View Full Version : Forced Sterilisation for the mentally disabled?
From here (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/071010/3/1zq8.html):
A family group conference is to be held in Auckland tomorrow on the future of a unborn baby being carried by a mentally impaired woman -- her third child to three different fathers in three years.
The woman is unlikely to be present. She is believed to be living on the streets of Auckland, The Bay of Plenty Times reports.
ADVERTISEMENT
Now her "aunty" -- not a blood relative -- wants the woman to be sterilised. The aunty received a letter two weeks ago from Child, Youth and Family asking her to attend a family group conference over the unborn baby, due in January.
"When I opened the letter and saw the logo on the letterhead, I had a sense of deja vu. It upsets me and makes me so angry. Same letter, different date," the aunty told the newspaper.
Her niece is known to staff at Auckland Hospital as a drug user, who often came to them to be tested and treated for STDs. It was from them that CYF found out she was pregnant again.
"I think she needs to be sterilised," the aunty said.
"I can only imagine what that's doing to her -- getting pregnant, having a child and having him taken off her and getting pregnant again.
"Nothing and no one could convince me she shouldn't be sterilised."
The aunty said she was certain her niece could not care for an infant.
"She's incapable of looking after herself, let alone a baby."
The aunty said the cycle of female family members having babies taken away had become "a generation thing".
"Her mother did it, her grandmother did it. This latest unborn baby is part of the fourth generation. At some stage it needs to stop."
Ministry of Health child and youth health chief adviser, Dr Pat Tuohy, said there was no special legislation surrounding the sterilisation of intellectually disabled woman.
"Any decision regarding the sterilisation of an intellectually disabled woman must consider the rights of the individual and be made on the basis of informed consent," he said.
In cases where women are unable to give consent or give full consent, a number of Acts of Parliament are relevant.
These include the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act, the Care of Children Act, and the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act.
Let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that the "aunty" is a legal guardian to this woman. Should family members/legal guardians have the power to have intellectually disabled people sterilised against their will? Why or why not? What criteria, if any, should there be to determine the circumstances under which they can invoke their right to enforce such sterilisation?
flygirl
10-10-2007, 06:33 AM
If the woman were mentally handicapped, I'd have less of a hard time with it, but apparently she's an adult on her own, aware of what causes pregnancy, and capable of seeking medical care. I feel desperately sorry for the conditions that those kids are born into, but forced sterilization is way too dangerous a path to take the first step down.
I'm confused by the phrase 'intellectually disabled' That could just mean she holds different opinions than most people, or it could mean she lacks the ability to think. It's too vague for me.
I'm confused by the phrase 'intellectually disabled' That could just mean she holds different opinions than most people, or it could mean she lacks the ability to think. It's too vague for me.
Apologies,you are correct. The article stated she was 'mentally impaired' and I should have stuck with that.
That said, it's still vague. So, what if she were somewhat retarded, say, had the mental age of a 12yo but was capable of telling right from wrong, knew where babies came from, but was not responsible enough to look after them? What if her disability was severe, and she had the mental age of a 4yo?
kingclick
10-10-2007, 12:15 PM
Not my problem....not my call.
Jokimoto
10-10-2007, 01:24 PM
Why not sterilize the assholes who've gotten her pregnant 3 times?
RiverDad
10-10-2007, 02:54 PM
This problem, this need to examine coercive violation of human liberty, is only a problem because she lives in a welfare state. Her irresponsible actions are creating costs and burdens for society.
Rights and responsibilities should go hand in hand. If society had no responsibility in this matter then it would be very difficult to advance a case that society has any right to seek an involuntary sterilization order for this woman. Similarly, this woman has the right of reproductive freedom but if she never follows through on her responsibility of caring for the children she bears and simply shunts them off to others who end up paying and care for the infants then she isn't following through with her commitments in an honorable way.
Because society is stuck paying for her carelessness society should have a voice in this decision. If this bothers people then they should think long and hard about expanding the social welfare state deeper into our lives.
BAmaracas
10-12-2007, 09:58 AM
This problem, this need to examine coercive violation of human liberty, is only a problem because she lives in a welfare state. Her irresponsible actions are creating costs and burdens for society.
Rights and responsibilities should go hand in hand. If society had no responsibility in this matter then it would be very difficult to advance a case that society has any right to seek an involuntary sterilization order for this woman. Similarly, this woman has the right of reproductive freedom but if she never follows through on her responsibility of caring for the children she bears and simply shunts them off to others who end up paying and care for the infants then she isn't following through with her commitments in an honorable way.
Because society is stuck paying for her carelessness society should have a voice in this decision. If this bothers people then they should think long and hard about expanding the social welfare state deeper into our lives.
