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.

I don’t think this is a slippery slope at all. I am not sure how it is in the U.K., but where I am vulnerable adults - like my relative and colleague’s daughter I mentioned earlier - are usually a “represented adult” with someone else having guardianship to make decisions for them they can’t due to capacity: like who to socialize with, where to live, what medical care they should have. A court had already predetermined that the adults lacks the capacity to make those decisions for themselves, including for their medical care. And that is what this is, medical care. It is also clear parents and guardians don’t always know best, and the state does step in (for example where they order a child to receive chemotherapy where their parents religious beliefs have them decline it).

I don’t think this starts a “new precedent” at all. I think it is about a debate about best interests or a vulnerable adult for a medical procedure, that some see as more “controversial” because it is an abortion rather that say, an appendectomy or heart surgery. I also doubt it’s the first case of the kind, just others have been handled more privately or had an outcome people who do not support abortion felt better about so it got less media coverage (ie abortion was not ordered).

Prawnofthepatriarchy

And not to mention the US also has the worst maternal mortality rate amongst industrialized nations, but yes, the US is just so great for babies and their mother’s!

But you advocate forced adoption?

I am so glad to be an American.

And they regularly executed people with LDs. And still execute people with brain injuries and serious mental health issues. Sooooo progressive.

I think this starts a precedent that could be manipulated at a later time, so I do not agree with it for that reason
I don’t think it sets a precedent. I think people with learning disability have been on the receiving end of outrageous infringements of their human rights always. They used to be sterilised, and locked up and I would imagine this particular scenario has happened many times before..

"Because adults with LDs aren't like children. And infantilizing them leads to really dodgy conclusions. Imagine being a 20 year old, no capacity to consent, but all the hormones and desires any adult would have."

But that's the same for any pubescent or post-pubescent child under 16. Is it OK for any tweens or early teens to have sex under 16 because they have sex hormones going around their bodies?
The age of consent is to do with being mature enough emotionally and mentally, not biologically,

The judgement wasn't made in the interests of the baby. It was made in the interests of the mother. Every single point the judge made was about the effect that giving birth would have on the young woman.

Exactly.

It was a hearing at the court of protection, with the person lacking capacity in need of protection being the pregnant young woman.

@SweetJasmine17
there's no physical reason why she can't continue, unlike an actual child. She's perfectly capable of delivering a child which can be adopted etc.

Are you for real??.?
She may indeed have the physical capacity to carry and deliver a child, but that's about it. So she should be put through the trauma, which is absolutely what it would be, of delivering a baby and then further trauma of having the baby taken off her, having her milk come in, possibly having stitches, piles, bleeding for weeks, etc etc just so that someone else can adopt?
That would be absolutely horrific and as cruel as you could get. Would you let your 9 year old daughter go through that? Not a cat in hells chance.
The decision to terminate is absolutely the correct one.

Soontobe60

YY. Adoption is too often argued as this perfectly rosy sensible happy endings alternative to abortion. Adoption is an alternative to parenting, not to pregnancy or childbirth. And the endings are not always happy ones, for the birth mother or the adopted child for that matter.

But that's the same for any pubescent or post-pubescent child under 16. Is it OK for any tweens or early teens to have sex under 16 because they have sex hormones going around their bodies?

I didn't say "so they should definitely have sex" did I? If they lack capacity, they can't consent and therefore the risks are too high. But there is a danger of only considering risk. Not considering the person's rights and wishes. Seeing them as a disability rather than a person, with wants, needs, desires and feelings.

Adult humans make stupid, ugly, dangerous, unhealthy choices all the time. And that is 100% their choice. It is really important not to say, "that's a terrible choice and because you have a disability I've decided you don't get to make that choice". And bear in mind that the 15 yo will be able to consent in a year. The person with LDs never gets to have a relationship. That doesn't change capacity but it changes my compassion about it.

Sometimes SWs and carers have to make choices that other people wouldn't. About money, food, exercise, alcohol and yes, sex that consider the whole person. If the person has capacity they can make the same awful decisions any adult can make.

Considering a 15 year old. A responsible 15 yo having sex with their 15 yo boyfriend, using protection, seeking and giving consent... it's not ideal but it's different to a groomed 15 yo having non consensual sex with a 45 yo.

It's so easy to look at these situations and believe there's a black and white answer. I wish there was. But it is often extremely nuanced. Confidentiality means we can't share tough cases but I know that none of the people on here could come up with flawless answers to many of these questions. Much as it's fun to assume SWs are idiots, careless, lazy and thick; most of the ones I had the privilege of working with were and are underpaid, overworked, intelligent and caring.

Going to disagree with almost everyone here.

I do not think the state should be ordering a fetus of 22 weeks to be aborted.

I am in favour of the limit staying at 24 weeks because that's the current point of viability.

But no way should the government be forcing the decision at this stage so close to viability against the wish of the grandmother.

