Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 cookie22222
Joined: 8/4/2007
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.Page 6 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Yes I know...that was sort of my point, it gets done more often than you think. I also think that even if you have the paper in your hand - if it's something that isn't more run of the mill you may very well end up back in court, and definitely will in the circumstances above. I think often the disabled person's "advocate" who may be appointed in these cases can be the one to get public opinion involved, hoping that pressure on the court will weigh in their favor.

Of course, in this case any advocate won't have to be the one to take the subsequent baby out of this woman's arms. Or be there when she is upset that it was taken from her. Or when she flies into a rage, or goes into a depression over the whole thing.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 72
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/23/2011 12:11:43 PM
ecial procedure must be followed which involves
many protections for the limited conservatee. These protections
include: mandatory appointment of counsel for the limited
conservatee, appointment of a "facilitator" to assist the
limited conservatee, assembly of a special panel of experts to
personally interview the limited conservatee and make a
recommendation to the court, and investigation by the
appropriate regional center.




Which brings me back to my original point ,Why is some friggen bureaucrat deciding this case? It shouldn't be left to the courts/politicians, I think its should be a team of doctors deciding this , especially if there isnt a legal guardian in place.


Ok...a guardian is for a minor only...a conservator for minors and adults..a guardian or a conservator need not be an immediate realitive it can be a third party...or it can be a parent-guardian or conservator....minor's gaurdians are there parents right off the bat-unless Child Protective Services has removed this right.

Sterilization of a conservatee is not left to politicians...it's left to the court to decide on a case by case upon completion of a study by a panel of experts....Of course all this is what we do in the states...on a state by state basis and what I'm showing is California...

But, what I've shown is that a "limited conservator" needs to have a special appointment as the consentor for the consentee who lacks the ability to give "informed consent"

A "full conservator" with medical appointment power is able to give consent because the conservatee is already deemed unable to give consent.

Where I get confused is the rules for sterilization apply to "limited conservatorship"...Now I see why this goes to the court...they referee the whole process.

Anyway...it does seem like a good process that a team of specialists gets together....determines the medical necessity...and determines to what degree the conservatee is unable to give "informed consent"....in this manner peoples who actually understand whats happening (not all challanged have the same degree of challange) would not be sterilized against their wishes.

There was a discussion about eugenics...I don't see any genetic engineering here...just people trying to make the best decision possible for all involved....and I'm thinking this is the case for the Mum and daughter in England...pretty much the same proceedure...see if the daughter understands...and is capable of giving "informed consent"
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 74
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/23/2011 2:15:20 PM
Hey, I'm not the one who was ranting about sterilizing women who give birth to handicapped children and raving about the government getting into someones uterus.
Some are making this one matter, being studied and decided by a court of law, is greasing the skids at the top of the "slippery slope" and that forced birth control and euthanasia of any group deemed problematic will become reality in a short time.
I'm simply inviting those who see a problem to be a part of the solution. Personally, I think both the mother/grandmother AND the court are trying to do whats' best for everyone in a difficult situation. I doubt that it can be GOOD for this challenged young woman to be popping out kid after kid,and having them put up for adoption.
And does anybody besides me feel a little nauseous about the idea of males who would take advantage of a woman who is of diminished mental capacity.
It's been my observation, in a couple of cases with close friends or extended family, that many mentally challenged women who ARE capable of living more or less independently really have very little judgement and impulse control when it comes to sex. A lot of them really do love children but could NOT raise children without a great deal of assistance on many levels.
Cindy O
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 76
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/23/2011 4:15:32 PM

And does anybody besides me feel a little nauseous about the idea of males who would take advantage of a woman who is of diminished mental capacity


Yep...the sight of two mentally challanged people bumpin' ugglies at the adult day care just makes me puke.
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 77
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/23/2011 4:17:18 PM
I don't think the problem is with the extreme cases, where the answer is pretty obvious to almost anybody.

