INTENSITY²
Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: Queen Victoria on February 13, 2011, 07:57:45 PM
-
This is from The Telegraph, a London newspaper. In full disclosure, I have increased a headline and sub-headline's font size and removed 4 lines referring to related articles in the Telegraph.
Disabled mother could be sterilised without her consent
A woman with a learning disability could be forcibly sterilised after she gives birth this week to stop her becoming pregnant again.
By Tim Ross, Social Affairs Editor 6:11PM GMT 13 Feb 2011
The secretive Court of Protection will rule on the woman’s treatment on Tuesday, in a rare open hearing scheduled because of the overwhelming “public interest” in understanding the case.
She is due to give birth by caesarean section the following day and could undergo an operation to sterilise her at the same time if the court agrees.
Disability campaigners described the prospect of such a “drastic” step as “quite wrong”.
The woman will be represented by the official solicitor, a government lawyer who acts for those who cannot instruct their own legal team because they lack capacity.
The patient’s NHS trust and council have made an application to the Court of Protection to decide whether she is incapable of making decisions about contraception herself and if so, whether she should be sterilised by means of “tubal ligation”.
The “non therapeutic sterilisation” operation would involve severing and sealing her fallopian tubes and would take place at the same time as the caesarean.
Critics argue that sterilisation is too radical a procedure to be conducted without consent while other options such as a long-term contraceptive solution should be considered.
David Congdon, head of policy at the disability charity Mencap, said sterilisation without consent was “awful and unacceptable” but rare in modern times.
“It is a pretty drastic step to sterilise someone against their will simply because they lack the mental capacity themselves,” he said.
“It is a gross invasion of someone’s basic rights unless there are clear medical grounds and there do not appear to be in this case.
“Using sterilisation as a form of contraception is totally unacceptable. There are other methods of contraception,” he said. “Years ago there were lots of cases like this but we hear of very few cases these days.”
He urged the court to “tread very carefully” before coming to a decision.
Due to legal restrictions, no details about the woman’s identity, family or location can be published.
But court documents stress “the legitimate public interest” in the understanding the case and the issues which it raises about the powers of the state to order “serious medical treatment” for a patient who is unable to give their own consent.
Most Court of Protection cases are heard behind closed doors at its north London offices.
The court has the power to make life or death decisions on behalf of some of the most vulnerable people in society.
Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Court has the power to decide on medical treatments for individuals judged by psychiatrists to lack mental capacity.
Cases that come before the court include proposals to withhold or withdraw artificial nutrition and hydration from a person in a permanent vegetative state.
The court can also order “terminations of pregnancy” for women who lack capacity to consent, as well as “experimental or innovative treatment” and medical procedures that require the use of force to restrain the patient.
-
That's horrible. Too bad there aren't more details about the woman but all it says is that she has a "learning disability."
If they decide that it's OK to sterilize her, then who would be next?
-
Given the number of stupid and/or crazy women out there who shouldn't be having kids, this is a step in the right direction. :thumbup:
-
This does not surprise me. However, it is interesting to note that no one in the article argued whether the woman would have the ability to care for a child. If she can care for a child, it is hypocrisy for the government to insist on sterilization. If not, then that is one of the issues that should be raised in this case.
-
Civilized society doesn't sterilize for being found unfit as a parent, mental handicap or none. Children may be removed from custody. Thought this didn't really happen anymore.
-
I think I'd have to know more before I could make a decision on this one. :-\
I've seen alot of women that should have considered sterilization, many of who definately have the mental capacity, but still shouldn't breed. :zombiefuck:
Just because a someone has the ability to procreate doesn't mean that they should.
The only thing about this that disturbes me is who gets to decide? And where do you draw the line?
-
It bothers me very much that the state thinks it can decide this.
-
Not enough info about her
-
Not enough info about her
True. And that is the scary part.
The court system was meant to be a representation of society's opinion on what should happen. When details in cases like this one are witheld, it makes me ever so suspicious.
-
I can not find out any more info on her. What i cant understand is, if she is unable to make this decision, was she able to give consent to sex in the first place? If not, who were her carers at the time? shouldn't somebody be prosecuted for taking advantage of her? ...i guess we will find out more...
while i was trying to find out more about her i found this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8304011/Behind-the-closed-doors-of-Englands-most-secretive-court.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8304011/Behind-the-closed-doors-of-Englands-most-secretive-court.html)
it is about the court in question and titled 'behind closed doors'
i was infuriated by the following passage
It also gives the Court power to order procedures “where that procedure or treatment must be carried out using a degree of force to restrain the person concerned”.
It was under this provision that Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division sitting in the Court of Protection, made a landmark ruling last year that a woman suffering from cancer of the uterus must receive treatment even though she has a phobia of hospitals and needles.
He ruled that doctors should be allowed to sedate the 55 year-old in her own home, using a drug hidden in a glass of Ribena, then detain her in a ward following the essential treatment, because she has a learning difficulty and so was judged to be incapable of deciding on her own “best interests”.
can't quite comprehend the impact this could have on the woman concerned...i mean she has a phobia about hospitals....sure she is gonna feel fine about them now isn't she!! not IMO they have just reinforced her fears.
-
I can not find out any more info on her. What i cant understand is, if she is unable to make this decision, was she able to give consent to sex in the first place? If not, who were her carers at the time? shouldn't somebody be prosecuted for taking advantage of her? ...i guess we will find out more...
while i was trying to find out more about her i found this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8304011/Behind-the-closed-doors-of-Englands-most-secretive-court.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8304011/Behind-the-closed-doors-of-Englands-most-secretive-court.html)
it is about the court in question and titled 'behind closed doors'
i was infuriated by the following passage
It also gives the Court power to order procedures “where that procedure or treatment must be carried out using a degree of force to restrain the person concerned”.
