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.

Somebody upthread suggested that the abortion could be carried out under General anaesthetic in a way that will cause her the least amount of suffering, why could that rule not be applied to her giving birth under a general anaesthetic? She wouldn't nessecarily have to go through labour in blind panic.

I understand that decisions are taken away from people who lack capacity in cases to look after their best interests but I really don't see how this is in her best interests when she blatantly objects to the procedure, adoption and one which I'm sure she would much prefer over the alternative.

I fail to see how late term aborting of a 22 week old baby against the mentally disabled mother's wishes, whom already has a mood disorder prior to any of this, will be any less traumatic than a delivery under anesthetic and the baby which she has expressed a desire to keep - being given the opportunity to live with a family who can meet it's needs.

I don't follow how a Caesarian followed by adoption is inevitably any better for this mother than a safer earlier surgical termination. No doubt you will say that is because there is a baby involved, but that isn't an argument we use against people with capacity who make this choice.

You will no doubt also say her wishes are the overriding factor, despite the fact that she lacks the capacity to understand what she wants and the consequences that follow on from that. It doesn't appear that, in particular, she understand that this baby is not going to be another dolly and she isn't going to be permitted to keep it. Whilst there is a general principle that, in Best Interests cases, the wishes of the patient should be taken into account, they are not and cannot be the deciding factor if what they want isn't in their best interests.

Suppose, subsequently, she says she doesn't want that nice Caesarian but you know that labour is going to be immensely distressing to her, sufficient to damage her mental health? Suppose, as her hormone levels change and she experiences everything that late pregnancy can throw at a woman, her mood disorder significantly worsens and she becomes dangerous to herself and others, but she still wants that nice cuddly baby? Suppose she develops a major infection which means that she's going to miscarry anyway and the only way to prevent sepsis is an abortion, but she says she doesn't want that? Suppose there comes a point during labour when she is seriously at risk and she needs to deliver urgently, but still says she doesn't want a Caesarian? Should her wishes still have precedence in all those scenarios?

You could argue that there are dozens of reasons why women should have their pregnancies terminated as a matter of course. But it's not humane.

the baby which she has expressed a desire to keep

Key word being keep. That's what she actually wants,it's not about birth or abortion. She wants a baby to keep,which she won't be allowed. Agreeing to an abortion means no baby at the end. Giving birth still means no baby at the end.

Somebody upthread suggested that the abortion could be carried out under General anaesthetic in a way that will cause her the least amount of suffering, why could that rule not be applied to her giving birth under a general anaesthetic? She wouldn't nessecarily have to go through labour in blind panic.

The baby is anaesthetised too though. It causes respiratory depression and the baby is much more likely to need resuscitation. With a TOP all sedation/pain relief options can be considered with a view to making things as comfortable as possible for the woman. With a delivery then there are essentially two patients.

I actually had sepsis from invasive group A strep after the birth of my daughter 8 weeks ago and was very ill, and If I had the benefit of foresight I would have still chosen that over a forced abortion.

I digress,

The decision to enforce an abortion being the less traumatic and the suggestion that the woman sees the baby as a new dolly are only assumptions, and however well informed the judge may be, she cannot possibly know without a shadow of a doubt that this decision is going to be the least traumatic.

At 22 weeks pregnant the mother will already be overcome with the hormonal and physical changes that come with pregnancy, aborting the baby isn't a quick fix that is going to be of any immediate comfort to an already distressed young woman who will undoubtedly suffer in some way as a result of the procedure alone.

But one version of no baby means a dead child and a very distressed adult woman. That's not better. I understand your justifications, but it's not better. She said she doesn't want a termination. That should be the end of it. Whether she's disabled or not.

“She wants a baby to keep,which she won't be allowed.“

This is a key point.
And to be frank, if the baby was born and taken into care, the outcomes are not brilliant- there is a good chance that it will not have a happy life.

The fact that in some jurisdictions a woman with capacity may be ordered to carry on with a pregnancy caused by rape has no relevance to this case.

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

No, the crucial point is informed choice.

I understand that decisions are taken away from people who lack capacity in cases to look after their best interests but I really don't see how this is in her best interests when she blatantly objects to the procedure, adoption and one which I'm sure she would much prefer over the alternative

How can you possibly know this? All the indications are that she has no understanding that she can't keep the baby. Suppose she blatantly objects to adoption, should her wishes come first?

I fail to see how late term aborting of a 22 week old baby against the mentally disabled mother's wishes, whom already has a mood disorder prior to any of this, will be any less traumatic than a delivery under anesthetic and the baby which she has expressed a desire to keep

You have no idea what understanding this woman has of abortion and whether she would find it traumatic. My mother in law, who lacks capacity, had to go through a medical procedure which most people would find highly traumatic: she had no idea what was going on and sailed through it quite happily.

This woman may have expressed a desire to keep the baby, but one thing we do know is that she can't. So you want her to go through all the delights of late pregnancy and birth only to tell her that, although she did all of that because of her wish to keep the baby, actually she's not going to.

