U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2019, 09:44 AM
 
7,578 posts, read 2,225,450 times
Reputation: 9129

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
In the New York Times article you provided a link to?



There are no good outcomes here, only less bad ones.
No. That means she is developmentally disabled. Not mentally ill. There's a difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2019, 09:48 AM
 
15,438 posts, read 7,880,354 times
Reputation: 8002
Disturbing story....

I'll note that at 22 weeks the delivery would basically be a "labor" process so the idea that giving birth naturally would be traumatic is kind of odd to me.

I'm glad the termination was not forced. The fact that the mother offered to care for the child should have been of paramount importance and the fact that the patient expressed a desire to carry to term. IMO just because someone has an LD or mental health condition doesn't mean they cannot think and make a decision.

I'll note I'm VERY pro-choice but it was odd to me that this was even considered (the termination) given the circumstances. It should not have been. I agree that this is an example of how government should not be involved in the medical decisions of families. I also feel that the idea that someone diagnosed with a mental condition can have their rights and medical decisions negated could be discriminatory. The description of this woman's condition doesn't seem to warrant her being deemed incapable of making decisions for herself or at least not to have her beliefs taken into consideration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 10:35 AM
 
32,448 posts, read 16,623,734 times
Reputation: 17458
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
No. That means she is developmentally disabled. Not mentally ill. There's a difference.
Consider that hair duly split, then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
I agree that this is an example of how government should not be involved in the medical decisions of families. ... The description of this woman's condition doesn't seem to warrant her being deemed incapable of making decisions for herself or at least not to have her beliefs taken into consideration.
It's a horrid situation, all right. Her mental stats appears to rule out an informed choice, so someone else will ultimately choose for her. Problem lies in deciding whether it's in her best interest to carry to term or to have the pregnancy terminated. Yes, she certainly has a right to an opinion, but we routinely make medical decisions against the will of 6-9 year olds, and sometimes over the objections of their parents as well.

Damn happy it's not my job to decide that sort of stuff. And someone really dropped the ball by allowing her to get pregnant in the first place. A 6-9 year old can't consent to - anything, really. Who is the creep?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 12:13 PM
 
15,438 posts, read 7,880,354 times
Reputation: 8002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
It's a horrid situation, all right. Her mental stats appears to rule out an informed choice, so someone else will ultimately choose for her. Problem lies in deciding whether it's in her best interest to carry to term or to have the pregnancy terminated. Yes, she certainly has a right to an opinion, but we routinely make medical decisions against the will of 6-9 year olds, and sometimes over the objections of their parents as well.

Damn happy it's not my job to decide that sort of stuff. And someone really dropped the ball by allowing her to get pregnant in the first place. A 6-9 year old can't consent to - anything, really. Who is the creep?

Honestly, I don't necessarily believe she has the mental capacity of a 6-9 year old since there are conflicting media accounts about her mental state. Another description just stated she was "moderately" delayed and had a "mood disorder." Those don't equal a 6-9 year old mental capacity alone. I also wonder if she was raped and that brings to light a whole lot of other things that are disturbing.

But IMO if she can communicate and can think, she should have a say. Even if she has the mental capacity of 6-9 most children that age can learn about childbirth and know what it is as well. I taught my daughter everything about reproduction prior to age 6. She even watched a video of a birth in kindergarten.

But the pregnancy in an of itself, if it has been uncomplicated thus far, is not a threat to her life nor much of a threat to her mental state IMO. I'm glad they ruled against the abortion and IMO it is sad that any pro-choice wing were "pushing" for the abortion. Abortions IMO should be left up to the patient and her family. In this case, the mother of the patient is there and able to take care of the child. Unless the patient explicitly doesn't want to have a child, there is no reason for this to even have been put into the hands of the courts or psychologists. But of course there may be other things going on. It is just a slippery slope IMO that someone who has a "moderate" delay and a mood disorder can be deemed inappropriate to give birth and forced to have an abortion. IMO that would be just as traumatic as giving birth. Choice means choice for me - as noted I'm VERY pro-choice. This situation the choice should be left with the patient and her family and an investigation pursued to figure out how she became pregnant if she was in an inpatient care facility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 04:59 PM
 
12,657 posts, read 10,497,278 times
Reputation: 17561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
According to the media reports, the court was told last week that the woman had a “moderately severe” learning disorder and a mood disorder.

