• 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

Red_Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...

She cannot legally consent to taking birth control, they would need a court order to administer it, and that would only stop her getting pregnant, he's the one that needs the BC so he can't get somebody else pregnant.
 
Manc Skipper said:
She cannot legally consent to taking birth control, they would need a court order to administer it --
Click to expand...

Then cue the claims the UK is ****ed like I read on the first few pages.

It's not like the families and lawyers haven't agonised over this for 14 years (they first appealed in 1999 apparently)
 
Manc Skipper said:
She cannot legally consent to taking birth control, they would need a court order to administer it, and that would only stop her getting pregnant, he's the one that needs the BC so he can't get somebody else pregnant.
Click to expand...

Since when did it require legal consent? unless she refused to take it i don't see the issue. IF worse came to worse I don't see why slipping the pill in her drink would be a greater violation of civil liberties then sterilizing hey boyfriend (that sounds awful out of context)
 
Last edited:
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...

The judge ok'd it, the judge did not require it.

/drama
 
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...


Very well said. Thank you.
 
Red_Dave said:
Since when did it require legal consent? unless she refused to take it i don't see the issue. IF worse came to worse I don't see why slipping the pill in her drink would be a greater violation of civil liberties then sterilizing hey boyfriend (that sounds awful out of context)
Click to expand...

Giving someone with learning difficulties medication is fraught with ethical and legal problems in the absence of their ability to give a legal consent. Treatment for physical conditions such as heart disease or infections can be normally be justified as directly benefiting the health of the individual. Denying her the ability to procreate is of a different order. As with her boyfriend, such a decision must be subjected to the scrutiny of the law.
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
Giving someone with learning difficulties medication is fraught with ethical and legal problems in the absence of their ability to give a legal consent. Treatment for physical conditions such as heart disease or infections can be normally be justified as directly benefiting the health of the individual. Denying her the ability to procreate is of a different order. As with her boyfriend, such a decision must be subjected to the scrutiny of the law.
Click to expand...

I have a relative with very severe autism and this has never been an issue, if she sneezes too much her parents give her antihistamines, any legal impediments never occurred to them. What law requires informed consent? I'm just perplexed about why this would have greater ethical and legal issues then permanent sterilization.
 
This is up to the British to decide. I don't know why so many Americans feel the need to chime in.

We have enough problems on our own.
 
Peter Grimm said:
This is up to the British to decide. I don't know why so many Americans feel the need to chime in.

We have enough problems on our own.
Click to expand...

Natural scientists have laboratories, social scientists have countries. The only way to determine what works and what doesn't is to see how other countries do it and how it works for them.
 
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...
I agree that the government should not be allowed to sterilize people if it decides them unfit for whatever reason. However, I do think this issue is a bit more complicated. If he has the mind of a 6-year old child, like a 6-year old child he can not truly give consent. So who is to make the choice? The parents? That would make sense to me I suppose. But then again, say a child is dying and parents refuse to take the child to the hospital. There is a thing as neglect--parents cannot just do whatever they want with their child. So if the parents refused, I can see the case being made for this being an example of neglect. It is further complicated by the fact that he has a job. That suggests he has a mind capable of consenting.

I don't think this sets some precedent. It seems more like a gray area case.
 
Lakryte said:
I agree that the government should not be allowed to sterilize people if it decides them unfit for whatever reason. However, I do think this issue is a bit more complicated. If he has the mind of a 6-year old child, like a 6-year old child he can not truly give consent. So who is to make the choice? The parents? That would make sense to me I suppose. But then again, say a child is dying and parents refuse to take the child to the hospital. There is a thing as neglect--parents cannot just do whatever they want with their child. So if the parents refused, I can see the case being made for this being an example of neglect. It is further complicated by the fact that he has a job. That suggests he has a mind capable of consenting.

I don't think this sets some precedent. It seems more like a gray area case.
Click to expand...

I dont think the UK is evil it just pays to fill the OP with a bit of flair :p I do not see society allowing this to propagate to a point where all stupid people arent allowed to breed. I would have done the same thing If I happened to see a story like this going on in the US.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Giving someone with learning difficulties medication is fraught with ethical and legal problems in the absence of their ability to give a legal consent.
Click to expand...

I'm not following the logic here, at all. Clearly there are less ethical and legal questions involved than giving someone surgery under the same conditions that is likely irreversible.


Manc Skipper said:
Denying her the ability to procreate is of a different order.
Click to expand...

Ok, now I am just lost ...
 
Red_Dave said:
I have a relative with very severe autism and this has never been an issue, if she sneezes too much her parents give her antihistamines, any legal impediments never occurred to them. What law requires informed consent? I'm just perplexed about why this would have greater ethical and legal issues then permanent sterilization.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the argument is just plain bizarre and confusing
 
It's not hard to follow. Informed consent is a fundamental part of medical ethics. A Doctor or nurse treating a person who lacks the capacity to give such a consent enters a potential minefield. Being seen to be acting in the interests of the patient, and not the convenience of yourself or of others, is vital. Surgery, even if reversible, is a major event, and obviously needs greater laegal overview, but prescribing and administering medication is less clearcut. In my example, I suggested that medicating a heart condition or an infection could be seen as acceptable practice since the patient's life or health will be directly damaged by not intervening.
Administering Birth Control without consent is qualitatively different. A relative physically giving the drug isn't constrained in the same way, but the Dr. who prescribes it is.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's not hard to follow. Informed consent is a fundamental part of medical ethics. A Doctor or nurse treating a person who lacks the capacity to give such a consent enters a potential minefield. Being seen to be acting in the interests of the patient, and not the convenience of yourself or of others, is vital. Surgery, even if reversible, is a major event, and obviously needs greater laegal overview, but prescribing and administering medication is less clearcut. In my example, I suggested that medicating a heart condition or an infection could be seen as acceptable practice since the patient's life or health will be directly damaged by not intervening.
Administering Birth Control without consent is qualitatively different. A relative physically giving the drug isn't constrained in the same way, but the Dr. who prescribes it is.
Click to expand...
Im just scared its a Romeo and Juliet scenario with the parents controlling everything and never letting them see eachother unless he goes through with operation. That his words "I dont want children" doesnt actually mean hes not planning on it instead of "Take away my ability to have kids please". How do we knwo his consent isnt coerced by hanging his girlfriend over his head as a carrot? How do we know he isnt saying, "I don't want kids" so that he can just finally get to see his girlfriend that these people keep away from him? Id like to know the full context of this story instead of a few snippets of quotes but I have already repeated this multiple times so ill stop saying it over and over.
 
