Low IQ woman to be sterilised against her will .

Kind of old news, forced sterilization in China has been common for years due to their one child law. Communist government admitted to performing 196 million sterilizations. Sometimes the sterilization procedure causes women to die.

Here in the US we just had the birth of a record breaking 14.1 pound baby, the mother didn't realize she was pregnant until 35 weeks in. Not a healthy situation due to the health risks from obesity, but cause for celebration in the media.

Its usually easy to change the will of people if you can assimilate them, so if she is not comfortable with planned parenthood yet the doctors need to keep listening.

a reply to: Cauliflower

Forced sterilization in China is about the one child law, not eugenics - so your comparison isn't really valid. But hold on to that global perspective - the slippery slope is getting mighty steep.

Canadian Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY approves Doctor Assisted Suicide




Also see:
Eugenics, The Goal of The Elites for Population Control

Genealogy Sites: Collecting Medical Information for Eugenics Programs?




Get the pitcha?

a reply to: hutch622

good. glad somebody is tcb.

originally posted by: DeepImpactX
a reply to: MrWendal

Even someone with an IQ of 70 could figure this out. Their mental capacity dictates that they have minimum wage jobs. If they even have jobs at all.

The article makes no mention of jobs. So you are assuming that they work minimum wage jobs. Fact is- you have no idea and neither do I.

The fact that they cannot be adults who can properly raise children by the standards of the society in which they live, and the fact that they are getting financial assistance by a government agency because of their own financial shortcomings should be a foregone conclusion by any rational and unbiased individual.

Where do you get these "facts"? Can you please point out in the article where it says she was unable to raise these children? It doesn't. It simply says the children were taken and put into care. No mention of why or when. So again- you are assuming based on very limited information.

Can you also point out where in the article it says anything about receiving financial assistance from a Government agency of any kind? Apparently I can not read or I missed that part.

That being the case, the government has every right to sterilize that woman and the government is using the power they have to do that by one very important fact: THEY are the one's who are paying to support the children that woman already had. Financially speaking, the government is that womans parents. You can cry all you want about how it shouldn't come down to money, but it does. Everything does. Including this.

Sorry but that is not a "fact". First off, the children who were adopted are not being supported by the Government. They would be receiving support from the adopted parents, unless you are suggesting that the Government allowed parents who were unable to support these kids on their own to adopt them?

The Government would be supporting any children who have not been adopted, but without any details at all concerning the circumstances by which they were removed, we do not know if money used to support these children was actually necessary.

You can feel sorry for the woman all you want, but what about those kids? How would you feel is you grew up and then found out that your parents were mentally retarded? Chew on that bone for awhile.

Kids are born every day to mentally challenged parents. Are you suggesting every women who is mentally challenged should be sterilized due to their handicaps?

originally posted by: DrHammondStoat
She is not pregnant now but why has everyone overlooked the 6 pregnancies and human beings she already created? This is not just about the woman's right to have children it's about those children's rights and lives also. Whether they loved the kids or not they could not take care of them and have created this situation 6 times already!

No one is overlooking the 6 previous children. There is no evidence that she could not care for her kids. Show me where in the article it says she was unable to care for the kids she already has? It doesn't. All it says is that the State took the kids. Without any details concerning their removal- your entire argument is nothing more than speculation.

Being taken away from their parents and put into care has probably resulted in trauma and upset for each of those kids. That kind of situation can cause serious mental health problems later that then affect the next generation of kids.

More speculation.... how nice. What evidence do you have to show that any of these kids are traumatized?

At some point the state has a duty of care to the innocent children or future children that the couple seem intent on having.

Nice broad statement. If the State has a duty to care for a child that currently does not exist, then maybe abortion should be outlawed immediately? After all, by your logic the State has the duty to protect innocent children or any future children. Right?

originally posted by: infinityorder


The Nazis did this. It is eugenics.....it is deciding who can breed
....
=evil

That is invalid logic there. Just because the Nazis did it, does not make it inherently evil. Using that logic would condemn everyone who has a VW.

There are some positive aspects of eugenics, eugenics is not all bad. Stories like this are tough to make sense of. If this person is not capable of taking care of her self, then I do think it is likely for the best of society and our species for her to be sterilized.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: MrWendal

If the facts presented in the article are accurate, and if the situation is dire enough that a court/judge is ruling on this, there must be no one else to make the decision for her or help her make the decision.

If it appeared at all that she has the mental capability to decide to take the risk and die, fine. But again from the article it doesn't seem that she does.

And so your alternative opinion is to just let her just be totally unrepresented and keep having more children, as six is not apparently not enough, and die? Fine.

Yes, this is exactly it. You must have a court order to perform these operations, and the person must have been examined by physicians, or mental health professional who is willing to go into court and state patently that the person is unable to comprehend ramifications of child birth for her.

This is about her health and well being.

Again, you cannot just go around sterilizing people based on their IQ. No doctor would do it, unless he/she was game for an enormous litigation.

In an ideal world we would all be aghast and horrified at this happening, its sounds like something a brutal regime would do to someone, against their will.

BUT lets look at the facts we know.

She has six children that are in care - ie no longer in her care.
She could die if she gives birth again, as could the baby.


This has been considered at length and this cannot have been an easy decision.


It will be too late when she's pregnant again and facing death with her baby also in grave danger.
She is not a fit mother or she would still have her six kids And probably would not be contemplating a seventh.
She doesn't fully understand and recoginize the threat and danger to her and her future child's life.