It was under this provision that Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division sitting in the Court of Protection, made a landmark ruling last year that a woman suffering from cancer of the uterus must receive treatment even though she has a phobia of hospitals and needles.
He ruled that doctors should be allowed to sedate the 55 year-old in her own home, using a drug hidden in a glass of Ribena, then detain her in a ward following the essential treatment, because she has a learning difficulty and so was judged to be incapable of deciding on her own “best interests”.
can't quite comprehend the impact this could have on the woman concerned...i mean she has a phobia about hospitals....sure she is gonna feel fine about them now isn't she!! not IMO they have just reinforced her fears.
Oh, so now Deprivation of Liberty is now legal?
Fucking great.
Let's start operating on people with HIV so they can't have sex and spread HIV.
I understand there is a line in protecting an unborn child, and the parents ability to care for it. But hell, let's sterilise all the uneducated people living in poverty....uggh...where is the line?
-
That is true that someone must have been taking advantage of her if she's THAT mentally retarded
I mean bad enough to be even more unfit to be a mother than the millions of shit mothers there already are? NOT someone you should be fucking - if she's that bad then shge must be practically a child
-
Knew a woman who wanted to get that done with her 17 year old daughter. I've met the daughter too, autistic, yeah, but capable to function in society, capable of a learning job in catering.
I don't know if this woman succeeded. Legally she definitely should not be able to get that done to her daughter. Only reason a person mentally incapable of making decisions can be sterilised without their consent in this country is when the life of the woman would be at severe risk if she were to get pregnant.
I was shocked a woman wanted to decide that for her 17 year old. Most 17 year olds are not capable to raise a kid. Weird thing was the woman was working at a centre to encourage people on the spectrum in being capable of living their own life.
-
It bothers me very much that the state thinks it can decide this.
Sometimes people are handicap to a level which allows govenment to make medical decisions, if they have no legal guardian. However, there are other logn term birth control choices available.
-
It bothers me very much that the state thinks it can decide this.
Sometimes people are handicap to a level which allows govenment to make medical decisions, if they have no legal guardian. However, there are other logn term birth control choices available.
Yes, I know situations like that exist, but I am wondering why so extreme measures are being taken and how severe this woman's condition actually is.
-
It bothers me very much that the state thinks it can decide this.
Sometimes people are handicap to a level which allows govenment to make medical decisions, if they have no legal guardian. However, there are other logn term birth control choices available.
you can have an implant in your arm, just under the skin - lasts three years. surely its better than surgery. anyway if she is so unable to make a decision, how did she consent to sex?? surely the authorities should spend there money on looking for the unscrupulous bastard that took advantage of her?? that is what concerns me - is someone working as a carer, or in a hospital taking advantage of women like this???
-
This does not surprise me. However, it is interesting to note that no one in the article argued whether the woman would have the ability to care for a child. If she can care for a child, it is hypocrisy for the government to insist on sterilization. If not, then that is one of the issues that should be raised in this case.
Facts have no importance to bureaucrats. :thumbdn:
-
It bothers me very much that the state thinks it can decide this.
Sometimes people are handicap to a level which allows govenment to make medical decisions, if they have no legal guardian. However, there are other logn term birth control choices available.
you can have an implant in your arm, just under the skin - lasts three years. surely its better than surgery. anyway if she is so unable to make a decision, how did she consent to sex?? surely the authorities should spend there money on looking for the unscrupulous bastard that took advantage of her?? that is what concerns me - is someone working as a carer, or in a hospital taking advantage of women like this???
AFAIK it's not illegal to take advantage of someone who is severely mentally disabled if the disabled person consents to sex, as long as they are past the age of consent, and the person taking advatage is not a carer, teacher, doctor, or whatever. There's also the possibility that the guy is also mentally disabled.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357259/Mothers-court-appeal-sterilise-girl-21-learning-difficulties.html
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357259/Mothers-court-appeal-sterilise-girl-21-learning-difficulties.html
Thank you for the link. It certainl provides more insight into the situation.
-
It bothers me very much that the state thinks it can decide this.
Yes, peoples relatives shouls step in and do this instead.
-
I still don't see why the state can't force long-term contraceptive measures if it can force a sterilisation.
-
Because the state is stupid and self-righteous.
In the early 19th Century Herman Melville, the later so famous author, was in Liverpool as a sailor. He happened to find a mother and her children literally starving to death in a cellar. The idea of killing them out of mercy occured to him, but then he thought: "The English Crown wouldn't spend 10 shillings on feeding these poor people but it wouldn't hesitate a second to spend a thousand pounds to find me and drag me to court for putting them out of their misery."
That sums up the stupidity and heartlessness of the state perfectly both back then and to this very day.
-
THE LAW IS AN ASS
someone famous said that - cant think who :screwy:
-
Someone fucked a tard, oh well. Worse has happened.
-
you can have an implant in your arm, just under the skin - lasts three years. surely its better than surgery.
This or she could have an injection every three months, that would work too.
-
My ex MIL was on forced oral contraceptives after a very similar thing.
Some girls do have a very developed sex drive, a mature body, and the ratio of an 8 year old. Happens. And you can't keep them under surveillance 24/7. Can't really deny them their needs either. They are mature in many ways, just not in ratio.
-
In the end, we're animals.