Spriggs05 said:
His partner could just have an abortion or take the morning after pill. The parents just don't want the financial obligation of raising another child.
My main problem is that it shouldn't be national news. The largest it should have gotten was the local paper/flyer, not even the county paper.
Click to expand...

A vasectomy is considerably less invasive and dangerous than an abortion. It's also a permanent solution, whereas repeated pregnancies requiring repeated terminations could have severe physical effects on his "partner", who also has mental issues. It is the simplest solution, one that satisfied everyone involved, including the man himself. Beyond that, it's actually nobody else's business. :shrug:
 
DiAnna said:
A vasectomy is considerably less invasive and dangerous than an abortion. It's also a permanent solution, whereas repeated pregnancies requiring repeated terminations could have severe physical effects on his "partner", who also has mental issues. It is the simplest solution, one that satisfied everyone involved, including the man himself. Beyond that, it's actually nobody else's business. :shrug:
Click to expand...
You deduced all this from just a handful of quotes eh? What if you interviewed the guy and it turns out hes smarter than his tested IQ. What if his words were misconstrued so that a little quote appears to make it seem a certain way out of context. I dont get how its so easy for you people to decide these things on such few words.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's not hard to follow. Informed consent is a fundamental part of medical ethics. A Doctor or nurse treating a person who lacks the capacity to give such a consent enters a potential minefield.
Click to expand...

Ugh, the case we are discussing, involving the man under going the vasectomy, lacks the ability to give consent. It''s why your insistence there is a distinction between the two is leaving everyone confused

Surgery, even if reversible, is a major event, and obviously needs greater laegal overview, but prescribing and administering medication is less clearcut.
Click to expand...

1) Reversing a vasectomy isn't always successful

2) how is administering a pill less clear cut than performing surgery that may be irreversible?
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's not hard to follow. Informed consent is a fundamental part of medical ethics. A Doctor or nurse treating a person who lacks the capacity to give such a consent enters a potential minefield. Being seen to be acting in the interests of the patient, and not the convenience of yourself or of others, is vital. Surgery, even if reversible, is a major event, and obviously needs greater laegal overview, but prescribing and administering medication is less clearcut. In my example, I suggested that medicating a heart condition or an infection could be seen as acceptable practice since the patient's life or health will be directly damaged by not intervening.
Administering Birth Control without consent is qualitatively different. A relative physically giving the drug isn't constrained in the same way, but the Dr. who prescribes it is.
Click to expand...

So informed consent is necessary for the pill but not sterilization?
 
Red_Dave said:
So informed consent is necessary for the pill but not sterilization?
Click to expand...

yeah, I'm with Dave and Henrin on this, though I have no issue with the original decision.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
This story doesnt make sense already. How can he be apt enough to have a job but so clueless of breeding?
Click to expand...

Skills come in many different forms. Employment for those with more intense levels of intellectual disabilities is still possible, but that does not mean that they have the skills necessary to raise a child responsibly.

That being said, if the individual in question literally understood that this is a more radical procedure, rather than his family or others misleading him, then this is is where our understanding of rights for the disabled might get complicated and could get in the way of choice. We create the legal structures, and many times, the understandings of what these individuals are capable of doing on their own. We can have the propensity to be in error.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Im just scared its a Romeo and Juliet scenario with the parents controlling everything and never letting them see eachother unless he goes through with operation. That his words "I dont want children" doesnt actually mean hes not planning on it instead of "Take away my ability to have kids please". How do we knwo his consent isnt coerced by hanging his girlfriend over his head as a carrot? How do we know he isnt saying, "I don't want kids" so that he can just finally get to see his girlfriend that these people keep away from him? Id like to know the full context of this story instead of a few snippets of quotes but I have already repeated this multiple times so ill stop saying it over and over.
Click to expand...


Luckily, a judge is involved who has heard all the info, and that's who is deciding, not those of us who just get the snippet of quotes...
 
Lakryte said:
I agree that the government should not be allowed to sterilize people if it decides them unfit for whatever reason. However, I do think this issue is a bit more complicated. If he has the mind of a 6-year old child, like a 6-year old child he can not truly give consent. So who is to make the choice? The parents? That would make sense to me I suppose. But then again, say a child is dying and parents refuse to take the child to the hospital. There is a thing as neglect--parents cannot just do whatever they want with their child. So if the parents refused, I can see the case being made for this being an example of neglect. It is further complicated by the fact that he has a job. That suggests he has a mind capable of consenting.

I don't think this sets some precedent. It seems more like a gray area case.
Click to expand...

In guardianships, there are a great many issues that crop up. The best approach to have is to be careful, thoughtful, and empathetic. It is not uncommon at all for guardians to engage in activities that are perhaps troubling if not reversible by the courts. In some sense you have to continuously remind yourselves that this is another adult you are making many decisions for, and they have rights and wishes as well. Reducing that person's identity to the IQ number or the supposed "mental age" is unbecoming of the responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom