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.

No, I did not say yours did not happen.

I said the newly added details of four other women also getting the same procedure with you that night who also all did not have effective sedation who you also all kept in touch with to know they all remember the details is peculiar. I personally don’t have a habit of keeping in touch with the people I shared a hospital floor with when I have had procedures to ask them about their memory. Maybe you do.

An injunction is in place preventing publication of certain identifying details however the judgement will be released.

I have seen plenty of court cases whereby the doctors who testified were not specialists. This is why I think we need to know more. Because this does not seem to be a decision based on actual clinical evidence.

Would you care to give some examples? I'm afraid you can't argue that this decision was not made on clinical evidence because the details have not been made public, for obvious reasons.

I’m guessing most people here wouldn’t wax lyrical about how the judge must know best when it comes to the best interests of the child.

The judge wasn't acting in the interests of a child, she was acting in the interests of an adult. Despite this, you can't argue that she wasn't acting in the best interests of the woman, in fact, I'd suggest it is derogatory and bordering on libelous for you to suggest she didn't. The judge is a highly trained, experienced and respected human rights lawyer, who arrived at her judgement after studying all the evidence put before her. You, on the other hand, have no such training or experience, and have not seen the evidence. It's incredibly presumptuous of you to decide the judge did not do her job properly.

Once again - the judge arrived at her decision after studying all the evidence. She did so in in her role as an adjudicator of what was in the best interests of one, very vulnerable individual. I have enormous sympathy for her, it must have been an extremely difficult case.

There is a lot of ignorance and a lot of paranoia on this thread. This is in no way politically motivated-if the government was in the business of eugenics or population control it would outlaw first cousin marriage and sterilise women like the one involved in this case from the very beginning. And it is nothing like a nine year old being pregnant-thanksyo the posters who have shared their insights with regards to their experiences with YA with LD, pointed out obvious biological facts and, tried to explain the law surrounding rape offences.

For anyone who hasn’t read the full thread I would really recommend you do. I have learned a lot from posters who have actual knowledge of this area.

Well, then I hope all five of you complained about the ineffective sedation.

I posted earlier I had a friend have to get an abortion at 21 weeks when her fetus died in utero. While the experience in whole
was traumatic for her (her baby she wanted died after a week of not being sure if her pregnancy would end or not after having to get a cervical cerclage) she does not recall the details of her D&E at all. As she was properly sedated and noted her doctors were very kind.

Medical evidence would be actual research pointing to mental health outcomes for women who have had forced late stage abortions versus those who got to keep their baby who was subsequently adopted post birth.

This decision is a best guess. That’s why it’s important to know who was driving the case, why and what assessments the woman had been subject to and by whom.

I have repeatedly referred to a family court case whereby a woman was deemed a poor mother for breastfeeding and co-sleeping with her 15 month old not to mention a terrible person for not giving the nice men the baby they’d paid for.

Anyone who has ever been involved in any kind of legal proceedings knows that judges don’t always get it right.

This is in no way politically motivated-if the government was in the business of eugenics or population control it would outlaw first cousin marriage and sterilise women like the one involved in this case from the very beginning

Yes, it would and there is no one here who knows how ideologies such as eugenics or population control will progress in the next 20 years. They have to start somewhere though and a woman with LD would be the most palatable for the public to accept when it comes to forced abortion.

Medical evidence would be actual research pointing to mental health outcomes for women who have had forced late stage abortions versus those who got to keep their baby who was subsequently adopted post birth.

That would not be relevant in this case. The evidence would have been about this specific woman and her specific conditions, not women generally. The judge wasn't adjudicating on outcomes for all similar cases, she was adjudicating on the least bad outcome for this one.

I have repeatedly referred to a family court case whereby a woman was deemed a poor mother for breastfeeding and co-sleeping with her 15 month old not to mention a terrible person for not giving the nice men the baby they’d paid for.

You keep bringing this up, but it is also not relevant. It was a different case, with a different judge covering a different situation involving different people.

Anyone who has ever been involved in any kind of legal proceedings knows that judges don’t always get it right.

No they don't. They're human beings so are, of course, fallible. But they get it right more often than not, and you have absolutely no reason to believe that in this case the judge made a mistake. As I said upthread, it is derogatory and potentially libellous for you to suggest that she did when you have seen no evidence beyond the statement she released.

