(UK) Mother's legal plea to sterilise her daughter remains unresolved

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

The mother of a young woman with learning difficulties who is pregnant with her second child broke down in tears as she pleaded with a high court judge to allow her daughter to be forcibly sterilised for her own protection.

She told the judge that she and her family would support her daughter, aged 21, in bringing up her two children, but could not make a commitment to any future babies. Her daughter, due to give birth to her second child on Wednesday, does not understand that if she becomes pregnant again the children will be taken away, she said.

The mother, known only as Mrs P, told the judge, Mr Justice Hedley: "I tried to explain that any future babies will go to a new mum and dad. She thinks she will see them at weekends and on their birthday and at Christmas. She doesn't understand that she won't ever see them again. She says, 'I'm the mummy'. She doesn't understand they will get a new mum."

Her daughter, known only as P, is due to have her second child, a girl, delivered by caesarean section. Mrs P had hoped a judge in the court of protection would give a ruling that would enable a sterilisation procedure to take place at the same time as the baby is born.

But the judge was told that expert evidence was not yet available for the court to make a decision in an application that raised "extremely serious and important" issues.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/15/forced-sterilisation-mother-court-plea

---

In the US, the Supreme Court ruled in Buck v. Bell (1927): "The Virginia statute providing for the sexual sterilization of inmates of institutions supported by the State who shall be found to be afflicted with an hereditary form of insanity or imbecility, is within the power of the State under the Fourteenth Amendment." However, 15 years later, Skinner v. Oklahoma ruled that sterilization couldn't be a punishment for only non-white-collar crimes due to the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

Although Buck v. Bell hasn't been overturned yet in America, the US Supreme Court case Stump v. Sparkman (1978) that a county judge who approved a mother's petition to sterilize her daughter (whom she alleged had slight mental retardation) did not have judicial immunity. The ACLU's attempt at overturning Buck v. Bell ended with an out-of-court settlement.

[hlthe2b]

1. Systematic insitutional policy as has been used in the past...

was a horror that finally lead to much improved protection of the civil rights for those with mental and physical disabilities. That said, I don't think such decisions are always black and white. This particular case in G. Britain seems to underscore that and our indifference to the families that truly and sincerely want nothing more than to help and to support their family member. :shrug:

[Love Bug]

2. I'd like to know who keeps impregnating this woman?

[LeftinOH]

3. Seriously...there is a vile scumbag involved in this; he should be sought. n/t

[Sal Minella]

4. Perzackly. The scalpel is being aimed at the wrong person, imo. n/t

And if I were the one holding it, I might go for the jugular instead of the vas deferens.

[Tunkamerica]

38. good thing for all of us you hold no such power

[Tunkamerica]

9. of course that's the only possible explanation.

no way it could be anything else than some evil person.

[Sal Minella]

11. This is just my opinion, here --

but the normal, emotionally healthy guys I know would not become sexually excited by a mentally disabled woman. So "evil" may not be the right word, here, but "a gentleman of questionable judgment" might come closer.

Even if she is making sexual advances, it seems to me that a "normal" guy would find a way to step sideways and back gracefully.

All I can think of is Brothers Karamazov. gah.

[LisaL]

12. Since nothing is known to us about the father

it is possible the father suffers from the same problems that this woman does.

[Odin2005]

7. It's possible that the father is mentally disabled, too.

[nalnn]

5. This shouldn't be

There is not enough information being provided the public on this. I gotta wonder if it should have been public at all. So much going on...

Mom's rights and responsibilities. The disabled daughter who, from this short piece has a disability but her disability is getting pregnant. Not one mention of the father or his apparent 'disability'.

ACK!

[Odin2005]

6. Sterilizing the disabled is a moral atrocity. that mother should be ashamed of herself.

Whatever the merits of this particular case, the risk of a slippery slope of towards Eugenics is too great.

[alp227]

8. what's crazy is that anti-abortionists equate abortion and eugenics

yet many of them may also believe that eugenics should influence immigration policy again. What faux right-wing social justice. I saw a poster on my college campus complaining that abortion is discrimination against the disabled.

[LisaL]

10. The mother appears to be the one taking care of the grandkids.

WTF is she supposed to do?

[Odin2005]

14. Why isn't the gal taking birth control?

[WatsonT]

18. Slippery slope

start forcing mentally deficient to take birth control against their wishes, then whole segments of the population, then forcibly sterilizing everyone who doesn't conform, then granted special breeding licenses based on loyalty to the state and wealth.

/slippery slope arguments are fun.

[Odin2005]

21. LOL, nice strawman.

[nalnn]

26. What about

We leave the State out of it? What about 'Mum' giving the pills? Again, I say that this should not be a matter for the state to deal with but I don't know why the girls mother hasn't been bright enough to solve this on her own. If it were my kid? Well...I won't say what I would do.

[WatsonT]

27. Not sure why she's taking it to the courts

this is the UK so I'm not too familiar with their laws.

Perhaps she needs to get special dispensation to get legal authority over her daughter in this case? There is a mechanism for that here for those that are severely mentally disabled and such.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. The daughter is 21

So the mother wouldn't legally be allowed to make her to take pills (and I don't think you're advocating the mother using illegal force to do so). As the article says, the mother took her to a clinic to get some form of long term contraception, but the daughter refused it at some stage.