Perhaps your "fail to see" is because you haven't seen the papers, met the mother, seen and heard the witnesses, and heard all the legal arguments. Is it just possible that someone who has done all that may have a more reliable opinion than you have?

For the woman involved, there are no easy answers.

Keep the baby - childbirth is not automatically an easy answer.
Abortion - abortion is not automatically an easy answer.

Who was it who actually impregnated this woman? I wonder, how is his conscience feeling, at the moment, given all this?

Where is the man that caused this?

We don't routinely terminate pregnancies because the baby might not have a happy life. That can't be used as a justification.

“and however well informed the judge may be, she cannot possibly know without a shadow of a doubt that this decision is going to be the least traumatic.”
Of course she can’t. She can only make the best judgement she can based on what, based on expert advice and the evidence put before her.

It does entirely have relevance because you are claiming that we have to see court judgements as the word of God. I don't agree with that. And I'm sure if you think about it, neither do you.

You could argue that there are dozens of reasons why women should have their pregnancies terminated as a matter of course. But it's not humane

Of course it is, if the alternative is worse for the mothers.

I actually had sepsis from invasive group A strep after the birth of my daughter 8 weeks ago and was very ill, and If I had the benefit of foresight I would have still chosen that over a forced abortion.
'
You really cannot know that you would do that if that happens before birth, if the baby is going to die anyway, and if the alternative to abortion for you is almost certainly death. Suppose that happens to this woman but she clings to her wish to continue with the pregnancy? Should she still not have the pregnancy terminated against her will?

“We don't routinely terminate pregnancies because the baby might not have a happy life. That can't be used as a justification.”
I agree. But adoption is so often put forward as a hearts and flowers happy ending. In very many cases it isn’t. Particularly when the baby has had a traumatic start in life.

The decision to enforce an abortion being the less traumatic and the suggestion that the woman sees the baby as a new dolly are only assumptions

Every medical decision is based on assumptions about the future. It would appear that the fact that this woman does regard the putative baby in the light of a doll is based on firm evidence. Overall, these are very fully informed assumptions, which would appear to be a much better basis for opinion than assumptions based on a few, very limited, media reports.

However well informed the judge may be, she cannot possibly know without a shadow of a doubt that this decision is going to be the least traumatic

Of course not. That applies to all or most Best Interests cases. Does that mean no-one should make any decision in such cases and just leave the patients to sink or swim?

RE not all adoptions being good ones, in the case of my birth son he has grown up with a wonderful family who adore him and he has been given opportunities in life that I couldn't have given him at the time of his birth.

I'm not saying this is the case for all adoptees but many, many children adopted from birth are welcomed into good families, loved and grow into well rounded individuals and fully functioning members of society.

But we don't routinely terminate pregnancies, even where it's inevitably going to end in adoption, even where the mother is putting herself in a dreadful position by having it. There are homeless women, drug addicts, people in hopelessly abusive relationships, women who have cancer who will die from carrying to term, and none of them are forced to terminate. It's just not done. So that can't be used as a justification.

@Cringemum

I'm really, really sorry you had to experience that. And I think you are really brave actually.

But one version of no baby means a dead child and a very distressed adult woman.

You don't know that. As I have pointed out, we have no idea what understanding she has of this; there is one scenario, for instance, where she has the operation, receives optimum pain relief and sedation, and has no understanding or recollection of what has happened, and feels little or no distress.

She said she doesn't want a termination. That should be the end of it. Whether she's disabled or not.

No, what she's said is she wants to keep the baby, which isn't going to happen.

You seem to have changed your stance, in that "That should be the end of it" seems to indicate that she should not have the termination even if the alternative is an agonising death. But even if you haven't changed your stance on that, I still don't understand how you think it is humane to take her wishes at face value even in, for instance, a situation where she isn't capable of understanding that doing so will cause her to spend the rest of her life seriously disabled and in severe pain.

It does entirely have relevance because you are claiming that we have to see court judgements as the word of God.

Do tell me precisely where I have said that.

Second thoughts, don't bother to try, because you won't find it.

If this was a matter of life or death, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought she should be allowed to go ahead with it. But it's not.

You said that court judgements should not be questioned, certainly not by me, as you specified. But if you are saying it's alright to question them, that's great. Then we agree.

Thank you @PouncerDarling I truly appreciate that, in my case it was domestic abuse (against myself - I wasn't the perpetrator), my young age at the time and the fact I had no family support. The conclusion was an inability to protect against future emotional harm thus a non consensual adoption.

For me that was the best outcome for the baby as im aware he has a good life so I'm probably coming across as heavily biased in respect to adoption in this mother's case for that reason, but FWIW I think you're incredibly brave too and I can't imagine the strength it must have taken to go through what you did. I do hope you're ok and that this thread hasn't brought up difficult emotions.