+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    At home
    Posts
    1,396
    Thanks
    601
    Thanked
    1,398
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    I notice many people believe she should be sterilised as she is putting herself and children at risk. I have no judgment at all on that, like I said earlier I really don't know what my stance is.

    But I'm interested to know what others think of my earlier example. Non mentally impaired, but life long drug abuse and jail sentences. Baby after baby that are either abused or taken at birth from drug withdrawal. The woman in this story has an IQ of 70, which is right on the very cusp of an ID, but isn't one (ID is under 70) so really she is only autistic. Should drug abuse (and I'm talking decades worth not a bad run) class a person as not having the capacity to decide?
    The issue here isnt solely about the capacity to decide and welfare of children. She physically cannot bear any more children or she will most likely die. Which she obviously doesnt understand. Its pre-emptive.

    If i have a car accident and need to have organs removed to save my life, someone will make that choice for me as i dont have the capacity to decide.

    Emotionally i believe that yes, druggos should be stopped having children. I hate that they bring children into the world they dont care for. Logically i know that will never happen as there is always the opportunity for those persons to no longer take drugs and be functioning. A person with limited mental capacity cannot change their situation.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,556
    Thanks
    1,602
    Thanked
    2,362
    Reviews
    6
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    I notice many people believe she should be sterilised as she is putting herself and children at risk. I have no judgment at all on that, like I said earlier I really don't know what my stance is.

    But I'm interested to know what others think of my earlier example. Non mentally impaired, but life long drug abuse and jail sentences. Baby after baby that are either abused or taken at birth from drug withdrawal. The woman in this story has an IQ of 70, which is right on the very cusp of an ID, but isn't one (ID is under 70) so really she is only autistic. Should drug abuse (and I'm talking decades worth not a bad run) class a person as not having the capacity to decide?
    I really don't know what to think in that scenario. The woman in the OP is putting her own life at risk by getting pregnant. To simplify it, it's kind if like someone purposefully smashing their car into a wall - eventually they'll hit it hard enough to kill themselves, so best idea is to take away the car. Does that make sense?

    Drug abuse is a different thing, these people can potentially be rehabilitated, so something permanent might not be fair. Maybe something like an IUD would be better in that situation. I would expect that in most cases drug abusers get pregnant due to carelessness or sexual violence whereas it sounds like the woman in the article might be intentionally getting pregnant and her intellectual impairment leaves little hope for effective education?

    Just thinking out loud, I have no idea what is right or wrong in these situations, it's just all horrible really.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    5,946
    Thanks
    1,973
    Thanked
    2,080
    Reviews
    16
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    I'll agree that forced sterilisation for women could be a potential option in severe cases of previous neglect/putting children at risk, the moment that male castration (surgical) is used for male repeat sex offenders (whether the victim of the crime be adult or child).

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,852
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,897
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Valid points which I agree with. I wonder though, in my example should we be able to force contraception? I know it's a deviation from the OP, but the topic has me thinking laterally about where the line is.

    Do we know the woman in the OP doesn't understand the risks? She has lower IQ but not really low. If she can live alone with her partner there has to be some cognitive ability there. Could she be like the drug user and knows the result but can't help herself/is making poor decisions? Again, I really don't know, just putting it out there that a woman with an IQ of 70, which is technically not an ID may have the same level of awareness as a woman constantly substance affected.

    ETA Ive worked with people with IQ's at 70/72 and while their functioning is slower, they most certainly can be functioning in the world. So I'm not sure I buy that this woman doesn't understand the risks.
    Last edited by delirium; 08-02-2015 at 16:40.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,427
    Thanks
    497
    Thanked
    1,588
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Maybe the difference is that there is no law that says you can't harm your baby in pregnancy (i.e. it is not against the law to smoke, drink or use drugs during pregnancy), the Mother has autonomy over the baby until the second it is born.

    This lady is placing the baby at risk during the birth and her own life at risk, there are laws in place that enable intervention when someone is putting their life at risk.

    I guess in the case of the drug user, harming her babies during the pregnancy is not great, but starting down the slope of intervening to stop harm happening in pregnancy opens up a can or worms...like in some states in America where women are charged for undertaking harmful behaviours during pregnancy.

    I also think with the drug user, her capacity is fluctuating, while she is hammered she lacks capacity but other times, unless she has cognitive damage then she would be considered to make informed choices?

