• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK judge OKs sterilisation of man with mental age of six year old

wolfie said:
Well, during pregnancy the woman was told that her fetus had inherited a full blown version of her inherent genes..

I would not deny anyone their natural instinct to procreate, but if I was told that my future child would live a pain-filled useless life and would be dead by 12...

I wouldn't do it..

That's not love, it's selfishness!
Click to expand...

So doctors are never wrong? They dont occasionally tell people they have a month to live and they end up living for many more years? I guess hope and faith are evil things to be discounted and ostracized.
 
joko104 said:
I'm going beyond the article as what I am reading is the court ruled for what he wanted in actual effect. The point I go beyond to is I think if someone has a child planning to just dump that child onto the government upon birth UNLESS legally obligated adopted parents are first found, that person goes to prison. For him - or anyone - to have children knowing he can't care for or pay for them is totally unacceptable to me - because it is not only totally wrong - as in EVIL - towards those children - it also is making all of us pay week after month after year for his kids and knowing that is the outcome. People having children they can't, won't and don't properly raise is devastating to our society in may ways and breaking the bank.
Click to expand...
You act like we live in a 3rd world country that is running out of food. I think you would be better in some totalitarian country to be honest. Maybe there they would be ok with denying stupid people the chance to breed. Seeing as you are now going beyond this 1 case and talking in general.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
So doctors are never wrong? They dont occasionally tell people they have a month to live and they end up living for many more years? I guess hope and faith are evil things to be discounted and ostracized.
Click to expand...

Sure doctors are sometimes wrong, but after being told with each pregnancy..and the results of 1,2 and then 3 severely handicapped children..

I would have seen the light after the first...who was basically a human tube...no recognition, screaming with pain 22 hours out of 24..

If you kept an animal like this, you would go to prison for cruelty...
 
joko104 said:
Wow, certainly a "MAN'S VIEW." Rather than him having a 10 minute vasectomy, she can just have 29 abortions at the cost of those or take 750 at $40 each extreme hormone pills. But OMG not mess with the man's sperm (that he doesn't want)!
Click to expand...

Since its Britain we have the NHS and so it does not cost her anything that she isn't already paying. My issue with it is that there was a simple option rather than going to court and wasting time over an issue that never should have been national news. You said yourself that he has the mind of a six year old, so therefore how can you be 100% sure that he doesn't want sperm, he said he never wanted another child. He never said anything about not wanting sperm.
 
joko104 said:
I'm ok with it particularly with the parents consent. This also gives the man more sexual liberty without the result of likely parentless child(ren) that society has to pay for.
Click to expand...

this!
 
joko104 said:
That's not accurate. Whether it be white or black, educating the poor in family planning and not having more children than they can handle and afford is nothing new.

She did favor eugenics, but not as racism. Many people did. Even the Supreme Court upheld laws to sterilize mentally handicapped people. This also was her sale's pitch to legalize birth control.

She opposed abortion and instead promoted birth control (which was illegal in most of the USA), so I think she'd be a pro-life hero. But I understand the Catholic Church hates her for promoting legalizing birth control and that all of pro-life slogans and values originate from the Catholic Church. Since the Catholic Church hates her, so then must most radical pro-lifers.

In your logic, any drug store that sells condoms is engaging in genocide.
Click to expand...

Sanger believed that black folks were incapable of fending for themselves, without government assistance. If that's not racism, what is?
 
PeteEU said:
Yes... parents and guardians sterilize their children or wards who are mentally handicapped all the time.. it is nothing new and often the state acts as an intermediary helping the parents/guardians get the legal work done. There are a few news stories about this on the web, but usually it gets no media attention at all.

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=josnr

The scary part is that there are over 14 US states that still have the forced sterilization laws on the books, laws put in place long ago by eugenics fanatics. Granted at the moment those laws are not being enforced, but still scary that they are there and can be used at any minute.

But as long as it is a case by case valuation and not a blanket order like under the American eugenics laws, then I dont see the problem at all. There is a reason that someone else is the guardian of an over 18 year old.. they are unable to care or choose for themselves.
Click to expand...

Yeah .... That paper seems to be outlining the exact opposite of what you claimed

<<<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.>>>
 
joko104 said:
Wow, certainly a "MAN'S VIEW." Rather than him having a 10 minute vasectomy, she can just have 29 abortions at the cost of those or take 750 at $40 each extreme hormone pills. But OMG not mess with the man's sperm (that he doesn't want)!
Click to expand...

or he could be pointing to the finality of vasectomy ....
 
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.
 
joko104 said:
Wow, certainly a "MAN'S VIEW." Rather than him having a 10 minute vasectomy, she can just have 29 abortions at the cost of those or take 750 at $40 each extreme hormone pills. But OMG not mess with the man's sperm (that he doesn't want)!
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think he understood the options he had in front of him to not have any more children? Do you honestly think he actually implied anything involving sperm with his comment? Taking a pill to avoid pregnancy is a hell of a lot better than removing the bodily functions of either party and the pills can still easily be controlled and administered by others. Maybe I'm crazy but I would rather avoid harm than cause it.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Where is the utility in keeping it? He and his girlfriend have restricted access to each other, and are currently monitored whenever they are together to prevent them conceiving another child they are incapable of caring for in any way.
Click to expand...

All this seems like a huge overkill to me, why not put his girlfriend on the pill if condoms are too complicated?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Andalublue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you! Finally some damn common sense instead of people instantly judging based of a few snippets of quotes without the full context.
 