It is in no way libellous to suggest that a judge didn't make the best decision. Libel would be if it was suggested that the judge had access to relevant information and ignored it, for example. A critique is not libel.

Yes, it would and there is no one here who knows how ideologies such as eugenics or population control will progress in the next 20 years. They have to start somewhere though and a woman with LD would be the most palatable for the public to accept when it comes to forced abortion.

You do realise this case isn't unique? Why would this one be the start of something sinister, rather than an extremely sad and fortunately unusual case, the same as the other instances the CoP has been called on to adjudicate on? The CoP deals with cases involving individuals, it doesn't work on cases that involve widespread changes to the law, or attempt to influence public opinion.

Here's an earlier, equally tragic case www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/09/high-court-orders-abortion_n_5473628.html

This case about this specific woman was based on a best guess of what the least worst outcome would be.

When a medical treatment is prescribed as being appropriate for a particular condition, this is based on a body of research. Not simply a best guess.

Ergo the decision was made for social, not medical/clinical reasons. It has been decided that the woman might suffer less if the baby’s life is ended and so that’s what is happening.

I missed the libel comment. Lol.

It is in no way libellous to suggest that a judge didn't make the best decision. Libel would be if it was suggested that the judge had access to relevant information and ignored it, for example. A critique is not libel.

I would argue that it is bordering on libel to suggest the judge didn't call for and examine comprehensive, relevant, expert opinion. If a judge didn't do that it would be the height of unprofessional behaviour. Suggesting the judge did not do her job correctly and professionally is, at the very least, derogatory. You and others might not like her judgement, but you don't have enough information to critique it, and you don't have the right to cast doubt on her ability to do her job.

When a medical treatment is prescribed as being appropriate for a particular condition, this is based on a body of research. Not simply a best guess.

Oh come on, you know she didn't make a 'best guess'.

And I stand by what I said about your suggestions about her professionalism.

Why don't I have the right to doubt whether a judgement is correct? Is there a law I'm not aware of that means I can't question a judgement?

How would someone take a case to the court of appeal and other higher courts if they had to blindly accept all judgements?

It's actually a very compelling point that there is no body of evidence proving that a forced late term abortion is less traumatic than adoption. And it's entirely factual.

Lol Saskia. I haven’t made any such suggestion. I have explained why we don’t have sufficient information.

The decision is entirely dependent on a best guess of the least worst outcome for the woman.

Certainly doesn’t take into account what’s best for the baby.

The judge is very welcome to bring a suit claiming I am perpetuating something I know to be false and causing her reputation serious harm...

PouncerDarling no, there is no such law, you have the right to question whether the decision was the right one. Although, I'd hope you would accept you don't know all the details so can't really know for sure.

I wasn't referring to you questioning the decision, I was referring to another poster who was casting doubt on the evidence the judge used to arrive at her decision, and in the process cast doubt on the judges professionalism by suggesting she used limited evidence and arrived at 'best guess'.

I would hope you also accept that you don't have access to all the facts either.

Lol Saskia. I haven’t made any such suggestion. I have explained why we don’t have sufficient information.

No, you have suggested she didn't use expert opinion, and then went to say she should have generic studies which wold have been of no value, and that she arrived at a 'best guess'. I'm surprised you find this amusing, I think it's really sad.

The decision is entirely dependent on a best guess of the least worst outcome for the woman.

This is contradictory. It is an informed decision based on evidence, not a guess. The two words are not equivalent.

Certainly doesn’t take into account what’s best for the baby.

There was no baby, it was a foetus. Furthermore, the judge's job was to decide what was in the best interests of the woman. The interests of others, born or unborn, was not within her remit.

The judge is very welcome to bring a suit claiming I am perpetuating something I know to be false and causing her reputation serious harm.

Maybe she will. Although I imagine she has better things to do with her time because most people understand that she is experienced, professional and respected.

I would hope you also accept that you don't have access to all the facts either.

No, I don't. Which I why I'm inclined to trust the judgement of an experienced professional who does.

Do you fancy the judge or something?

Do you fancy the judge or something?

Fancy her? I'm banging her nightly.

Seriously, what a ludicrous post. Really? Are you 12?