[Jolie]

Is the sarcasm really necessary, mercy?

My point is that once a guardian has gone thru all of those steps and been deemed capable of taking on a thoroughly difficult and thankless job, society and the legal system need to respect the responsibility and authority they have just granted the guardian.

[Diary/Dairy]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

What seems to me more to be the case here is that there is a difference of opinion as to what decision would best serve the interests of this woman, or, in the case of the less charitable responses, economics. A judge isn't allowed to withhold the civil rights of a woman simply because it is going to be a financial burden on society to ensure that they are protected. Of course we all are entitled to our opinions, but they are just that- not necessarily what the law says.

I had not thought of that before - but part of me is still firmly entrenched in the working middle class. I expect people to be responsible for the actions they take, but what do you do in a situation like this, with a mentally challenged person?

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by Diary/Dairy

I had not thought of that before - but part of me is still firmly entrenched in the working middle class. I expect people to be responsible for the actions they take, but what do you do in a situation like this, with a mentally challenged person?

Honestly, I don't know what I would do in these circumstances, but I do believe if this woman is cognizant enough to express that she doesn't want to undergo sterilization, I don't see how the providers had any choice but to intervene. I certainly wouldn't be willing to participate in such a procedure against the will of a patient without the court determination to which she is legally entitled.

For me, the economics question is entirely secondary. It is a matter of reality that the services we provide to individuals with disabilities are going to cost tax dollars. I don't like paying taxes, but I object much less to contributing to these services then I do for many other things they pay for; I don't want to decide to deny someone's civil rights based on the fact that it costs more to protect them. It is just the price of living in a civilized society. Whether it is fair that so many working adults go without coverage is, for me, a different question and a different thread. I really don't believe that if services for people with disabilities were to suddenly cease, that money would instead be spent for other essential services. When I say that for me, one doesn't have anything to do with the other, it isn't naivete or oversimplification talking. It is a reflection of the way things work.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by Jolie

Is the sarcasm really necessary, mercy?

My point is that once a guardian has gone thru all of those steps and been deemed capable of taking on a thoroughly difficult and thankless job, society and the legal system need to respect the responsibility and authority they have just granted the guardian.

I just want to make sure that it is difficult to make these decisions. There needs to be a serious look at these situations prior to sterilizing a woman without her, granted mentally challenged, consent.

I've seen too many cases with conservatorship at least, where patients have been neglected.

I am not remarking on your case Jolie - I know you are an honorable person.

Cases like the one where the parents of a disabled girl had her surgically stunted in order to make her easier to care for bother me. Calling her a "pillow angel" didn't help.

I'm on the side of staying away from a slippery slope regarding disabled people.

Completely understanding the ramifications.

steph

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

Honestly, I don't know what I would do in these circumstances, but I do believe if this woman is cognizant enough to express that she doesn't want to undergo sterilization, I don't see how the providers had any choice but to intervene. I certainly wouldn't be willing to participate in such a procedure against the will of a patient without the court determination to which she is legally entitled.

.

This is a good point - as a nurse I've been given information by a patient that as a patient advocate I must act upon. Whether they are disabled mentally or not.

steph

[Diary/Dairy]

Originally Posted by stevielynn

Cases like the one where the parents of a disabled girl had her surgically stunted in order to make her easier to care for bother me. Calling her a "pillow angel" didn't help.

steph

That case was/is creepy - it was going on in Seattle when I was out there last year.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by Diary/Dairy

That case was/is creepy - it was going on in Seattle when I was out there last year.

THAT is exactly how I felt . . . . creepy . . .

steph

[Hopefull2009]

Originally Posted by stevielynn

Cases like the one where the parents of a disabled girl had her surgically stunted in order to make her easier to care for bother me. Calling her a "pillow angel" didn't help.

To me, that was a clear case where parents made these decisions out of convenience....they butchered that child on every level and none of it was necessary.

That child was different in the respect that she wasn't able to even get up or walk about....and she was no more at risk to be sexually assaulted than that of every other comatose, conscious or semi-conscious patient.

[Hopefull2009]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

Oh, it's a complex process, is it? I must not understand that, because it isn't as if I already mentioned that very fact.

Oh, wait a minute...

If you had bothered to read the section and any of the pamphlet at all, it referred to both minors and impaired adults.

You wanted a legal reference. Well now you have one.

[bollweevil]

Originally Posted by Hopefull2009

Call me cruel, but I agree with the guardian.

People who are mentally disabled are not capable of managing birth control or protecting themselves from STD's. She is certainly not capable of raising a child.

This is not even close to the same thing that was happening in the 40's and 50's where so many women were "fixed" against their will, that were TEMPORARY wards of the state and frequent misdiagnosis was taking place.

I personally think it should be expanded...if you give birth to a drug addicted baby, you should be sterilized before you leave the hospital. If you are a known, convicted prostitute, I think you should be sterilized if you are HIV+.

What should happen to the johns?