<<<Finally, prior to 2000, only one study mentioned
sterilization issues of two male mentally handicapped
individuals (Elkins et al., 1988). However, in 2000,
Carlson, Taylor, & Wilson designed a survey study
to specifically look at awareness in legal and medical
organizations of male sterilization using surgery or
hormonal control. This study was the first study
to attempt to evaluate any aspect of sterilization of
male mentally handicapped individuals and thus
raises awareness to the lack of knowledge in this area.
However, this study was very poorly designed with very
unclear and inconclusive results. In addition, a low
response rate, no reliability or validity of the survey
reported, and a small sample size (n=51) make any
results difficult to generalize to a broader population.>>>
<<<Finally, in a descriptive study by Elkins et al., a
Michigan clinic received 20 parental requests for
sterilization (1988). After each parent consulted
with an ethics committee to discuss alternatives to
sterilization, state laws and other support issues, only
5 cases were recommended for sterilization. Thus, this
study demonstrates how increased parental support
can decrease requests for sterilization.>>>
If the girlfriend is the only one he's having sex with, couldn't she have an IUD in place? That way neither of them loses their fertility.
On the other hand, a vasectomy at age 36 is not unusual; lots of guys get them around that age or so once they're done having their families.
He was completely freaked out by the arrival of the baby, he said in court that he wanted to have sex, but not to have children. He won't necessarily have sex only with his girlfriend.
I understand that his equally freaked girlfriend has a learning disability too, and if he's still fertile, who is going to force her to take a pill every day? Or give her a monthly injection?
The only reason it went to court is that he doesn't have the mental capacity to make a legally binding decision.
With an IQ of 40, he's operating at a similar intellectual level as a dolphin or a chimp. He can carry out simple tasks with training and supervision and can even be somewhat independent, but he's never going to live an unsupported life. Helping on a market stall is a step or two down from asking if someone would like fries with their meal. It's not a career, but for him it's an achievement.
Having the op allows him a "normal" sex life without the devastating risk (for him) of unwanted children. He can't make a binding choice but a judge can establish what he wants, and choose for him.
I love the smell of face-palm in the morning!
"You ain't no Muslim bruv!"
This an ethical dilemma that is way too complicated to judge unless you have all the facts and have interviewed all the players involved. The issues relating to the sexuality of the intellectually impaired are incredibly difficult to resolve for carers, for the authorities and especially for the individuals concerned.
As a family we have wrestled with these issues and the one thing, the only thing, I can say about the topic without fear of contradiction is that there are no solutions that apply 100% across the board in all situations. That said, I wouldn't be prepared to say whether the judge got it wrong or right, and anyone here who thinks they are qualified to do so is full of it.
"The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión
"Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn
I'm not seeing the problem? His legal guardians pushed for it to be done, likely because they don't want to have to keep taking responsibility for new babies. It's not like a new social policy was created by the judge - this applies to one person.
I also don't see anything wrong with sterilizing someone who isn't mentally capable of consenting to sex and therefore is not aware that sex can create children. Not only that, they are not mentally capable of raising a child. At least with sterilization their sexual acts won't produce unwanted children.