Manc Skipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who doesn't get freaked out by a new baby? Are you sure of the context of his words? Lots of people want to have sex. Lots of people want to not have more children (at that specific moment in time at least). If a chimp can survive on its own in the wild I think society helping this guy with a kid or two if his parents arent willing isnt so bad. What if his kid dies and he decides to change his mind? (assuming dude chose the vasectomy and the judge is simply okay'ing it, not simply just decreeing it upon his own judge whims)

If im incompetent and I tell a judge "My fat brings me grief. I want to keep eating. But I dont want to get fatter" Is it okay for the judge to deduce that as "Give this man liposuction and gastric bypass surgery."
 
dirtpoorchris said:
No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au



Has Pandora's box been opened for a subclass of society that isnt allowed to breed in the UK's future? A six year old is smart enough to know the basic jist of birds and the bees. So I want to know if this man agreed to the viscetomy or not. Just because he said "I dotn want to have another kid" doesnt mean "Disable my seed from being able to spread forever." I want to know his exact intention. If they can do this for "personal best interest" why not cut off rapists balls for the "best interest of society"? Just sayin'.

"I dont want to have a kid" could mean he was trying to appease the judge and saying "I wont have any more I promise". So what is the context? Or did the judge say, "We are going to do a special operation on your balls that will make it so you cant have kids anymore more. Is this what you want?" Im worried the guy might have been confused and the judge let his personal standards get in the way and would like to know more about this.
Click to expand...

There are definitely questions surrounding this. But who am I to say? In a perfect, polisciguy utopia, all the male children would be given reversible vasectomies at birth and one could apply to have it reversed later in life.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Yeah .... That paper seems to be outlining the exact opposite of what you claimed

<<<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.>>>
Click to expand...

How on earth does it do that? They happen, not often, but they do happen.
 
polisciguy said:
There are definitely questions surrounding this. But who am I to say? In a perfect, polisciguy utopia, all the male children would be given reversible vasectomies at birth and one could apply to have it reversed later in life.
Click to expand...

That could be interesting if it has 100% non failure rate. I could see it being misused in martial law (or maybe some other weird crap?) scenarios though and not allowing people to turn it back on. But would be great for the whole high school era children.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Who doesn't get freaked out by a new baby? Are you sure of the context of his words? Lots of people want to have sex. Lots of people want to not have more children (at that specific moment in time at least). If a chimp can survive on its own in the wild I think society helping this guy with a kid or two if his parents arent willing isnt so bad. What if his kid dies and he decides to change his mind? (assuming dude chose the vasectomy and the judge is simply okay'ing it, not simply just decreeing it upon his own judge whims)

If im incompetent and I tell a judge "My fat brings me grief. I want to keep eating. But I dont want to get fatter" Is it okay for the judge to deduce that as "Give this man liposuction and gastric bypass surgery."
Click to expand...

When you're driven to resorting to the ridiculous, your argument is lost.
 
PeteEU said:
How on earth does it do that? They happen, not often, but they do happen.
Click to expand...

let us look at your original claim:

PeteEU said:
no...the legal procedures were followed to allow this... what is the problem? ***It happens all the time in the US***, so why on earth cant it happen in the UK as well?
Click to expand...

Pete, it seems you have a natural gift for talking out your ass
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
let us look at your original claim:



Pete, it seems you have a natural gift for talking out your ass
Click to expand...

And it does happen all the time, there is no law against it. Lets put it this way, it happens just as much if not more than it does in the UK.. happy?
 
Manc Skipper said:
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?
Click to expand...

Its already been said that they are supervised. Presumably whoever does that could give her the pill just as they would any other kind of medication.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Who doesn't get freaked out by a new baby? Are you sure of the context of his words? Lots of people want to have sex. Lots of people want to not have more children (at that specific moment in time at least). If a chimp can survive on its own in the wild I think society helping this guy with a kid or two if his parents arent willing isnt so bad. What if his kid dies and he decides to change his mind? (assuming dude chose the vasectomy and the judge is simply okay'ing it, not simply just decreeing it upon his own judge whims)

If im incompetent and I tell a judge "My fat brings me grief. I want to keep eating. But I dont want to get fatter" Is it okay for the judge to deduce that as "Give this man liposuction and gastric bypass surgery."
Click to expand...

Just love the melodrama of the thread.

The birth of the couple's first child had had a "profound" effect on both families, and measures were taken to ensure there was no further pregnancy, including keeping the couple apart and supervising any contact between them.

The judge said the couple's relationship "nearly broke under the strain, but remarkably weathered the storm".

DE's social worker, who specialises in looking after disabled adults, had told the court "how very unusual it is to see such an enduring relationship between two significantly disabled people", adding it was "remarkable and very precious and should be valued and protected in their interests".
Click to expand...

The families of the two individuals have been keeping them apart to prevent further pregnancies, the guy has enough wit about him to say he doesn't want any more children, nobody opposed the court action because as Mancs Skipper stated previously - they couldn't cope with any further children but the couple have an enduring love for each other which the sterilisation means can go ahead without risk of pregnancies. It's also been made clear that the guy was patently suffering from being apart from his partner and he doesn't want any more kids-but somehow despite the families moving for the court order - I read statements about the government being behind this...

As well as the usual poorly informed attacks on the UK early in the thread before facts were investigated.

Good grief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom