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.

Yeah, who needs to question extreme decisions made by higher powers?
They are questioned. It's what the appeal court is for, apart from anything else.

Yes, the woman's mother has the right to appeal the judgement if she if she chooses. We don't live in a totalitarian state - despite some suggestions on this thread - there are multiple levels of of appeal. But even then the case would be decided by pesky experts, not internet randoms with agendas and opinions.

What a fucking shit show this thread is.

We have these systems in place to do the best we can for vulnerable adults who lack capacity - and, frankly, to protect them from shit shows like this one.

Why would anything need to go to the court of appeal if all judgements are correct?

Here you go @PouncerDarling

...considers accountability to more senior judges through the system enabling appeal to a higher court and accountability to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor through the complaints system. It looks at accountability to the public through open access to justice and the publication of the vast majority of judicial decisions. Scrutiny of judges and the judicial system by the media, executive and legislative branches of the state is also considered.

There are pages of this stuff about how judges are questioned and held accountable for their judgements here:
www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/

Apologies for the repetition - I'm watching Supernatural as I type.

Why would anything need to go to the court of appeal if all judgements are correct?
No-one has said that all judgments are correct. And many appeals fail.
The appeals court is there to ensure fairness, and to ensure that any possible mistakes can be investigated

PouncerDarling Do follow Sara's link, and instead of asking us to explain the legal system of the country I assume you live in, why not go away and read up about it. This is basic stuff, most people pick it up by watching the news and reading newspapers.

But you're not answering my question - why do judges need to have their decisions reviewed when every single decision they make is correct? Why would we need to take this to the court of appeal when you've just told us all this judgement is most definitely definitely definitely correct?

I know plenty about the legal system, but thanks for taking the time to make a patronising comment.

The scale of ignorance on this thread is absolutely terrifying.

I understand why so many people posting here are very troubled by this decision. The judge found it troubling too. But people actually not knowing the simplest things troubles me.

I never knew that there were people who actually think that a defence lawyer actually believes in what they say and agrees with their client, for instance.

I know plenty about the legal system, but thanks for taking the time to make a patronising comment.

No problem, no need to thank me.

you've just told us all this judgement is most definitely definitely definitely correct?

No-one has said that either. Most of us realise that we don't have all the information. But we think that it's likely that this was the least worst option available, since it's clear that the judge is very experienced and her statement so far has been very thoughtful and advised.

This is relevant because?

I can’t say for the UK, but in the USA, Roe v Wade set 24 weeks as the point of viability, which is important because it is the starting point for when the fetus’ rights can be considered.

I’d guess there’s something similar in the UK as it’s 24 weeks here as well. So the fetus, despite having a small chance of survival at 22 weeks, will likely not have had its rights legally considered at that point.

We just don’t know very many details with accuracy. On the surface it does sound grim.

Hope you didn't miss any of your programme while doing it.

The scale of ignorance on this thread is absolutely terrifying.

I understand why so many people posting here are very troubled by this decision. The judge found it troubling too. But people actually not knowing the simplest things troubles me.

I never knew that there were people who actually think that a defence lawyer actually believes in what they say and agrees with their client, for instance.

It is shocking! The legal and political systems are so important and to see such woeful ignorance about how they function is frightening. How can people understand their basic human rights if they don't understand their recourse to law? Or the separation of the legal and political systems?

So let me get this straight, is this judgement definitely definitely definitely correct or isn't it? Because it can't be both. And it sounds like you are saying it potentially isn't.

The woman’s family have to apply for permission to appeal. It is unlikely to be granted.

So let me get this straight, is this judgement definitely definitely definitely correct or isn't it? Because it can't be both. And it sounds like you are saying it potentially isn't.

No, it's not that the judgement isn't correct, but that we have the right to say, for example, we think an aspect of the case might have been overlooked, so ask for another court to reevaluate it. It''s like a second opinion in medicine, I suppose.

Hope you didn't miss any of your programme while doing it.

It's okay, it's streaming on Amazon so I can rewind - but I am going to step away now because it's got to a good bit.

It’s also worth remembering that in 2017, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”) reported to the UK Government on a number of concerns, including the view that the current legislation does not promote equal recognition under the law for people with disabilities.

Here’s just one of their recommendations;

“in close consultation with organisations of persons with disabilities, including those representing persons from black and minority ethnic groups…abolish all forms of substituted decision-making concerning all spheres and areas of life by reviewing and adopting new legislation in line with the Convention to initiate new policies in both mental capacity and mental health laws. It further urges the State party to step up efforts to foster research, data and good practices of, and speed up the development of supported decision-making regimes.”

The legislation which everyone is unquestionably accepting and basing their opinions on was reported as being not fit for purpose.

The suggestion is for new legislation based on “supported decision-making” with greater emphasis on the wishes and preferences of the person, rather than what is perceived as a paternalistic “best-interests” model.

Which is a perfect example of the attitudes of those supporting what amounts to the medical rape of a disabled black woman.

Where is the empirical evidence suggesting that the woman’s mental health will be more severely affected by adoption than forced late term abortion?

Oh please. Do you seriously believe that evidence wasn't before the court? Or do you think a load of personal information about this woman's mental health should be splashed over the papers for you to pick over?

It’s all about mental health which is a particular specialism. Were the doctors specialists in this field?

Oh, of course not. The judge made a serious decision that rested fairly and squarely on the issue of the mother's mental health without it occurring to one person that it might be an idea to call specialist witnesses.
// End sarcasm mode.

They understand what the court of protection is for but they dont agree it should be able to force young women without capacity to have late abortions unless there is a serious risk to their health.

And on precisely what basis do you contend there isn't a serious risk to this woman's health? Or doesn't risk to mental health count in your eyes, Grapefruits?

Which is a perfect example of the attitudes of those supporting what amounts to the medical rape of a disabled black woman.

And when I thought the arguments couldn't get any lower.

You cannot gain this woman's consent for a termination, therefore you do not force one upon her. Consent is everything when it comes to a termination. You do not forcibly remove a foetus from an unwilling woman.

So, because this woman cannot consent, you force her to go through a pregnancy even if it has the potential to cause her serious, permanent physical or mental injury - even when all concerned are sure that, but for her incapacity, she would consent to a termination in preference to being seriously disabled for the rest of her life. How is that remotely humane?

As for the suggestion that this must be OK because her social worker says so: precisely what mental health qualifications does the social worker have? How well does s/he know the patient?

Irrespective of how intelligent this woman is, how is any human being going to feel about having their wanted child killed when it's in their womb? Perhaps you are just not capable of imagining the reality of what you are suggesting. She could be psychologically scarred for life because of that. I think most women on the planet would find that experience horrifically traumatic

Pouncer, you're making the serious mistake of assuming that this woman would experience a termination in the same way as you might. That requires a deep understanding of what is going on and what is happening, and there is no evidence that this woman has that. We're told that she has little or no concept what having a baby involves.

More seriously, people who know much more about her than you do have assessed that she will find a termination much less upsetting than having the baby taken away once born, or having to leave her home and go into care amongst strangers. How the hell do you claim to know better than they do?

Do you have a link to the diary thread you're referring to on MSE @ChiaraRimini I can't seem to find it.

I'm very interested to read that as I'm the adult child of somebody with LD's who was raised my by grandparents, so that has struck a chord with me.

The benevolent UK authorities are forcing a disabled black woman to have a late term abortion she doesn’t want. Which will most likely involve instruments being placed between her legs.

I don’t think you can get much lower.

I know plenty about the legal system

You’re doing a cracking job of hiding it.