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.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 41 to 48 of 48
08-02-2015 15:46 #41
08-02-2015 16:18 #42
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.
08-02-2015 16:28 #43
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).
08-02-2015 16:36 #44
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.
08-02-2015 17:08 #45
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to NoteToSelf For This Useful Post:
08-02-2015 18:08 #46
The Following User Says Thank You to Blessedwith3boys For This Useful Post:
08-02-2015 18:36 #47
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.
08-02-2015 19:10 #48Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to peanuthead For This Useful Post:
By BH-community in forum Reviewer PanelReplies: 69Last Post: 01-02-2015, 09:01
By Edameny89 in forum Product Recommendations & QuestionsReplies: 6Last Post: 01-12-2014, 20:17
By Lauzy in forum News & Current AffairsReplies: 22Last Post: 18-03-2014, 08:07
Pea Pods Reusable NappiesPea Pods are the smart choice when it comes to choosing what's best for you, your baby and the environment. Affordable ...
LATESTToilet training: when is the best time to start?Why it is OK for your child to be differentWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Situations - ok or not ok?General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
The Not So Serious Vent Thread #7General Chat
Same sex parents or parents to be chat!Same Sex Parents
Tell me about your high school reunion/s!General Chat
Welcome to the BubHub!Introductions
Pokemon go. Chat #2General Chat
April/May TTC group chatConception & Fertility General Chat