From the article:

“This outcome has been driven by the bleak yet undisputed evidence that a further pregnancy would be a significantly life-threatening event for [the woman].”

Having a child would be life-endangering for her, regardless of who the father is. The reverse is not true.

of IQ.

as the US Supreme Court so loveingly stated.

other line, Capt. Walker the slaver who died on the shores of Maryland.
'Five generations of criminals are enough'.

Judi Lynn about 300,000 poor, indigenous women in Peru who were sterilized by the Minister of Heath, a UN Dept. (and USAID I think) in the mid-late 1990s during Clinton. The women were forced, tricked or intimidated into going to tent clinics for the procedure. Most of the women are now around 45 years of age and childless with no family or state support network to help them as they grow old. But eugenics, sexism and bigotry are alive and well. In the US, a few months ago an old, white AZ state senator said immigrant women should be sterilized. I believe he resigned; don't recall the reason or his name.

sterilization was. Recall that Sweden was one of the later countries in Europe to end 20th cent. eugenics sterilizations, maybe as late as the 1960s- what criminal US & European policy. Cruel world, especially if you aren't rich.

However, I can't find an authoritative source to back this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden

Details and map here: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/most-european-countries-force-sterilization-transgender-people-map

But sex changes generally effectively do sterilize a person, and I think the sterilization requirement was so that no medical harm could be imputed.

What I mean is that they do not want to prevent people from having kids after they have had a sex change - they rather want not to do the sex change if it involves imputable harm to the person, which medical harm involves sterilization of a person. Removal of organ function - sex change operations do involve sterilization.

The hormones alone that are involved in gender reassignments would generally mess up reproductive capacity.

The complete operations are a sterilization. A female transitioning to a male will generally have a complete hysterectomy (uterus and ovaries along with breast reduction. A male will have the testicles removed and the penis is removed but a lot of tissue is supposed to be kept to be reformed into a clitoris/vagina with nerve sensation.

Now, one could argue that sterilization beforehand is just another unnecessary step, but it does make matters clear, and if the person has hesitation about sterilization, I don't think that person is psychologically prepared to fully transition.

Men don't have ovaries and a uterus.

And transgender men undergoing FTM hormone therapy have increased risks if they keep their ovaries and uterus, since the ovaries and uterus were not meant to receive an onslaught of testosterone. I would imagine that has something to do with the law in those various European countries, which have actually been pretty progressive in the area of trans rights.

that was effecting her whole life - 15 years of deep depression and pain. The doctor suggested using a medication to see if sterilization would help her. We used the med for one year but then it had to be stopped because no one had ever used it longer. The alternatives were go back to the depression and pain or sterilization.

At that point in our state I had to go to the courts and get permission for the surgery because in the past this had been used as a eugenics measure. The courts asked me and the doctor one question: is this medically necessary and why.

She had the surgery and has been fine ever since. Having children was never an option for her as she does not understand sex and related issues at all. Her disability requires total care and constant supervision for safety issues.

Courts need to have the option to use sterilization for medical reasons and HOPEFULLY they will be given the truth and not bigoted reasoning to come to the conclusion. But sterilization cannot just be made illegal.

he refuses to talk to social services.

get married and have children. There are not many of them that reach that level of ability but those that do are not discriminated against. At least in my state. The father most likely also has learning difficulties.

used learning difficulties so I did to. I think that phrase is actually a very bad choice of labels since as you point out it includes persons who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions and raising their own children and persons who do not have those capabilities.

So the persons I am talking about are most often not able to make decision, need a guardian, have at most a limited understanding of sexuality and need help raising their children on a permanent basis.

I didn't realize the Swedish woman had reduced decision making ability even from reading the article last night. The necessity of sterilizing transgender people I don't understand & it does recall the atrocities of forced unwarranted sterilizations from state eugenics policies & practices of the Nazis. Many women undergo a hysterectomy by choice for medical reasons like benign tumor fibroids & other problems. I don't believe the term sterilization is used in those situations. For years I worked with blind & visually impaired persons, many of whom were very accompished employees and excellent parents.

Depression in Europe, the comeback of the fascist right, and now eugenics. I keep wondering if the 30s is happening all over again.

quite make the F. connection then, but do now cuz it's really here--as Sinclair Lewis wrote in 1936, 'It Can't Happen here'. It's the New 30s, for real.

and their children. Take the children out of the home or use PCAs to help raise the children. In my state we chose the last option unless there was abuse involved. There are not many cases like this because families of the developmentally disabled client are usually very helpful in getting birth control or just keeping their adult members out of sexual relationships.