The learing disorder means she has the mental age of between 6 to 9 years old according to court reports, whilst the mood disorder is an on-going problem, it's exact nature has not been fully disclosed.

Appeal court overturns forced abortion ruling - The Guardian

Acts such as the 1989 Children's Act and 2005 Mental Capacity Act allow for a legal guardian to be appointed in such cases, when there is a dispute between the family and health care professionals. All Court rullings must also adhere to the European Covention on Human Rights and the subsequent 1998 Human Rights Act in relation to Btitish Law.

Mental Capacity Act 2005 - Wikipedia

If this is true, I am not sure someone with the mental capacity of a small child even can make this decision on her own. I don't know that this decision being made for her is right either way, I don't think it's clear cut. It's an all around sucky situation, and I am assuming, given her state, that she was probably raped. I don't know how someone that disabled can consent to sex, truly. Unless it was with another equally disabled person, then he would be less culpable.

Can a women in her mental state handle being pregnant, giving birth, having her baby taken to be raised by her mom? Should someone like this be forced to be pregnant? I am not sure she can make this decision for herself nor am I sure her mother is qualified to decide for her because I am sure she is biased, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but she may not truly have her own daughter's best interests in mind if she is thinking about raising the baby. She is thinking about the after, not the now, not what this will do to her daughter. Of course she wants the baby, she is thinking emotionally.

From the Guardian article you linked:

Quote:
The NHS trust that is caring for the woman had sought the court’s permission for doctors to terminate the pregnancy. Three specialists, an obstetrician and two psychiatrists, said a termination was the best option because of the risk to the woman’s psychiatric health if pregnancy continued.

Both the woman and her mother were opposed to the abortion, and the woman’s mother had offered to care for the child. A social worker who works with the woman said the pregnancy should continue.

The court was told last week that the woman had a “moderately severe” learning disorder and a mood disorder.

The judge said she was not sure the woman understood what having a baby meant. “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,” Lieven said.
Not an easy situation with an easy answer either way, imho. Just sad all around. Sad for the woman, her family, and yeah, sad for the child who may be born, with what may well be a rapist bio dad and a bio mom who it seems will never be competent. No one wins here. Living isn't an automatic win, as pro-lifers would probably argue, getting to be born and live, because this whole situation is filled with sadness. Some day the kid will probably learn the truth and circumstances of his or her whole existence, that there's a criminal investigation looking into how mom got pregnant, there was fighting in court over whether she is competent to have a child, decide for herself, and whether she should be made to have an abortion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2019, 03:32 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
11,617 posts, read 3,974,177 times
Reputation: 7199
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post

If this is true, I am not sure someone with the mental capacity of a small child even can make this decision on her own. I don't know that this decision being made for her is right either way, I don't think it's clear cut. It's an all around sucky situation, and I am assuming, given her state, that she was probably raped. I don't know how someone that disabled can consent to sex, truly. Unless it was with another equally disabled person, then he would be less culpable.
The Childrens Act 1989, is usually the legislation used in relation to children, and it is designed to safeguard children and adhere to human rights. The child's view may be stated, however the child may have a legal guardian appointed in terms of a lawyer,

Children Act 1989 - Wikipedia


Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl
Can a women in her mental state handle being pregnant, giving birth, having her baby taken to be raised by her mom? Should someone like this be forced to be pregnant? I am not sure she can make this decision for herself nor am I sure her mother is qualified to decide for her because I am sure she is biased, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but she may not truly have her own daughter's best interests in mind if she is thinking about raising the baby. She is thinking about the after, not the now, not what this will do to her daughter. Of course she wants the baby, she is thinking emotionally.

