. Very, very significant harm.

But the harm in question is no different from the harm caused in a consensual abortion, which you support. How is it acceptable to discriminate against disabled people in this way?

The scaremongering on here about police removals is based on precisely zero facts.

But there is no evidence of serious medical harm that could occur if the woman gave birth. It’s all about projection and assessment of how she may feel, whichever way you cut it.

How do you know there isn't? The statement from the judge certainly suggests that there is, and, as I said upthread, the judge has all the facts and evidence to work with.

I feel like those posters that think this forced abortion is a good idea seem overly defensive.

Earlier I posted a link to a factual description of the risks of late abortion which showed the mortality rate to be slightly lower than that of giving birth in the US.

Some one then basically went ha ha you have sabotaged your own argument thanks for that or something.

As if I was a participant in a school debating society who would want to make out late abortion was more risky than it actually is just to score a point.

Therefore the state is no longer legitimate. Any decisions it makes, then, about or on behalf of women, are illegitimate

This is a decision made by the courts, not the state.

As for the fact that the courts are state-sanctioned, how do you account for the fact that they regularly make findings against the state? I would hope that the state does sanction courts, otherwise we would be living in a totalitarian régime. The state also sanctions things like free speech, does that make free speech illegitimate?

But the harm in question is no different from the harm caused in a consensual abortion, which you support. How is it acceptable to discriminate against disabled people in this way?

I'd be interested in the answer to this question too - why do you think someone who lacks capacity to consent should be discriminated against?

Not once has it been reported that the baby wouldn’t be safe or the reasons why the mother would have to move out.

The baby's safety once born isn't the issue, but the reasons why it wouldn't be safe if left with the mother have certainly been reported. RTFT.

But there is no evidence of serious medical harm that could occur if the woman gave birth. It’s all about projection and assessment of how she may feel, whichever way you cut it

There is, it would appear, plenty of evidence - unless you think in some way that mental health is unimportant.

I don't think it meets the criteria for her health being in danger.

What is the evidence on which that is based, and what are your medical qualifications for making that assessment, given in particular that medically qualified people who actually know her think differently?

Her court appointed solicitor didn't think so either.

You have no idea what her solicitor thought. As has already been pointed out, the solicitors' views don't come into it - their job is simply to present the arguments on behalf of the patient. They may well firmly believe the opposite of what they say in court, the point is that they have to present the patient's case to the best of their ability.