[casi]

This is a really hard decision for me. The feminist in me is taken aback by the idea of forced sterlization. There are horror stories from the past of women getting tubaligations because they were deamed mentally incapable of rearing children. But this was before there were reliable form of oral contraceptives.

On another note, this is a woman who is unable to care for a child and the entire childbirth/pregnancy response would be traumatic for her.

The entire thing seems like a very slippery slope.

[ocankhe]

In the trial the "mentally challenged" women testified in her behalf and it was on that testimony the first judge ruled. The appellate court let that ruling stand. In effect unaminously sustaining the right for a patient to say no.
Good job judges.

[oooooooooo]

Its seems to me that the aunt is not fulfilling her end of the guardianship and is looking for a fix that alleviates her from doing so. If she were truly watching out for this young woman's welfare, then the young woman would not be exposed to men who would take advantage of her. Just my .

There is only one guaranteed method of birth control.

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by oooooooooo

Its seems to me that the aunt is not fulfilling her end of the guardianship and is looking for a fix that alleviates her from doing so. If she were truly watching out for this young woman's welfare, then the young woman would not be exposed to men who would take advantage of her. Just my .

There is only one guaranteed method of birth control.

I think you are taking a giant leap to reach this conclusion.

About 10 years ago there was a case in PA where a severely mentally disabled young woman was living in a women's group home, working and going home to her mother's house on the weekends. One day, the mother arrived to pick up her daughter only to find her engaged in sexual relations with the (mentally "normal") brother of another resident. The young man admitted to "offering" sex to the disabled young woman, who was a "willing" participant.

This young woman had a history of seizures that required multiple medications. She could not take oral contraceptives due to interactions with her seizure meds, and couldn't go off of the seizure drugs in the event of pregnancy, as that would place her life at risk. Continuing seizure meds during a pregnancy would almost certainly cause harm to the fetus.

The mother petitioned the court for permission to schedule a tibal ligation for her daughter, which was approved. A few days before the procedure, and outside agency with no connection to the patient, her family or the group home obtained an injunction arguing that the patient's mother was failing to represent her daughter's best interests. The court battle dragged on for a few years, during which time the mother had no choice but to remove her daughter from the group home since it was otherwise impossible to protect her 24/7 from inappropriate sexual contact that she was incapable of consenting to or understanding the ramifications of. Ultimately, the injunction expired and the mother was able to proceed with the tubal ligation. Only when she could rest assured that her daughter would not become pregnant, did she allow the young woman to resume living semi-independently, working and socializing.

I think it is a broad, sweeping generalization to assume that parental neglect is the cause of unwanted pregnancy in an adult child with limited mental capacity. It is perfectly reasonable to consider the risks of a tubal ligation versus the benefits of protecting the disabled woman from the trauma of a pregnancy and delivery while allowing her to have some independence in her living and working situation.

[Spidey's mom]

Jolie - good points . . .but I'm on seizure meds and had a perfectly normal baby. My 6 year old. And breastfed for 3 1/2 years (thank you Dr. Hale!).

Lots of women have babies on seizure meds. I've taken care of them.

I do remember one mentally disabled woman who refused to push at 10 centimeters . . she put her legs together and just refused. The doc finally left the room, frustrated. I cannot imagine overcoming that urge to push.

steph

[mercyteapot]

I don't know what disability the woman who wouldn't push has, but I do know that some people with autism, my son amongst them, can be singularly focused when they've decided they are or aren't going to do something. Once she decided not to push, that was most likely all she wrote.

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by stevielynn

Jolie - good points . . .but I'm on seizure meds and had a perfectly normal baby. My 6 year old. And breastfed for 3 1/2 years (thank you Dr. Hale!).

Lots of women have babies on seizure meds. I've taken care of them.

steph

You're right, Steph, but this was a pretty severe case. I don't remember the all the drugs that this young woman took, but it was literally a laundry list of them to keep her seizures under control.

It also struck me a significant that this young woman's mother made no attempt to obtain a tubal until she was faced with the undeniable evidence that her daughter was sexually active and had no concept of what that could lead to. She most definitely was not seeking a tubal so that she could slack off and fail to superivse her daughter.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

I don't know what disability the woman who wouldn't push has, but I do know that some people with autism, my son amongst them, can be singularly focused when they've decided they are or aren't going to do something. Once she decided not to push, that was most likely all she wrote.

Hi mercy - it was during clinical over 10 years ago and I cannot remember what was wrong with her.

But you are right about the way she handled it - that was all she wrote.

steph

[mercyteapot]

A bit off topic here, but when my son was 3, he had tubes put in his ears. Upon awakening, the nurse attempted to implement the hospital's "hard and fast" policy that children will keep a popsicle down for 30 minutes before discharge. Except that my son decided he wasn't eating no stinkin' popsicle. They finally decided we'd waited long enough and cleared us to leave, but I don't think that particular nurse "got" that once he had made the decision, no amount of pleading, cajoling or coercing was going to make any difference. Let's just say she could use some work on hiding her opinions of my mothering skills and leave it at that...

[Hopefull2009]

Originally Posted by oooooooooo

Its seems to me that the aunt is not fulfilling her end of the guardianship and is looking for a fix that alleviates her from doing so. If she were truly watching out for this young woman's welfare, then the young woman would not be exposed to men who would take advantage of her. Just my .

There is only one guaranteed method of birth control.

So you think it's ok for a mentally disabled woman, who CANNOT take other forms of birth control, that is at extremely high risk for sexual abuse....you think it's ok that she maintains her "right" to produce a child which will be ANOTHER person she can't take care of?

Then why don't we just give her ALL of her rights and let her stay in an apartment on her own, pay her bills, work a job, manage her own healthcare insurance, her bank account.

I mean, if you are going to give them the right to make one legal decision then why can't you give ALL OF THEM to her?????

To me, the judge errored in the letter of the law.....if the aunt has guardianship to make ALL decisions then she should be able to make ALL decisions.

And if this woman who has the mental capacity of a middle-schooler is allowed to decide her medical fate, then I say let's be fair and give it to ALL of the children of all parents.

That way, if they need an emergency surgery, and they refuse b/c they are scared, then God forbid if we force a patient to endure a medical procedure...that's cruel right?