From the Guardian article you linked:

Not an easy situation with an easy answer either way, imho. Just sad all around. Sad for the woman, her family, and yeah, sad for the child who may be born, with what may well be a rapist bio dad and a bio mom who it seems will never be competent. No one wins here. Living isn't an automatic win, as pro-lifers would probably argue, getting to be born and live, because this whole situation is filled with sadness. Some day the kid will probably learn the truth and circumstances of his or her whole existence, that there's a criminal investigation looking into how mom got pregnant, there was fighting in court over whether she is competent to have a child, decide for herself, and whether she should be made to have an abortion.
The initial Court of Protection (High Court) Case used these issues to rule in favour of an abortion, however the Court of Appeal overruled the decision a few days later.

The main reason being that the child's future is a seperate situation, and the child would be supported by social services and the health authority.

In terms of two articles of the European Convention on Human Rights that may have led to the original decision, they are ;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Equality and Human Rights Commission

Article 14 requires that all of the rights and freedoms set out in the Act must be protected and applied without discrimination

Discrimination occurs when you are treated less favourably than another person in a similar situation and this treatment cannot be objectively and reasonably justified. Discrimination can also occur if you are disadvantaged by being treated the same as another person when your circumstances are different (for example if you are disabled or pregnant).

Article 14 is based on the core principle that all of us, no matter who we are, enjoy the same human rights and should have equal access to them.

What type of discrimination does the Act protect you from?

The Human Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate on a wide range of grounds including ‘sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status’.

The case law relating to this right has shown that the term ‘other status’ includes sexual orientation, illegitimacy, marital status, trade union membership, transsexual status and imprisonment. It can also be used to challenge discrimination on the basis of age or disability.


Article 14: Protection from discrimination | Equality and Human Rights Commission

Quote:
Originally Posted by Equality and Human Rights Commission

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private and family life

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private life, your family life, your home and your correspondence (letters, telephone calls and emails, for example).

What is meant by private life?

You have the right to live your life privately without government interference.

The courts have interpreted the concept of ‘private life’ very broadly. It covers things like your right to determine your sexual orientation, your lifestyle, and the way you look and dress. It also includes your right to control who sees and touches your body. For example, this means that public authorities cannot do things like leave you undressed in a busy ward, or take a blood sample without your permission.

The concept of private life also covers your right to develop your personal identity and to forge friendships and other relationships. This includes a right to participate in essential economic, social, cultural and leisure activities. In some circumstances, public authorities may need to help you enjoy your right to a private life, including your ability to participate in society.

This right means that the media and others can be prevented from interfering in your life. It also means that personal information about you (including official records, photographs, letters, diaries and medical records) should be kept securely and not shared without your permission, except in certain circumstances.

What is meant by family life?

You have the right to enjoy family relationships without interference from government. This includes the right to live with your family and, where this is not possible, the right to regular contact.

‘Family life’ can include the relationship between an unmarried couple, an adopted child and the adoptive parent, and a foster parent and fostered child.


Article 8: Respect for your private and family life | Equality and Human Rights Commission

There is also Article 2, which is a 'Right to Life' however the European Courts tend not to use Article 2, as such decisions are controversial and the European Courts usually back national courts.


Last edited by Brave New World; 06-26-2019 at 03:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2019, 09:24 AM
 
16,597 posts, read 14,072,956 times
Reputation: 20560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
So another kid, from a parent with no way to provide for it, with a higher likelihood of being mentally incompetent (due to the mother's genes)-that the taxpayers will have to provide for, probably for life. Great choice right there, letting her give birth.
Yes it is a great choice to allow people to exercise their own body autonomy. Shame on your for suggesting otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2019, 09:49 AM
 
270 posts, read 71,416 times
Reputation: 670
Very sad story and I hope that they put her on BC so this doesn’t happen again. I think it’s reasonable for her mom to make the decision especially since she is willing to raise the baby.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2019, 09:51 AM
 
17,770 posts, read 19,801,203 times
Reputation: 7435
Government making decisions to abort your baby against your wishes.... Is this the future of Democratic party? Duh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2019, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY
35,478 posts, read 10,496,499 times
Reputation: 33589
This is the U.K. today--the state decides.

How soon we forget Charlie Gard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top