If the UK is using sterilization as a eugenics tool that is horrible but the article states medical reasons.

=

"“The ethical, legal and medical issues arising here are self-evidently of the utmost gravity, engaging, and profoundly impacting upon (the woman’s) personal autonomy, privacy, bodily integrity, and reproductive rights.”

“This case is not about eugenics.

“This outcome has been driven by the bleak yet undisputed evidence that a further pregnancy would be a significantly life-threatening event for (the woman.)”"

Judges were probably also saying that in 1933 at the beginning of Action T4.

agreed that it was for her own safety because shes to impaired to make sound decisions.

Whatever the rationalisations are, sterilising someone against their will is an authoritarian step too far, IMO.

argument your going to try next there and yes its possible they were biased but its stretching the whole conspiracy thing a bit far because if they are then so are all the doctors who have seen her and everyone else involved in the case.

But considering what has been (and is) going on in the UK since the Tories got in, it's not actually that far removed - even more so if they go into coalition with far right UKIP after May's General Election.

The Tory message to disabled people: you’re just not worth it
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/15/tory-message-disabled-lord-freud-minimum-wage

UN Committe investigate UK government over Disabled Support
http://www.able2uk.com/news/disabilities/un-committe-investigate-uk-government-over-disabled-support.html

The work capability assessment and suicide – a.k.a. ‘chequebook euthanasia’
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/12/07/the-work-capability-assessment-and-suicide-a-k-a-chequebook-euthanasia/

Work capability assessor asked why depressed claimant had not committed suicide
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/12/06/work-capability-assessor-asked-why-depressed-claimant-had-not-committed-suicide/

UK Sleepwalking into Fascism: Workhouses for Disabled, The #RacistVan, Racial Profiling
http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/02/uk-sleepwalking-into-fascism-workhouses-for-disabled-the-racistvan-racial-profiling/

Counting the corpses
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2013/04/counting-corpses-atos-wca.html

The disability witch hunt continues
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-disability-witch-hunt-continues.html

And yes the varies governments of the world from time to time have tried such BS but that doesnt mean that is whats happening here.
Does it need to be monitored? Sure I agree with that because its always possible they could try it again.

There is a large and growing group of victims and concerned activists in the UK who disagree with it.

Even the UN are investigating what's going on...

I presume you agree that there are situations in which another pregnancy can be a severe threat to a woman's health. And that it's possible it could happen to a woman who doesn't have the capacity to consent (she has an IQ of about 70).

My opinion is that enforced sterilisation is an authoritarian practice I find very difficult to condone.

of the person. In this case, both the woman and any future children would be at risk ("Doctors said the wall of her uterus was "tissue-paper thin" and likely to rupture in childbirth, leading to almost certain death of the infant.&quot

Do you think the couple would be up to bringing up future children? If not (and that is the opinion of the professionals who know them, and who have taken the previous 6 children into care), do you think she would have a happier life getting pregnant again, and having another baby taken away after a risky pregnancy?

ones because when they become easy is when you really need to start worrying.

women face this issue of life threatening pregnancies. It is not unusual. And as the mother of a developmentally disabled daughter I am wondering what you would suggest be done? Let her die or follow the advice of the doctor and maybe a second opinion.

Sometimes you have to trust someone. And it is not as if there are all kinds disabled people being rounded up for sterilization in the UK. If that were the case then we should be very upset.

My family were victims of Eugenics in the late 20s here in the US. But medical use of sterilization was not the problem.

should be able to make this decision. Having daughters, I could not imagine what it would be like if one was mentally disabled, but was popping out a baby every few years! Yikes. Break her heart and forcibly remove the baby, or am I stuck raising the kids?

Of course, the question should be, "how disabled" must one be before taking away reproductive rights? Put on birth control? Forced abortion? Forced sterilization? It is a very sensitive subject and one we might not want to consider, but for the responsible parties living through it, they live it every day.

is currently pregnant with her seventh child. All six of her other children are being raised by her elderly parents. They are trying to secure alternative arrangements in case they are no longer able, such as finding other relatives to care for them.
The woman goes from rehab, release, jail, release, rehab, etc.
Her husband also has drug addiction and alternates between jail sentences.

What to do about something like this. The children will eventually be separated and sent to various relatives or foster care. There will likely be more children to come.

are at risk of being born disabled themselves. At present the courts are terminating parental rights and the children can be adopted. Also I know that sometimes the family has the services of PCAs and councilors and all these helpers try to talk the family into sterilization. We do not have a good answer for this.

Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2015, 07:19 AM - Edit history (1)

is woefully ignorant on issues like these. So lets lay it out from a parents point of view who has a Intellectually Disabled Female teenager.
Like most Intellectually Disabled she is highly sexualised, statistically people with I.D engage in more frequent sex as a means of pleasure the same as you or I. The difference is usually it is their only source of connection as they don't have the skills to emotionally bond due to their Disability.
Judging from the article she has some skills to live in the community with support, but not disabled enough to be in State institutionalised care.
Managing her personal cares and medication properly seems to be beyond her skill level as well as maintaining her health during pregnancy. This is backed up by all of her children being removed by the State.
Calls for the father to be sterilised or take responsibility is again woefully ignorant. In all probabilities the Father is statistically Intellectually Disabled as well. Birds of a feather. Relationships in the community are nearly always within their peer group as they develop over many years. It is important to remember that the Disabled community is a silent community within a community (Yours)
Lastly with the outcry of forced sterilisation and the comments about Eugenics, People need to empathise that not all people should have children even thought it is a Human right. Especially some Intellectually Disabled.
Take my Daughter as an example. A teenager with an Intellectual disability so severe she is unable to read or write and has virtually no cognition or ability to make an informed consent to anything.
Make no mistake, if she were to become pregnant it is rape plain and simple. There is no grey area or "I thought she consented"
A pregnancy which she has no understanding on how to manage. A pregnancy that will result in the immediate removal of the child by the state.
Is she does become pregnant the best and safest option for her would be Abortion. To do this i would have to get the court to agree as she is over 16 and "Has the Human right" to make her own choice.
You ask a preschooler if she wants to give birth to her own baby, Would you ask that of your own able bodied Daughter? Choose now.
She will be in effect a sex offenders perfect victim, easily manipulated and one who does not have the skills to defend herself or cry rape.
So the question I must ask is, Where are the defenders of Women's rights now?
Where is her right to be safe from sexual exploitation?
Would I get my child sterilised? In a heart beat, no second thoughts and no regrets.

As to the danger of able bodied being sterilised against the consent, that should be never allowed. I advocate for medical boards to meet to discuss any case as needed regarding women's health and the intellectually disabled.
Medical issues around the disabled are well documented and Numerous specialists are involved in their care as well as community support workers and Special needs schools and other Government agencies.
Everyday issues around women's health can have a profound effect on the person and can cause lifetime psychological trauma.
You try explaining to someone who is disabled every month year in and year out why she is bleeding and in pain. Try explaining why it is not OK to show Daddy where she is bleeding.
When you have walked in our shoes even for one day then offer an opinion. Sometimes the best people to make a decision around issues like these are the Medical professionals and Lawyers. The right decision has been made in this single case as it was decided based solely on professional evidence with the best interests of the person involved. Sometime just sometimes, Advocates for the Disabled have a minor victory hard fought for in the best interests of the Disabled person and their limited quality of life. After all isn't the quality of life for the intellectually disabled the most important thing? Especially since they have already lost so much without any fault of their own. Look around you own home, look at you spouse and own children. Look at your Holiday pictures and of yourself riding a bike as a kid. Most Intellectually Disabled will never achieve those most simple things we all take for granted. We all have one life to live, lets do all we can to make theirs an enjoyable one.

If this couple were to break up and she started having sex with someone else, then giving the father a vasectomy would have solved nothing (and, yes, her long-term partner "also has learning disabilities&quot .

The Disabled rarely have relationships outside the community especially with her IQ being 70

with the idea of medical boards when courts make these decisions. I am lucky regarding this my own daughter has total care and 24 hour supervision. Sexuality has never been a problem.

The people upthread who are bleating about "Eugenics" either haven't read the
facts about this case or are too stupid to understand anything other than slogans.

It won't happen, but I have my own theory that I truly think would work.
When any woman goes into the hospital to have their third child, the government could offer a free steriliization AND a one time bonus payment of $ 5,000. Would many women take it? Who knows. But I suspect that many people would, especially poor women. Is this pitting poor against wealthy? Yes; obviously wealthy women won't take the deal. But most wealthy people don't have more than three children anyway.
I have a cousin who is mentally ill and been on SSDI since age 18. She had 2 (maybe 3) babies which were adopted. Smoked and drank thru all pregnancies. . Her parents and social workers finally convinced her to get sterilized. I often wonder how well those children are doing.

had nine children before she had her tubes tied after giving birth to the ninth child while she was in prison. There were 5 different fathers. All 9 of her children were taken away. Some raised by family members others were put up for closed adoption. Part me does not find this decision harsh. Part of me thinks we just spared future innocence and society.

I wonder why an IUD placement was considered?