    The way I understand it is, while someone may not make a good decision, if they understand the decision they are making, there is nothing that can be done.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to NoteToSelf For This Useful Post:

    delirium  (08-02-2015)

  7. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Kimberley WA
    Posts
    4,622
    Thanks
    916
    Thanked
    1,180
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    I notice many people believe she should be sterilised as she is putting herself and children at risk. I have no judgment at all on that, like I said earlier I really don't know what my stance is.

    But I'm interested to know what others think of my earlier example. Non mentally impaired, but life long drug abuse and jail sentences. Baby after baby that are either abused or taken at birth from drug withdrawal. The woman in this story has an IQ of 70, which is right on the very cusp of an ID, but isn't one (ID is under 70) so really she is only autistic. Should drug abuse (and I'm talking decades worth not a bad run) class a person as not having the capacity to decide?
    Yes I do think that others may fall into the category such as a woman having 3 kids, all high needs with many issues ranging from autism, epilepsy, adhd, learning disabilities and FASD. The mother and father have a turbulent relationship, father is an alcoholic, abusive and been in and out of jail for years. The mother tried to hang herself while pregnant with one of the children resulting in the child having been starved of oxygen. One of the children had cigarette burns. All were in and out of hospital for malnutrition and all 3 were eventually removed from them and adopted after the parents signed them over. The parents then go on to have 2 more children. Clearly they aren't capable of caring for children so why are they allowed to and why do they have the right to have more?

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Blessedwith3boys For This Useful Post:

    peanuthead  (08-02-2015)

  9. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,378
    Thanks
    829
    Thanked
    1,106
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    I notice many people believe she should be sterilised as she is putting herself and children at risk. I have no judgment at all on that, like I said earlier I really don't know what my stance is.

    But I'm interested to know what others think of my earlier example. Non mentally impaired, but life long drug abuse and jail sentences. Baby after baby that are either abused or taken at birth from drug withdrawal. The woman in this story has an IQ of 70, which is right on the very cusp of an ID, but isn't one (ID is under 70) so really she is only autistic. Should drug abuse (and I'm talking decades worth not a bad run) class a person as not having the capacity to decide?
    I think capacity to decide can be impaired in drug users but often it isn't.....so I definitely don't think drug abuse should automatically class someone as unable to make decisions. Decision making capacity is also often made on a specific issue as well so they may have capacity to make some decisions but not others. I saw many frustrated case workers/family members in a drug and alcohol placement when doing capacity assessments -people who thought repeated bad decisions (usually medical/lifestyle/financial) made by their clients/loved ones was enough to equal no decision making capacity and the appointment of a guardian/power of attorney as a proxy decision maker.

    In the case of the woman in the OP I assume that there has been one or more assessments of her capacity to understand the risks etc involved in taking/not taking contraception and she has failed to show an adequate understanding of this issue and how it applies to her. I would also think (if the system is similar to Aus) that "least restrictive options" have been trialled (eg other contraception) before this ruling.

  10. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    559
    Thanks
    202
    Thanked
    224
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    There is no chance that a court had reached a decision of forced sterilisation without trying other forms of intervention.
    Those saying no way no how should this woman be sterilised... I don't understand how you can then say she should be forced to take a pill or have long term contraception inserted. If your argument is autonomy, then you can't argue for other forced contraception.
    At the end of the day, you can not force a pill down someone's throat. You can't ensure she'll leave in long term contraception. If forced sterilisation is the only thing that will save her life, then that's what needs to be done. This is in the best interest of the mother and her children.
    It's not a one size fits all solution but it seems like the best one in these circumstances.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to peanuthead For This Useful Post:

    Gentoo  (08-02-2015)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 01-02-2015, 09:01
  2. Bottle sterilisation
    By Edameny89 in forum Product Recommendations & Questions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 20:17
  3. Four year old's Mother forced to leave the country.
    By Lauzy in forum News & Current Affairs
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 18-03-2014, 08:07

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Pyjamas.com.au
With so many gorgeous brands and styles for every season, our pyjamas, nighties, robes, sleepsuits and sleeping bags are lovely for lights out and perfect for lazy days. Get 10% off first order using code bubhub. Be quick offer ends 31/12/16.
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
The MAMA Centre
Pregnancy, birth & beyond care with your very own midwife. Home & hospital birth support, VBACs, antenatal & postnatal care by medicare eligible midwives & holistic health practitioners. Massage, chiro, naturopathy, yoga, counselling & beauty therapy
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!