The problem is where the cases are NOT so obvious and cut & dried - that's when you get into the messy questions of who gets to decide, and on what basis.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 79
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/23/2011 4:29:36 PM
TDH
go back and read the OT-from the way it's worded, I don't think that the mentally challenged young womans' parents are getting ANY assistance and maybe they don't WANT to permit their daughter to keep reproducing and FORCING the family onto assistance.
I understand the slippery slope concern, but it sounds like this is an established process with checks and balances in place.
Otherwise, why shouldn't the mother/grandmother exercise HER right to a peaceful retirement by putting her sexually irresponsible daughter and her offspring out on the street? If the young woman has reached the legal age threshold of adulthood, it seems to me like the parents could say they'd done their part, they won't be responsible anymore for her, her behavior or the consequences of her behavior.
Or perhaps putting the challenged young woman in an institutional setting would be the answer.
It sounds to me like the parents of this impaired young woman are trying to do whats' best for their daughter without putting themselves in the poorhouse or allowing their daughter to become a professional welfare mother.
I too hope that the court can simply order a reliable medically supervised longterm birth-control method to be administered to the young woman. And nobody is suggesting that this young woman be curbed in her reproductive behavior because there is or might be anything wrong with the existing children...its' simply a matter of her lack of self-control and sexual responsibilty is creating lives that SHE cannot care for, and perhaps her parents ARE looking ahead to what happens if they become incapacitated or pass away...what becomes of their challenged daughter and her houseful of kids that she can't look after? You don't think hearts aren't going to break if the court HAS to step in,in such an event, and the children are shipped off to foster homes and the mother is put in an adult foster care home?
And my comment about the young lady being taken advantage of , was based on a presumption that the men having sex with her are normal but can't get a woman of standard intellect and function to have sex with them. I suppose it IS possible that the male partner(s) are challenged men that she's meeting at adult day care or in the sheltered workshop. But it is not uncommon for a functional but challenged young female to be exploited by men who couldn't GET a woman of normal mental acuity.
IF the young lady was involved in a stable relationship, even if it were with a challenged man, it seems to me like there could be other alternatives-like HIS family contrbuting to the efforts to care for the children. For the mother to be seeking legal support for birth control or sterilization suggests that a stable relationship is NOT the case here.
Cindy O
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 81
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/23/2011 5:34:49 PM
Listen you all can sit here and try to read between the lines about how disabled this daughter is...was it a "normal" man who impregnated her...was it the same man the second time...is the daughter in a stable relationship....

Chryste on a friggin' crutch...we all read the sam article TDH posted...and ya'll could squeeze that much BS out of it???

We know nothing about the extent of the disability...we know:
1) ma ain't taken care O no more babies...
2)the court is waiting for more info to decide (OK...I read another article that said the court would have it's info in May to decide).

I may have forgot sumthin-but those are the facts.

How's about taking this debate around the world, or at least the POF world and discussing what different locals would do in such a case give the exact same details...

What are the proceedures followed...does it look like eugenics in some of these different locals...yanno...an intellectual debate...rather than makin up BS.
 LabradorOokpik
Joined: 6/30/2007
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/23/2011 11:00:53 PM
My last two psych texts (published within the last year or two) used the word "retarded" to describe people who are mentally challenged. Can't say it's a word I'd use, though, I feel uncomfortable with it personally, but it is used in texts.
 cookie22222
Joined: 8/4/2007
Msg: 91
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/24/2011 11:13:28 AM
Sterilization has a higher success rate than any birth control - and it's a one time deal. If the daughter is against any birth control, that could be a yearly battle. Possibly even a court battle each year, if a group with an agenda got involved.

As to the whole guardian/conservator/advocate thing - even when something has already legally been put into place, often times doctors and hospitals will ask for a court order for a specific treatment - CYA you know!
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/24/2011 9:21:36 PM
WTF? What massive can of worms of abuse? Are you kidding???? What is abusive is to let this woman, who obviously can't make proper decisions for herself, to just keep going out there and getting pregnant, which is abusive to her children. Can't you see, sterilization is the best possible answer. People, with any brains and an once of kindness, fix their pets so they don't just keep breeding because they don't know any better, yet you think this mentally disabled woman should be treated less than one would their pet dog? The mother is trying to help her child, she's trying to raise her grandchildren and she's trying to prevent anymore helpless innocent children from being brought into this world. I can't conceive of the mind set that would think pretending you could force birth control on this woman (already been tried by the way) when she refuses. I find the idea of just letting this poor woman with no mental capability to think this through nor to care for her kids or herself, but say to let her breed or to force something that hasn't worked before on her and take any chance of bringing more children into her life. That's insane!

