[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by Diary/Dairy

I am not demanding that at all - but I do resent having to subsidize so many things with my taxes..... from pork projects, to welfare moms, etc etc. I am NOT saying don't take care of them...but I resent having to pay for some things.....

I don't think our taxes are meant for that either . . .


steph

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by Diary/Dairy

I am not demanding that at all - but I do resent having to subsidize so many things with my taxes..... from pork projects, to welfare moms, etc etc. I am NOT saying don't take care of them...but I resent having to pay for some things.....

Oh, I hear that... I have been feeling like Josie Q. Middleclass as of late and feel like we're getting hit harder than anyone with every economic fluctuation.

I suspect I feel more strongly on this point than many, though, due to family circumstances and what I do for a living.

[bagladyrn]

Having been in the past a psychiatric nurse and now an OB nurse, I find myself in agreement with the aunt. A person with a severe mental disability will still have a body with all the urges of a normal adult, without the cognitive ability to understand the consequences. I have cared for a woman who would walk from male to male, raising her skirt and repeating "Want to make a baby?" I can definitely tell you that there are males out there who will take advantage of this situation no matter what the level of the woman's IQ. Anyone who has raised children will tell you that short of being attached physically to the individual 24/7 there is no way to prevent the opportunity. If she has in her mind that she "wants a baby" only forms of birth control that require no volition on the woman's part will be even somewhat effective.
Labor and childbirth can be a terrifying and scarring situation for a girl/woman with limited mental capacity. I've taken care of severely mentally challenged women in labor who screamed, cried, tried to run away in panic from the first serious labor contraction - a horrible experience for all involved. Of course the responsible male was long absent.
Realizing that the aunt caring for this individual is likely somewhat older than she, who is going to take responsibility for both the woman and any offspring she produces if/when the aunt is too old to do so or dies? Obviously this woman will never progress to the level of doing so on her own. Should the children then be removed from the home? Is this any "kinder"?
I understand the "slippery slope" concept here, but feel that the individuals responsible for the care of the mentally handicapped, specifically family or guardian who know the person and their abilities well, should have the strongest voice in deciding the proper course of treatment.

[HM2Viking]

I have a real problem with this. I just went to the public exhibition of the Holocaust museum at the Science museum of Minnesota. This reminds me of the pure people arguments used by the Nazi's for the Eugenics movement.

[Quickbeam]

When I was a court officer before becoming a nurse we routinely had separation hearings for infants born to profoundly developmentally delayed women. There would be lawyers, social workers, mountains of paper work...and at the center a woman who could not even understand birth or pregnancy let alone infant care. It made a grave impression on me.

Fast forward 20 years..I once attended a church which encouraged 2 profoundly delayed people to marry. They then had 4 children. There were a total of 9 social workers involved. There were 24/7 caregivers for the children and the parents, who were not capable of living independently. The parents could not do their own ADLS themselves, let alone care for their children. The church saw this as a triumph for social justice. I saw it as a creepy experiment at the expense of the children and government services.

On the other hand, my mother grew up with a mildly delayed man in the 1930's who was summarily castrated by the government when he asked a girl out. That's 9 kinds of wrong as well.

I think these decisions are difficult and filled with grey areas. I do think that any forced sterilization needs to come with enough documentation to justify the civil liberties issues.

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by Quickbeam

When I was a court officer before becoming a nurse we routinely had separation hearings for infants born to profoundly developmentally delayed women. There would be lawyers, social workers, mountains of paper work...and at the center a woman who could not even understand birth or pregnancy let alone infant care. It made a grave impression on me.

Fast forward 20 years..I once attended a church which encouraged 2 profoundly delayed people to marry. They then had 4 children. There were a total of 9 social workers involved. There were 24/7 caregivers for the children and the parents, who were not capable of living independently. The parents could not do their own ADLS themselves, let alone care for their children. The church saw this as a triumph for social justice. I saw it as a creepy experiment at the expense of the children and government services.

On the other hand, my mother grew up with a mildly delayed man in the 1930's who was summarily castrated by the government when he asked a girl out. That's 9 kinds of wrong as well.

I think these decisions are difficult and filled with grey areas. I do think that any forced sterilization needs to come with enough documentation to justify the civil liberties issues.

I agree that extreme situations such as this one need to be examined by a court. And I have to believe that in this case, there wasn't sufficient documentation to justify forcing the sterilization. It should next to impossible to do this, not totally impossible, because there are the very rare circumstances where it's warranted. And money and societal convenience should never be the deciding factor/s, IMHO.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

I agree that extreme situations such as this one need to be examined by a court. And I have to believe that in this case, there wasn't sufficient documentation to justify forcing the sterilization. It should next to impossible to do this, not totally impossible, because there are the very rare circumstances where it's warranted. And money and societal convenience should never be the deciding factor/s, IMHO.

