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.

Also, I know that, for example, some Jehovah's Witnesses will not consent to blood transfusion, but subtlety make it known that if the procedure is forced on them, they won't be excommunicated in the same way as if they had consented. I wonder if the Catholic mother feels similarly - if she agrees to the abortion she is complicit in foeticide, whereas if it is court ordered, she has no choice so is absolved from guilt?

This resonates with me. I have a family member who was in the position of being asked to make a medical decision for a child that went against her religious beliefs. It did give her a way through, I won't say comfort, that would be putting it too strongly, that the decision was made by the court and was taken out of her hands. Her church recognised that it wasn't her decision and was able to support her. I do hope the woman's mother in this case has the same experience.

It was a horrible decision for the judge to make, and I am sure that she agonised over every option before choosing what seemed, on the evidence, to be the least shitty.

Because the judge is not the one who is pregnant. If she wants to end her own pregnancy, she can go ahead. Not someone else's.

But that is, quite literally, the job she has to do. She's taken a judicial oath to that effect. She can't say "You know what, I won't decide. I don't care how harmful it will be to this woman to carry on with the pregnancy, I'm out of here".

And, on that logic, no judge should ever make any decision on behalf of someone who lacks capacity. Just imagine:

"You say this woman's relatives are taking advantage of her mental state to force her to give them all her money and you want me to decide that she shouldn't have power to give it to them? No, I can't do that, I'm not the one whose money is being taken, I can't make that decision for someone else."

"You say this person will die in agony unless he has this treatment but he doesn't have capacity to consent? No, I can't give consent for him, I'm not the one with this serious but treatable medical condition."

"You say this woman who lacks capacity is living with people who are exploiting and raping her because she thinks they're her friends, and I should make an order that she should be removed from them? I can't do that, I'm not the one who is being exploited and raped, it would be quite wrong to make that decision."

Or is it your position that the courts shouldn't interfere in those situations either?

Thank you for your post, Cringemum. It's good to hear from someone in your position.
Of course we don't know how this lady compares to your mum (though your mum was clearly not a danger to you as this lady would seem to be) but it's still interesting to hear from someone with the experiences you've had.

But yeah, it is upsetting to read what people are suggesting this woman go through and knowing exactly how awful it is.

With very respect, you're assuming that this woman's experience of termination will be the same as yours. You have no basis for that assumption.

You're correct saraclara my mum wasn't considered a danger to me in the sense that she may physically harm me, in my case it was the fact that she had so little understanding for a newborn babies complex needs that she would have been unable to meet mine without the intensive hands on support from my grandparents.

It's unfortunate that in this case the babies grandmother has been deemed unsuitable to care for the baby, as for in my case it was the best option and one I'm thankful was decided for me.

My heart goes out to the young woman and I hope she manages to find peace after this, whatever the outcome may be.

My abortion was botched too. Bad enough that i woke up during and while I didn't feel pain,I did feel the procedure being done. I'll spare you the other details.

I still understand why and how the judge reached her decision. The only reason I'm uncomfortable with it is because ideally this woman would never have been pregnant, or if she was there would've been a way for her to keep the baby with support. But nothing about this is ideal and we don't live in an ideal world. It is an utterly shit and devastating situation and the judge picked the option she deemed as least harmful.

But yeah, it is upsetting to read what people are suggesting this woman go through and knowing exactly how awful it is.

My experience of childbirth first time round was awful and traumatic. The thought of someone like her having to go through it without any understanding is terrible.
Other people find childbirth easier, and I'm pretty sure that most people don't have as an awful experience as you had with your abortion. We're both just anecdotes, not data.

I still think childbirth will be more traumatic for her though.

But you don't know that the same methods for terminating the pregnancy would be used in this woman's case, Pouncer. In her best interests, it may well be dealt with very differently.

Childbirth can be a truly horrific experience too, and is known to carry greater dangers. I'm sure it would also be horrific for a vulnerable woman with learning difficulties to give her baby up, and/or have to leave the only home she knows. Someone who knows much more about her has decided that that really is the worst option. Who are you to say she's wrong?

I didn't say there was a nice option. It's what someone who knows all the facts believes to be the least worst option. You cannot know that this woman will undergo the same method of termination as was used in your case, Pouncer: there are a number of choices up to and including a surgical termination under a general anaesthetic.

What seems to me utterly inhumane is the apparent belief that a woman without capacity must be denied the option of termination even when continuing the pregnancy will cause her serious and long term physical or mental injuries, and even when a woman with capacity would virtually inevitably choose termination.

I really don't think a woman with capacity would choose a termination. I mean statistically alone, most women don't terminate their pregnancies. And in terms of rates of late term abortion per pregnancy, purely for social reasons, we're talking about a tiny, tiny percentage. Not to mention that this woman has actually said she does want to have the baby. Now maybe we can't let her keep it, but is it necessary to kill it just because she can't keep it? I actually think most women - the average woman, if there is such a thing - have a strong maternal instinct that means it's almost certain that they would do anything to protect their child.