I almost hate myself for actually thinking that this is even a viable option.
We obviously need more info and more facts but as it stands, I would rather save two lives and side with the state.
If and when new information comes to light, I'll happily re-evaluate my stance.

It's just a very sad situation all round.

Why aren't both being sterilized?

I'm not against it. But I am against singling out the woman.

originally posted by: infinityorder

The Nazis did this. It is eugenics.....it is deciding who can breed
....
=evil

This is not anything like eugenics. She's not being sterilized to "[decide] who can breed", the article states quite clearly why the courts and health practitioners have come to this decision.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

id be interested getting a feminist opinion on this as last time i checked the mantra was HER body HER choice on what happens to it? i guess that only applies to "normals" this could set a very dangerous precedent. probaly pushing boundries for how this will actualy be implemented in reality but still makes me nervious that it could start with those deemed to be in too much of a danger to carry the baby to term.

any woman 50+ is at higher risks of infant death or complications during pregnancy will they too not be allowed to have a baby? or will this one only be applied to those with mental illnesses/conditions like it has been in the past(look up eugenics and forced sterilization of the mentally ill and native Americans)www.advancedfertility.com... offtopic link but related to my statment should we restrict women over a certain age from breeding?

i look at it this way if she wants to attempt to have a child despite the risks they should be hers to take and that telling any one they are not allowed to breed is a dangerous path to go down.

and not that it was implied in article so totaly streaching on my part here but what if she wished to donate eggs (not sure if she could honestly) and possibly support her self via that method? it would deprive her of an economic opportunity

just seems shady to deny any one the right to reproduction in my book

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

It is very rare this happens but it does and like this time it is to protect the person who is not capable of understanding the consequences of sex etc.
Like all of you know I look after people like this lady and some have DOLS put in place. If someone is capable of understanding a relationship and sex we do our best to help the person have a normal love life but some just do not understand and would be a danger to others If just left be.
I only look after one lady who has been sterilized by the courts (done 20 years back) and this was because she was abused and a baby was born but she has no understanding of what sex is and from what I have read it was to protect her from getting pregnant again. (her child was born but died due to many many things up with the poor mite).

originally posted by: Annee
Why aren't both being sterilized?

I'm not against it. But I am against singling out the woman.

He's not the issue because his life and health are not in danger and hers is, so if she's being singled out, that's why. It seems there is no one who cares but the social workers and courts and probably her medical team.

a reply to: hutch622

I am all for forced sterilization of ignorant people anywhere who have more babies than they can support.

Much better than abortions....

a reply to: MrWendal

That was my first question (wages) but imo it doesnt matter.. The artical makes it seem they are not caring for nor have any intrest in any of there existing children... Typically im against the state stepping in but if they are living off the state/ dumping there kids on the state its the states call.

a reply to: hutch622

i think it would be better if she were not forced into anything but if she was given the choice between sterlization (no more babies ever) or either birth control pills/shot or implant that would make this slightly less horrifying,regardless of intelligence things can at least be explained on a basic level.

originally posted by: MrWendal



What child she is about to bear??? SHE IS NOT PREGNANT!!! There is no child she is "about to bear".

Considering she has had five children in a little over 5 yrs. What would

you say the chances are of her never again conceiving till she hits

the menopause


When you say she should be given *the choice* you are assuming she

understands the consequences to herself of another pregnancy.

*One needs to understand consequences to have choice?*


Through having an autistic grandson I have a deal of experience

of autistic adults, and they don't always connect one action to

the results that happen months later.

a reply to: stargatetravels

If and when new information comes to light, I'll happily re-evaluate my stance.

I doubt there will be any new information any time soon . It is hard to get any extra information at the moment .

The Court of Protection is one of Britain’s last secret courts and deals with the financial, medical and personal affairs of those who lack the mental capacity to make decisions about their lives. The vast majority of its hearings are held behind closed doors – something critics say enables controversial decisions to go ahead with little or no public scrutiny.

It also seems that she is no stranger to the courts .

Judge Cobb said she had a history of concealing or trying to conceal pregnancy from health workers.
He ruled last year the woman could be restrained and sedated when giving birth to her sixth child. A planned caesarean was determined to be best option for delivery.

I don't care what her IQ is. If she's had 6 kids, doesn't take care of any of them (considering five already aren't with her anymore), doesn't seem to understand what she could do to prevent another pregnancy and could die if she got pregnant again... she could be the new Einstein for all I care, this woman should still be sterilised.

Honestly, taking kids away from their parents, making them grow up with a different family or in an orphanage... imagine all that heartbreak, confusion, trauma the kid will go through. Why is it okay to make an innocent child suffer, but it's simply unthinkable to make sure that someone who is actively making this situation happen is unable to do it again?

I do understand the concern of precedent, though, don't get me wrong. If the government gets to decide who can have children and who can't, well... soon, we'll be living a Gattaca world. However, I'd argue that this is a rather atypical situation. A couple with SIX kids, five of them have been taken away already. The woman's body cannot handle another pregnancy. They don't seem to have the means (emotionally or financially) to raise more children. Sterilising her is more of a favour to the couple and to any future children they could've had.

a reply to: hutch622

Confidentiality laws....
I have dealt with them it is not as sinister as people may think, many professionals are consulted and the people concerned have advocates to fight their case If needed. (I have only dealt with them updating current DOLS orders.)