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.

Is it possible for a baby to be born under general anaesthetic?

You can have a csec under GA. It’s not common anymore but is reserved for some cases.

"You think termination may cause the woman more distress. Yet again, doctors and others who know her well, and a judge who has been given all the facts, think otherwise."

Her own mother and social worker think the pregnancy should continue, I would imagine they know her better than a judge.

"Do you think it is just possible that their views might be more reliable than yours or indeed mine?" They may indeed be, but so might her mum and her social worker's views too.

"When a woman is unable to make a choice, and a choice needs to be made in her best interests, who do you think should make that decision?"

She does not need to make a choice. She could continue with her pregnancy and when the baby arrives the decisions will be made around the baby's best interests. This happens in adoption cases in the UK all the time.

The law should not be able to step in and alter the lives of people, even vulnerable people, in this way, IMHO.

Is what we believe as a society? should we sterilize all women who we think should not be able to conceive, or conceive again? Sounds chilling doesn't it. I believe that it has been done in the past. Do we know anyone who we think should not be able to have a baby, when does the law step in for other vulnerable people?

"And why do her mother’s feelings here matter at all?" Because her mother is caring for her, and has offered to care for the child (which may well not be feasible). I cannot imagine the pain if my child were somehow incapacitated and her pregnancy ended against her will. To me this is utterly barbaric.

"The law is there to protect vulnerable adults." then why isn't 'the law' sterilizing everyone who they deem should not get pregnant. This is not a moral use of medical intervention in my mind, at all.

"They have capacity to make an informed choice." actually, we just assume everyone does. But we don't know. There may be a whole raft of women out there getting pregnant and having babies who do not have the full capacity you or I have.

FeministCat this is, I think, a convenient ending for the pregnancy which will devastate lives, the grandmother will be left to pick up the pieces and care for her daughter for the rest of her life and I feel the legal system has woefully let the two women down. IMHO.

She does not need to make a choice. She could continue with her pregnancy and when the baby arrives the decisions will be made around the baby's best interests. This happens in adoption cases in the UK all the time.

Continuing the pregnancy IS a choice. One she cannot make. Right now it is her best interests that matter.

Because her mother is caring for her, and has offered to care for the child (which may well not be feasible). I cannot imagine the pain if my child were somehow incapacitated and her pregnancy ended against her will. To me this is utterly barbaric.

It’s not feasible unless the vulnerable adult moves out. Again, court is not there to make decisions on best interests of a vulnerable adults relative. Vulnerable adult is not there to incubate a child for her mother or any other prospective adoptive parents.

then why isn't 'the law' sterilizing everyone who they deem should not get pregnant. This is not a moral use of medical intervention in my mind, at all.

Because the law does not state absolutely no vulnerable adults can get pregnant or have babies and be loving parents with support. Some can. I have seen it. The court in this case has said this woman can’t keep a baby no matter what, and deemed a second term abortion would be less traumatic than going forward and having baby removed (or her being removed from her home). Many vulnerable adults I know are on long term birth control (like an IUD or implant) and we don’t know at this stage if this woman was; we do know her mother was Catholic and pro-life, so she may have had reasons for not having her on birth control.

There may be a whole raft of women out there getting pregnant and having babies who do not have the full capacity you or I have.

From my own work, I am sure there are. But THIS woman is legally declared to lack capacity. So others have to make decisions for her, including medical ones. This decision is about THIS woman.

FeministCat this is, I think, a convenient ending for the pregnancy which will devastate lives, the grandmother will be left to pick up the pieces and care for her daughter for the rest of her life and I feel the legal system has woefully let the two women down.

She has to take care of her daughter in any event. Unless her daughter has the baby and her mom wants to keep it. Then the daughter has to leave her home and go somewhere else. Because she would be a risk to the child.

And if her mother’s interests matter:

1. What if mother wanted her daughter to have an abortion and her daughter “wanted a baby”?

1. What if mother did not want her daughter to have an abortion and her daughter “did not want a baby”?

How would mothers interests weigh in there? There is a reason they aren’t under consideration.

I am not saying a mother trumps her own daughter's interests at all. I am saying her mum may know her daughter better than these other 'professions'. She may know how she would cope with both eventualities.

No, of course women are not incubators for babies. But in this situation I think forcing an abortion is wrong.

The woman's own mother will not be able to care for her indefinitely. So at some point she will almost certainly have to leave the family home, as will her own mother.

I personally do not think the state should make this decision about a pregnancy. You cannot negate all risk and harm and I think more harm will be done.

The judge has made her decision from her own standpoint. We will never know if it was the right one. I just hope for the sake of this family that it is over turned.

I must go to bed now. Night all.

I am not saying a mother trumps her own daughter's interests at all. I am saying her mum may know her daughter better than these other 'professions'. She may know how she would cope with both eventualities

And the judge could have listened to what she thought (mother would also not “know” because no one can “know” for certain) and determined she preferred other evidence. The mother has also made it clear she is pro-life so is already biased on way.