Who said she was on welfare? Did the article say what happened to the first two kids?
abcNKH
10-12-2007, 12:29 PM
I think that if someone has guardianship for medical decisions, then this would be up to that person. If the woman is responsible for her own medical decisions, then it is up to her. Aunty might be better off trying to talk with her and get her to make the decision on her own.
RiverDad
10-12-2007, 02:16 PM
Who said she was on welfare? Did the article say what happened to the first two kids?
Yes.
abcNKH
10-12-2007, 03:23 PM
Yes.didn't see that in the article. What I DID see in the article, is that 'aunty' is not even related to the woman - who the heck is SHE to be making any decisions about this woman?
BAmaracas
10-12-2007, 03:58 PM
Yes.
No it didn't!! I just read it again. Society is paying for your stupid mistakes now. And by society I mean me, I had to read that badly worded article again cause of you!
RiverDad
10-12-2007, 10:14 PM
No it didn't!! I just read it again. Society is paying for your stupid mistakes now. And by society I mean me, I had to read that badly worded article again cause of you!
Here's what happened to the first two kids: ""I can only imagine what that's doing to her -- getting pregnant, having a child and having him taken off her and getting pregnant again."
BAmaracas
10-13-2007, 03:06 AM
Here's what happened to the first two kids: ""I can only imagine what that's doing to her -- getting pregnant, having a child and having him taken off her and getting pregnant again.""Taken off" by whom? Could be the fathers or the grand-parents for all we know.
RiverDad
10-13-2007, 02:47 PM
"Taken off" by whom? Could be the fathers or the grand-parents for all we know.
Parents and grandparents don't have the authority to "take" a child. If it was family that was raising the children the article should have described the situation as "being raised by" instead of "taking."
BAmaracas
10-13-2007, 03:11 PM
Parents and grandparents don't have the authority to "take" a child. If it was family that was raising the children the article should have described the situation as "being raised by" instead of "taking."
The story was badly written. And there is not evidence of what you claim in the story you are just assuming what you want to.
I think that it is possible to have an incompetent adult labeled somehow unable to make their own decisions - for their own good. Things such as they can't sign legal papers, etc. With this in mind, I don't know about sterilization, but you can certainly force them to take medication for their own good - and therefore, they could get a monthly depo shot. If she is that badly off, then that is what should be done. But I also agree with whoever said that perhaps it should be looked at the other way...who is taking such poor care of her that they allowing her to get taken advantage of by men? And isn't there a way to prosecute the men who are taking advantage of her? Perhaps those men are paying to the foster system - here, at least, a working parent must pay the foster system if the child is entered into it, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.
ArcticPhoenix
10-13-2007, 06:48 PM
Why not sterilize the assholes who've gotten her pregnant 3 times?
This made me chuckle.
FTW!!!!!!
abcNKH
10-13-2007, 10:05 PM
Parents and grandparents don't have the authority to "take" a child. If it was family that was raising the children the article should have described the situation as "being raised by" instead of "taking."no, but in many states, when a child is taken from the parent, they try to place the child in the care of a relative...
ArcticPhoenix
10-13-2007, 10:19 PM
no, but in many states, when a child is taken from the parent, they try to place the child in the care of a relative...
Wouldn't this primarily be so as to not traumatize the child more than is absolutely necessary for the sake of the child? I would think they usually try to put the child in a home where there is a pre-existing, healthy relationship, with the child's mental and physical well-being ultimately in mind. Or at least that's how I believe the courts tend to behave. It isn't simply a relative, it has to be a relative with whom a healthy relationship exists, a pre-existing relationship exists, and a home that will provide them with as much stability as possible, correct?
abcNKH
10-13-2007, 10:37 PM
Wouldn't this primarily be so as to not traumatize the child more than is absolutely necessary for the sake of the child? I would think they usually try to put the child in a home where there is a pre-existing, healthy relationship, with the child's mental and physical well-being ultimately in mind. Or at least that's how I believe the courts tend to behave. It isn't simply a relative, it has to be a relative with whom a healthy relationship exists, a pre-existing relationship exists, and a home that will provide them with as much stability as possible, correct?I would hope so. My point was in response to someone saying that grandparents had no right to take a child. What I am saying is that the state can take the child and then place it with the grandparents...
ArcticPhoenix
10-13-2007, 10:44 PM
I would hope so. My point was in response to someone saying that grandparents had no right to take a child. What I am saying is that the state can take the child and then place it with the grandparents... That's absolutely the case, and increasing so even. With the rise of drug abuse (which does have a serious effect on the abilities to raise a child), and the rising levels of poverty, courts are increasingly stepping in to rescue children from drug-using, dead-beat parents who are incapable of caring for a cactus, let alone a human being. Some states even have laws written that state that Grandparents have a right to see their grandchild, so long as the Grandparents have had a pre-existing relationship with their grandchild. This would be applicable primarily in the cases where two people split up, and say the dad didn't want the mom's mom and dad to see the kid. He wouldn't have the right to deny visitation if the child already had a relationship with the grandparents because abruptly dislocating the child from said relationship would have a dramatic negative impact on him/her.
"Taken off" by whom? Could be the fathers or the grand-parents for all we know.
BA, from the article:
The aunty received a letter two weeks ago from Child, Youth and Family asking her to attend a family group conference over the unborn baby, due in January.
Child, Youth and Family is the government agency responsible for child welfare. They are the only ones who have the right to take children off their parents involuntarily, not even the cops have that right, so if the kids were taken away it has to have been done by CYF. Apologies for not specifying that in the OP, I overlooked the fact that there was no explanation of who took the kids.
This problem, this need to examine coercive violation of human liberty, is only a problem because she lives in a welfare state. Her irresponsible actions are creating costs and burdens for society.
Rights and responsibilities should go hand in hand. If society had no responsibility in this matter then it would be very difficult to advance a case that society has any right to seek an involuntary sterilization order for this woman. Similarly, this woman has the right of reproductive freedom but if she never follows through on her responsibility of caring for the children she bears and simply shunts them off to others who end up paying and care for the infants then she isn't following through with her commitments in an honorable way.
Because society is stuck paying for her carelessness society should have a voice in this decision. If this bothers people then they should think long and hard about expanding the social welfare state deeper into our lives.
RD, I agree with your post for the most part, though not with the inference that a welfare state is a bad thing. The alternative is much worse IMO, having people like this woman live on the streets with their children, with no healthcare or education or even food beyond what they get from begging or rubbish bins. Yes the article says this woman lives on the street but it has to be because of her drug habit that she's choosing that life - the benefit isn't much, but with accommodation allowances it's enough to rent a modest place and pay the bills, even if you have to go to the food bank to supplement occasionally when you can't make ends meet. It's a hard life but it's life nonetheless.
So if she were living in a non-welfare state, not only would she have to beg for her food, her kids would too. At least they have a chance at a normal life.
But of course, as you said, this creates some obligation to the state, and rights and responsibilities for the state. For me though, as a tax-paying individual who's never lived off welfare in her life, I would rather keep paying for her and her kids' education and healthcare than see them begging on the streets. My reason for even considering the option of sterilisation an option at all (and I'm not entirely comfortable with it, myself - I posted this as a debate because I'm in two minds on the issue) is for the sake of her kids who will grow up without their mother, in the foster system, which is a less than ideal situation for any child. The money she's costing the taxpayer, while no doubt an issue for many, is not an issue for me, personally.
Jokimoto
10-14-2007, 11:02 PM
Aunty, discussing details of the case with an unnamed official: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/dc/Madmaxs3.jpg/220px-Madmaxs3.jpg
A group shot of the girl's offspring: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/26/FeralsMM3.jpg/250px-FeralsMM3.jpg
:jester1:
In cases like this I really would support forced sterilization for a few reasons....
1. I wonder about the children she is producing either because of genetics or her lifestyle habits. Are they healthy? Developmentally challenged? Are they going to be burdens to society because they are unable to be adopted out?
2. If the woman is allowed to continue to breed and have her children taken away, she becomes nothing but a brood sow. How is that affecting her quality of life? She obviously has enough obstacles in her life (either real or imagined) that pregnancy is not good for her mental state.
I can't see any negative in the forced sterilization. It is a win win win situation for her, society and any future children that may have been born to her.
BAmaracas
10-21-2007, 11:25 PM
In cases like this I really would support forced sterilization for a few reasons....
1. I wonder about the children she is producing either because of genetics or her lifestyle habits. Are they healthy? Developmentally challenged? Are they going to be burdens to society because they are unable to be adopted out?
2. If the woman is allowed to continue to breed and have her children taken away, she becomes nothing but a brood sow. How is that affecting her quality of life? She obviously has enough obstacles in her life (either real or imagined) that pregnancy is not good for her mental state.
I can't see any negative in the forced sterilization. It is a win win win situation for her, society and any future children that may have been born to her.
1. I consider you and almost everyone else to be an idiot and that for the betterment of the world and mostly me, I think that all you stupid people sound no longer be allowed to breed.
2. And the rest of you don't think your off the hook either. Keep your breeding to a reasonable level or you'll be losing your breeding rights too.
Sounds like a win win situation indeed.;)
Jokimoto
10-26-2007, 04:25 PM
Someone get Josef Goebbels on the line, we need a good PR man for this one.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.