You can't assume she wants a termination. Look at the alternative - what if she said she did want a termination and that decision was overruled. Would you be saying her thoughts and feelings didn't matter in that case? I think it really, really does matter what she's said she wants. And I think having the baby adopted is the closest thing to fulfilling those wishes. And crucially, ensuring she retains as much bodily autonomy and dignity as is possible.

I have known two women who have had post 20 week abortions. And neither of them had experiences anything like yours, @PouncerDarling. I am sorry your experience was so physically and emotionally traumatic.

But not every woman with capacity would virtually inevitably choose termination.

Because of her inability to choose for herself the decision has been made for her in advance, by somebody whom although has all of the facts, has no way of knowing for sure which of the two outcomes (abortion or baby being adopted) will cause the lady in question, the most significant emotional harm.

The judge is essentially taking a punt, in which although she has far more information than we have, she cannot predict the future or be absolutely sure about the mental impact this forced abortion will have on her.

A cesarian under general anaesthetic and the baby being adopted outside of the family if the mother is unsuitable to raise them, is far more human and holistic way of proceeding in what is a terribly difficult set of circumstances.

I understand the mothers capacity means she is unsuitable to parent the child but has she not explicitly declared that she does not want to terminate.

Surely her wishes not to undergo a late term forced abortion has to count for something.

Poor poor woman.

I agree with you pouncer and I'm sorry that what you went through was so traumatic.

Despite not knowing what the procedure involves I can't fathom forcing anything of the sort on a mentally disabled young woman.

A cesarian under general anaesthetic and the baby being adopted outside of the family if the mother is unsuitable to raise them, is far more human and holistic way of proceeding in what is a terribly difficult set of circumstances.

For whom?

I think for the mother, it is. It's the closest thing in line with what she's stated her wishes are.

For the mother without a doubt.

I'm not here with a pro life agenda as I am explicitly pro choice.

If she cannot keep the baby herself then she should at least have the right to object to a procedure that by all accounts she doesn't want to have.

I really don't think a woman with capacity would choose a termination. I mean statistically alone, most women don't terminate their pregnancies. And in terms of rates of late term abortion per pregnancy, purely for social reasons, we're talking about a tiny, tiny percentage. Not to mention that this woman has actually said she does want to have the baby. Now maybe we can't let her keep it, but is it necessary to kill it just because she can't keep it? I actually think most women - the average woman, if there is such a thing - have a strong maternal instinct that means it's almost certain that they would do anything to protect their child.

You can't assume she wants a termination

The hypothesis I put was a termination in circumstances where the alternative is serious, permanent, physical or mental illness or injuries. Many woman with capacity can and do opt for a termination in those circumstances. You said that that option should be removed from this woman, purely because she lacks capacity.

Look at the alternative - what if she said she did want a termination and that decision was overruled. Would you be saying her thoughts and feelings didn't matter in that case?

Given that that would only happen if it was in her best interests, yes.

I think it really, really does matter what she's said she wants.

But she apparently has no understanding of what she wants. Does she understand that it means going through 18 or more weeks of pregnancy, labour, possibly major joint pain or other complications of late pregnancy, possibly an episiotomy or tear, possibly a Caesarian? Most importantly, does she understand that the baby she imagines in, it would appear, much the same light as a doll, is going to be taken away and that she may have to leave her home?

Suppose she said she didn't want treatment for a perfectly curable illness. You have said previously that you think that what she really, really wants in this case should not be granted to her. Yet you say she should have her wishes granted in a scenario where she has no real idea of the reality of what that means, even if it involves long-term physical or mental injury or illness to her, just because it relates to pregnancy.

And I think having the baby adopted is the closest thing to fulfilling those wishes. And crucially, ensuring she retains as much bodily autonomy and dignity as is possible.

How much bodily autonomy and dignity does a woman have when going through labour in circumstances where she has no understanding of what is happening and is probably in blind terror?

Someone who knows much, much more about all the relevant facts thinks differently from you. Why is your opinion more valid?

“I really don't think a woman with capacity would choose a termination.”

Well, under some circumstances some obviously do.

What position am I in? Let's look at decisions made around the world where women are told that they are forced to continue with their pregnancies. Women are being forced by courts to carry their rapist's baby. Have you got no right to criticise that because a judge said so?

It's a very dangerous world where we don't question these decisions.

Some do, some don't. The crucial point is choice.

And I do think we ought to be very careful because discussions like this often attract posters with agendas. And they are sometimes difficult to detect. I am not saying that anyone on this thread fits this description, of course. But we need to be aware.