I cant understand even why this would be any better for the mother than carrying to term.

Here in NZ it is discouraged to compare adults with intellectual disability as having 'the mental age of....'.
I worked with many who on one level could be described as this young woman, ie mental age of a 9 year old, but have maturity in other ways, such as emotional, social etc.
At least a couple of women I worked with got pregnant with their boyfriend, had their babies and adopted them out.
The lack of contraception advice/healthy relationship advise for consenting adults was a big issue.
Off topic I guess, but MTCW.

Yep, sod the mother who it seems isn’t able to look after the child. Let’s just have a women with ld give birth because the grandmother wants to look after the child

America? Fuck that , I’m glad I live in this country when it comes to my children who have additional needs and that’s saying something

But no way should the government be forcing the decision at this stage so close to viability against the wish of the grandmother.

I cant understand even why this would be any better for the mother than carrying to term.

Why do the wishes of the vulnerable adult’s mother matter here? This is not a decision made in best interests of her. It should not be.

Why do you think it would be better for this woman to carry a pregnancy for 18-20 more weeks and go through the trauma of a childbirth, and then of having the baby removed or herself being removed from her home if her mother wanted to keep the infant, than to get a surgical abortion, which is possible under sedation?

But no way should the government be forcing the decision at this stage so close to viability against the wish of the grandmother

The government played no part in this. The decision was made by the Court.

&soontobe60

We're talking about what is probably now a viable fetus at time of writing, not a bunch of cells and it deserves some consideration too at this point.

It counts be born via c section if vaginal would be too traumatic. It's coming out either way- it's preferable to have a live baby than a dead one

@feministcat you can't have a surgical abortion at 22 weeks. She will have to have birth. On some level she is likely to understand that the baby is dead. The only people I know who have had abortions that late have had babies that late have had medical problems diagnosed at the 20 week scan. They have been extremely upset about it.

At 22 weeks it is a fetus that if birthed will require extensive medical care and is at risk for significant health problems of its own. It is still dependent on incubation in the woman, or extensive medical support outside of her body. As a fetus still in her body, it does not have personhood and it does not “deserve consideration” from a legal standpoint over the interests of the vulnerable adult. You can disagree with that on a moral basis, but that is the reality.

you can't have a surgical abortion at 22 weeks. She will have to have birth.

Incorrect. They can still do a D&E or a hysterotomy. Early labour abortion is only one method (and if that is done, could still be under sedation and with significant pain relief because harm to fetus is not a concern).

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

It's not about the grandmother.
It's not even about the baby.

The court case was about the best interests of the pregnant woman. And sadly,in this case the choices were all pretty dire.

People arguing about "choice" on behalf of the pregnant woman are deliberately missing the most important point ..her choice is to keep her baby. That wouldn't happen anyways. Regardless of the court decision her choice would've been ignored,because it's not feasible.

The options were
Force an abortion.
Let her have a baby and force her to put it up for adoption.
Let her have the baby and force her out of her home if the mother became a carer for the baby.

She never had a choice.

The judge had to weigh up the options(all going against the pregnant woman's wishes) and decide which would be the least traumatic and with the least repercussions . Given the possibility of uprooting her and all the risks(mental and physical) associated with pregnancy and giving birth, not to mention having a baby you want taken away, I can see how and why the judge reached that decision. Yes it feels wrong and it's incredibly sad,but I understand it.

t's preferable to have a live baby than a dead one

To whom and why?

Besides the court case was about the welfare of the woman not the baby. It wasn't a consideration.

@lass ok the court not the government. I don't think the court should be making decisions of this type.

Saying that a fetus of 22 weeks isn't a baby is a bit of a legal fiction really. It is only a couple of weeks away from viability.

Abortion this late is something that many women would chose not to do. It might be legal (correctly so) but by this point it's a very ambiguous decision and not something a court should be deciding on someone's behalf.

If they needed to step in because her health was at risk from the pregnancy that would be different.

Why does the grandmother matter? Because it's her daughter and grandchild we are talking about.

Forced late abortion seems totally barbaric to me.

Why does the grandmother matter? Because it's her daughter and grandchild we are talking about

The grandmother does not matter, any more than any other relative.

The Grandmother ss thinking of herself, and not acting in the best interests of her daughter. The Court of Protection exists pretty much for this sort of reason. Anyone exercising control over a learning disabled adult needs to be able to be challenged, to ensure that the LD adult is protected.

@YourSarcasmIsDripping

If you think a 22w+ fetus isn't a baby because it hasnt breathed air yet... I just🤦🏻‍♀️

It would be a preemie if born, of course it matters.

If the baby's aborted, unfortunately the mother will STILL miss it, like if it was to be adopted. How is killing it any better, really?

It's just a shame it even got to this point. Somebody should have realised and looked out for this woman and who she was around