[nalnn]

29. That's just it.

And no, I would not force my daughter to take the pill. She IS 21, but she has a problem. Perhaps I should stop because I don't know the guardianship rules over there, but I can't help feel that it is easier here in the States.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. I would imagine the clinics in the States wouldn't act without the legal OK either

They know, when the daughter turns up, that she doesn't want to be sterilised (or take contraception - either because of the procedure, or because she enjoys being a mother, even if she can't do it on her own). I would be very surprised if any clinic, in the UK or the US, would ignore what a 21 year old says in front of them if a mother just said "I'm her legal guardian, don't listen to her, just sterilise/inject her". They'll do it if the law on it is clear. So that's why this is in the courts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Because she refused to

From the article:

She explained that she had taken P to a family planning clinic but her daughter had refused a contraceptive injection at the last minute. "She fell pregnant with her second child quite quickly after her first, and if it (sterilisation) isn't done, the thing that worries me is that she'll fall pregnant again with her third."

Mrs P said that her second choice would be a contraceptive implant for her daughter.

Now, it isn't clear whether she refused because she understands about contraception (I'd say that since she is generally held incapable of bringing up children herself, and cannot understand future children will be taken permanently away from her,she probably doesn't), or because she doesn't like injections.

[AnneD]

13. I know many parent of disabled girls...

that have their girls sterilized before they turn 18. The girls cannot responsibly raise children when they are mentally children themselves. But as anyone who has worked with mentally challenged young adults, sex is a very natural urge, as is hunger or thirst. And well, things can happen.

Rather than force girls to take birth control pill for 20 some odd years, sterilization gives many parents peace of mind.

My ex husband's family made the choice for his sister and never regretted it. This is one of those seldom discussed topics that face parents of the mentally handicapped.

[WatsonT]

15. +1

Many seem long on condemnation but short on viable solutions.

[Odin2005]

16. Yes, first they will be sterilizing the mentally handicapped, and then the slippy slope starts.

Pretty soon every personal with a mental illness or autism spectrum disorder will require sterilization to qualify for government assistance.

[WatsonT]

17. The parent is asking for this

because she is the one taking care of her progenies progeny.

Big difference between forcibly sterilizing whole populations against their will and a mother asking the courts to sterilize her mentally unsound daughter who is incapable of raising children.

[Odin2005]

20. Sure first it is individual guardians...

but then some nanny-statists will get the idea that parents that refuse to sterilize their disabled child are being neglectful and the slope starts.

Think of my views as extreme if you want, I know too much about the history of how the disabled and mentally ill have been mistreated to support this. As a disabled American myself I am very touchy about these things. I was shocked by the story about the parents of a disabled girl that wanted to remove her ovaries before she hit puberty because "it will be easier to take care of her", and even more shocked by how many DUers supported the parents. Just because it makes it more convent to the parents does not make it right.

[WatsonT]

24. LOL, nice strawman

[LiberalEsto]

35. Maybe the mother should hand the babies

over to the courts or to the father(s) every time another one is born -- then we'd see how quickly they work to solve the problem.

[WatsonT]

36. No clue who the father is

given the circumstances it's entirely possible he is likewise mentally deficient.


So it would be handing the kids over the courts which might be great for proving a point but kinda sucks for the kids who are now orphans.


I'm all for holding those responsible accountable but I am wary of bringing the kids in to it.

[AnneD]

23. I think you might be too close to the situation to....

To see it rationally. As long as the choice is in the hands of those who provide the care, it is relatively safe choice. When it is in the hands of the government, then it is subject to abuse. I understand that. But what we are talking about here is a mother wanting to prevent the further pregnancies-for which she ultimately bear the burden.

I remember when, at the age of 35, I was pregnant. Now I know that the chances of Downs syndrome goes up after a certain age and my husband had experienced this in his family, but when asked if I wanted an amniocentesis, I declined. I told the Dr. that the pregnancy was so advances that unless there was life threatening problems ( either to myself or the fetus) we would accept what we had. I do not see potential mental handicaps as a reason abortion, but that is my PERSONAL choice, as it should be, as a responsible person of sound mind.

[snooper2]

25. That's just stupid...not everything is a "slippery slope"

It's been happening for years, and as the poster pointed out it's one of those seldom talked about subjects...

My boss has a daughter who is 23 and has the mental capacity of a 2nd grader.....you know nothing.

You don't have to think about things like, who's going to watch out for her when we are gone?

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. It's not a simple problem.

We are obliged to honor the self determination of people with disabilities... to a point. If self determination becomes self destruction or risk to others...

I have a friend who's daughter has severe cerebal palsy. They elected to have her tubes tied at age 22. I think they did the right thing.

[AngryOldDem]

34. +2

And until you walk in the shoes of such parents, all judgments should be withheld.

[revolution breeze]

30. My aunt

Beautiful woman with an IQ of 68. Yet she had normal sexual urges as all humans do. Unfortunately she did become pregnant and because of the family situation at the time, the child was given up for adoption. It was heartbreaking to see looking for her baby as if it were a doll she had forgotten while playing. Twenty years later she still remembers giving birth to her baby and still crys. My grandmother had the option to have my aunt's tubes tied but felt it would be heartless to do, but it was more heartless allowing her to have the baby.

[BlueIris]

31. I hate eugenics.

And the support for it I see on this board.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. Give me one example of 'support for engenics' in this thread

or anywhere on DU, for that matter. When some people here support the mother, that is not 'eugenics'; it's about preventing the pain the daughter will feel if she has another child, and it's taken from her forever, because she is not capable of bringing up a child herself. It's nothing to do with the genes the child gets.

[Nihil]

37. I hate knee-jerk idiots who confuse care with "eugenics" ...

... and the support for them that I see on this board.

(Clue: Read up on this and try to find the relevence of your "eugenics" strawman.)

:eyes:

[msanthrope]

39. Not a single poster on this thread supports eugenics. Stop mischaracterizing

the good-faith arguments of fellow DUers.