I wholeheartedly agree.

steph

[CHATSDALE]

the problem here is that the person impacted [the aunt] is not allowed to make the tough decisions that sometimes have to be made
'going thru loops' is expensive if anyone who has had to pay an attorney will agree
the youngr woman here wants a baby becaue they are so cute and cuddley and they have such a sweet smile..but they also cry in the middle of the night, a really really nasty diaphers have to changed, they have to be given a bath and not left to drown and they grow up and need help with homework
these crowing activists will not step up to the plate when some help is needed and they need to mind their own business now
other forms of bc are available but most require effort on the part of the woman which this woman is apparently not able to render

[Hopefull2009]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

Does it not bother you in the least that there are no legal or constitutional grounds on which to demand that people deemed "incapable" of raising a child be sterilized?

Forced sterilization is no protection against any STD, so I'm afraid I don't get what you're driving at with that point at all. Given the assistance and supervision that would be provided to a child born by this woman, I'd venture to say her offspring would be better protected than those of many drug addicts or child abusers.

You are correct, I absolutely DO NOT care about the human rights of women that are chronically drug addicted or who work as HIV positive hookers....Just ask social services about what types of lives these babies end up leading...they end up right back in the system just like their mothers, raised by the SAME grandparents that couldn't raise their own daughters, so the cycle repeats itself.

I also believe that if there is going to be a LEGAL guardian, then it needs to be FULLY legal. The court has ALREADY deemed this particular woman unfit to take care of herself...she has suffered a brain injury that will never, ever be corrected.

So you are going to allow this same person to make medical decisions for themselves?

Women who are mentally impaired are at EXTREMELY high risk to be sexually abused...and in many states, they cannot consent to sex at all!!!!

That woman giving birth to a baby would be a tragedy...people who are mentally impaired are usually on other types of medications that first of all, can have a negative impact on the fetus...then the TORTURE of a birthing process that she most likely won't even be able to mentally comprehend or understand why it's happening, which will bring enormous stress not only to her but an infant.

Then, she thinks it's a doll! What if her guardian cannot raise it? Then you have the battle of putting the child up for adoption...or do we let a mentally impaired woman who can't make decisions for anything else...keep a child when she can't take care of herself...THUS burdening the guardian even more...b/c mentally impaired people have to be watched every second around a baby...you never know if they may cause undue harm that can kill or even worse, permanently damage an infant..THEN who is going to take care of the baby then?

People that just blanketly say "Oh, that's barbaric" have obviously not thought it through.

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by Hopefull2009

You are correct, I absolutely DO NOT care about the human rights of women that are chronically drug addicted or who work as HIV positive hookers....Just ask social services about what types of lives these babies end up leading...they end up right back in the system just like their mothers, raised by the SAME grandparents that couldn't raise their own daughters, so the cycle repeats itself.

I also believe that if there is going to be a LEGAL guardian, then it needs to be FULLY legal. The court has ALREADY deemed this particular woman unfit to take care of herself...she has suffered a brain injury that will never, ever be corrected.

So you are going to allow this same person to make medical decisions for themselves?

Women who are mentally impaired are at EXTREMELY high risk to be sexually abused...and in many states, they cannot consent to sex at all!!!!

That woman giving birth to a baby would be a tragedy...people who are mentally impaired are usually on other types of medications that first of all, can have a negative impact on the fetus...then the TORTURE of a birthing process that she most likely won't even be able to mentally comprehend or understand why it's happening, which will bring enormous stress not only to her but an infant.

Then, she thinks it's a doll! What if her guardian cannot raise it? Then you have the battle of putting the child up for adoption...or do we let a mentally impaired woman who can't make decisions for anything else...keep a child when she can't take care of herself...THUS burdening the guardian even more...b/c mentally impaired people have to be watched every second around a baby...you never know if they may cause undue harm that can kill or even worse, permanently damage an infant..THEN who is going to take care of the baby then?

People that just blanketly say "Oh, that's barbaric" have obviously not thought it through.

Well, actually, I'm not going to let this person do or not do anything. However, it should be pointed out that this was a court ruling, not the arbitrary decision of an armchair quarterback, so to speak.

I think there is a misconception about gaining conservatorship over people with developmental or other cognitively limiting disabilities. It isn't a rubberstamping process. Few and far between are judges who agree to give anyone full conservatorship over anyone else. The process takes months to years and is incredibly complex, even for individuals that are much more challenged than the young woman at the center of this case. I worked with a woman whose daughter had CHARGE syndrome, this girl was limited in every way possible, non-verbal, profound MR, etc. She didn't have full conservatorship.