The woman's own mother will not be able to care for her indefinitely. So at some point she will almost certainly have to leave the family home, as will her own mother.

So she should be thrown out just after having a baby she can’t be around because one day she might need to move?

I just hope for the sake of this family that it is over turned.

If it is, or upheld, it is likely too late to matter for this vulnerable adult. She was already 22 weeks, I expect the procedure will have already been done.

I think most of us, are just scared of this case setting precedent for forced abortion to become the next way to control women’s choices...

It’s a huge ethical dilemma and I think there needs to be ethical benchmarks around the topic so the public could feel safe.

Clearly there is a divide around the topic of abortion limits, and what’s considered as acceptable choice.. combined with the idea of good or bad parenting and so on...,

What could stop social services from not taking a woman to court who they think is a bad parent to her existing kids and forcing her to abort?

It just does seem that in this case, the perceived “rights” of a newborn is trumping the rights of the woman carrying them... which is hupocritical since I’m the original pro-choice argument the whole idea was that the woman’s right to choose was more critical than the right of the fetus to live.

This case has basically opened new doors of controversy on an already contraversa topic. Go figure

What could stop social services from not taking a woman to court who they think is a bad parent to her existing kids and forcing her to abort?

Does the women lack capacity legally? An interested person (ie a relative) or a public guardian could apply for guardianship if there was a concern she did not and doctors agreed. This is not a new thing.

If she does not lack capacity, then she is deemed to be able to make informed decisions even if those decisions are ones made knowing her child is likely to be removed once born. I see this happen frequently with mother’s who already have had their kids removed. My question is why would social services not be removing the kids in her care already if they had concerns about her parenting to that degree...

It just does seem that in this case, the perceived “rights” of a newborn is trumping the rights of the woman carrying them... which is hupocritical since I’m the original pro-choice argument the whole idea was that the woman’s right to choose was more critical than the right of the fetus to live.

Where do you get that from? The rights of the future newborn were not a factor at all here. The merits of late term abortion were not a factor either. It was a decision about what be less traumatic for the vulnerable adult considering her lack of capacity, mood disorder, and that she would not have a baby in the end no matter what.

This case has basically opened new doors of controversy on an already contraversa topic. Go figure

Not really. I think cases like this have already been before the courts. As have many other medical decisions for adults who lack capacity. I saw one for the US when searching, only in that case the court decided against abortion. I wonder why no controversy in that? Because many here think that would have been the “right” decision because the vulnerable adult who can’t make a choice anyway had a live baby?

“The judge has made her decision from her own standpoint.”

She hasn’t. She has made it based on having all the facts, all the evidence and all the opinions of everyone involved- including the woman’s mother in front of her.

Ok I said this up thread.

I think that a 22 week fetus is alive. It's pretty much a fully formed baby. That's why so many women have abortions for medical reasons at this stage. Because it's at the 20 week scan the baby has developed to the point where abnormalities can be detected.

I am in favour of legal abortion at this stage of pregnancy because the baby must live inside the body of the mother. I trust the women is the best person to take decisions relating to the pregnancy. She should decide for both herself and her baby what to do.

Please don't mistake support for abortion at this stage as thinking that the baby doesn't matter or isn't important.

The court does not take the baby into account only the best interests of the woman (which I reckon it also has got wrong).

In fact it cannot take the interests of the baby into account without attributing some type of legal status to the baby. This will be detrimental to all women.

You can bet half the people reading this story are starting to think that the law needs to be changed to restrict abortion at this stage of pregnancy because they all know too that no matter what the law says a 22 week old fetus is pretty much a fully formed baby.

So I do not think the court should make this decisions. I think that where a woman does not have capacity and the pregnancy has progressed beyond the first trimester a termination should only be allowed in case of medical reasons.

I would support a change in the law to achieve this. But a change in guidelines would be better as if the laws are revisited who knows what would happen.

This is a bad decision. For the mother, the baby, the family and also for women everywhere who need safe legal access to abortion that they are able to chose.

I think many posters are putting their own feelings and emotions onto this woman. They are looking at it through their own intellectual ideas of what having a late term abortion would mean to them. We really don't know what this woman understands about pregnancy or abortion or foetal development.

She may not have an understanding of what it means to be pregnant. She may not understand what a termination of that pregnancy means. She might just see it in terms of there will be a baby at some point - without understanding how that baby will come about.

I remember talking to my son, when he was 4 and a half, about the baby that I was having. He could see my belly getting bigger and we had told him that the baby was inside but you could tell that he didn't "get" it. That it was too abstract for him. He used to talk about how he and the baby were going to play football when it was born, because in his head a baby was going to be just like him, yet he had seen other babies.

Maybe this woman won't be upset about the termination because she might not understand what it means. Maybe the physical changes that will occur to her body over the next 20 weeks, were the pregnancy to continue, will be too distressing for her. Maybe the birth will be too much for her, let alone removing the baby for adoption.

This is a terrible situation all round, regardless of what decision is taken. There is no happy ending only the least worst decision. If it was the mother's beliefs that prevented her daughter from having decent contraception in place then I don't think that her views around abortion should be considered here, because in that case her beliefs have led to this woman facing the situation that she is now in.

I really really tried to ignore the adoption is all sunshine and rainbows idea.

I'm adopted. Straight out of hospital,by a couple that were professionals, decent ,hardworking etc. I had opportunities. I never went hungry or without.

I also had;
Physical(proper beatings,dragged by the hair,door slammed by my feet when I wouldn't leave the house at 9 etc) and emotional (stupid,lazy,the enemy,threats of being kicked out,silent treatment).

Sexual assault by family members who thought it was ok because I wasn't blood..nevermind that I was 10 and 13.

Other sexual assaults that my mother ignored,minimised,laughed at or even blamed me for it.

Called stupid or ignored when I self harmed.

That's just the main highlights. My mother still bemoans the fact that I was so sweet and lovely as a small child,but then grew up and went all horrible and crazy. I wonder why?

And despite all of that I still consider myself lucky. At least I wasn't left in the system.

So I do not think the court should make this decisions. I think that where a woman does not have capacity and the pregnancy has progressed beyond the first trimester a termination should only be allowed in case of medical reasons.

Even if, in a case mentioned earlier, the pregnant woman was so distraught about the pregnancy that she tried to self harm continuously? Would you have her locked up or restrained for the next 20 weeks?

Or if she needed medication for her mental health condition that was harmful to the foetus? Would you agree to her mental health deteriorating until she could deliver the child?

We don't know what information the judge was giving but I assume that it would have been compelling for her to decide that terminating the pregnancy at this stage was less harmful to the woman than allowing it to continue. She would have made her judgement knowing that it would come under scrutiny so I trust that she has acted in the best interests of this woman.

@decomposingcomposers yes mental health should also count

This doesn't seem to have been the case from what I can gather. Instead it seems to have been much more speculative about things that might happen in the future.

However it doesn't have to be either. At the moment they dont have to show medical reasons. It's a best interests test at the moment.

In fact that was one of the arguments made by the woman's lawyer that they hadn't shown any compelling medical reasons.

Everyone jumped on me yesterday for mentioning the womens lawyer. Apparently everyone knows lawyers will say anything so arguments they make are apparently irrelevant.

@GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit Where are you getting all this addition informtion?

"So she should be thrown out just after having a baby she can’t be around because one day she might need to move?" No, of course not, don't put words into my mouth! I mean that the woman's mother won't be able to care for her indefinitely.

"If it is, or upheld, it is likely too late to matter for this vulnerable adult. She was already 22 weeks, I expect the procedure will have already been done."

I sincerely hope you are wrong. The judge gas presumed to know the future of a young vulnerable adult, it seems an all along precedent to set. Truely appalling.

GrapefruitsAreNotTheOnlyFruit

But I think mental health is exactly what this case hinges on. And yes, some of it is speculative but I think they are speculating that were the pregnancy to continue it would be to the detriment of this woman's mental health. I assume that this view comes from experience of seeing other women with similar conditions.

What would you prefer, they give it a go and see just how badly this woman is affected by it? Would that be more acceptable to you?

“The judge gas presumed to know the future of a young vulnerable adult, it seems an all along precedent to set.”
It’s not a precedent. That’s what the Court of Protection does. It makes decisions on behalf of people who cannot make them for themselves, in what, being in possession of all the evidence, it believes to be in their best interests.

YourSarcasmIsDripping I am so very sorry to hear of your experiences. One if our children is our birth child and one is adopted and I am always appalled by any cruelty to children by any parent ever.

I agree with what was referred to overnight - the decision made might be intended to be only about the woman, but it is unintentionally biased towards the baby. If this family had sufficient resources available for the mother and baby to be cared for together, she wouldn't be being forced to terminate.

It's absolutely an abuse of the law that was made to protect us if we can thereby be forced to terminate if x criteria are not met.

@bertrandrussell If you search on Google there are now lots of reports about this case. They are probably doing wonders for the anti abortion cause all over the planet. Anyway to me the point is that they dont have to show medical reasons for a forced abortion on a women without capacity and I think that they should.

@decompsingcomposers its just totally speculative. One report says the medical team said they felt there could be an increased risk of psychosis later in the pregnancy. That's different from the pregnant woman has psychosis and we cant treat it properly. Anyway she is only 4 to 5 weeks away from being able to deliver a healthy baby via c section if her mental health did deteriorate.

I think at th

@bertrandrussell If you search on Google there are now lots of reports about this case.”
Do they contain all the evidence that was put before the court?