She has two children that she cannot care for, and you say she's being abused by not being able to have more? What, should she used birth control (mind you already been tried and is not nearly as healthy for her to take anyway) by force but not sterilized by force? Are you expecting her to find an answer to her mental disability and then want more children? This isn't going to clear up with a bout of antibiotics. I can't believe you find forcing birth control (that has been tried and won't work for this situation) the answer but sterilization to be abusive! I'm beyond amazed at how weird this thinking is.

How is this woman being abused by being sterilized so she can at least have a life without more children she's unable to care for? As said in another post, she could then at least have boyfriends, go out, have sex, etc., enjoy a life as best she can, but no you think forcing birth control on her is the answer??? I'm just totally perplexed by this. By what reasoning is it okay to force her to use birth control, (was already tried and didn't work) but it's not okay to force a sterilization on her for her own good?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 96
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/25/2011 9:58:34 AM
I hope people don't think things like this are just a matter of coming up with the right solution. In the U.S., at least, we don't just limit someone's rights because most of us seem to think it makes sense. There's also the little matter of first making it legal to do that. Judges can only act within the law--without a state law authorizing sterilization under some circumstances, no judge could order it, no matter how great a solution it seemed to be.
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/25/2011 11:35:56 AM
Yes of course, since I see this as best for all involved, because this case is effecting the whole family and this woman has no mental control over what is best for her, her kids, and those who will have to take care of her & her kids....of course I'm some sort of thief who would take your finger. Can this get more ridiculous? Do you really think that because the best answer is a hard answer, that it must be wrong. Did you miss the part where your answer has been tried and did not work and won't work in the future?

I don't normally get this fired up but my gawd, there are children involved, innocent, helpless human beings and your answer is to play with their lives a bit longer, just in case you could force some sort of usable birth control on her...for what, a day, a week, a year....then what? And please understand, birth control isn't 100% when used properly by mentally functional people, this is insane to think it's okay to maybe bring another baby into this just for a chance that this woman isn't sterilized. And why, why is her being sterilized such a wrong way to go for you?

I am truly baffled by your thinking on this.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 100
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/25/2011 1:00:15 PM
Well, the only other answer I can see is for the mother to put this developmentally disabled woman and her present children out of her home...let the state take care of her and let the state look after however many kids she pops out.
Cindy O
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 101
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/25/2011 1:17:52 PM

The US is notorious for human rights and very unwilling to remove them despite diminished capacity.


I looked into this a little, and the Court held in a 1942 case, Skinner v. Oklahoma, that it was unconstitutional to sterilize criminals. But it has never overruled its 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell, where it upheld Virginia's sterilization of a "feeble-minded" woman.

Even so, the thirty-odd state laws which used to authorize sterilization have long since disappeared, and if a state passed one now, it's very hard to imagine the Court upholding it. The Court has held that the right to have children is "fundamental." This is not an American case, though, so who knows?
 sexyisback!
Joined: 9/14/2010
Msg: 102
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/25/2011 1:36:51 PM

The US is notorious for human rights and very unwilling to remove them despite diminished capacity. It just wouldn't fly here.


in recent years, perhaps yes. Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back, US was one of the last countries to ban slavery in the 19th century, locked up citizens of Japanese descent for no other reason than their skin color/heritage during WW II (as did Canada & other countries).

Within living memory of many, many people, (1960's) the US held property rights far higher than human (civil ) rights, e.g. a restaurant/bar, hotel/apartment, etc. owner had the right to refuse service to people because he didn't like the color of their skin, etc. Many many places had separate washroom or drinking fountain facilities based on race; blacks were required to "sit at the rear of the bus"..Some state Governors enforced school segregation (Faubus et al)

It was not until 1949 I believe that black people (Negroes) were deemed fit to serve in the armed forces alongside whites.
.IT was OK for many to die in segregated units, before then however .

Rose colored glasses to view history don't help us understand human motives.
 sexyisback!
Joined: 9/14/2010
Msg: 104
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/25/2011 1:49:53 PM
^^

No I certainly know that Canada is not innocent, that's why I mentioned Japanese-Cdn. internment camps above..and also I know about discrimination against other races, Africville destruction in NS, etc. And Canada dealt in slaves too, just got out of it before the US did.

Was just responding to the other posters' typical American attitude that the US is the world's leader/center in all things related to human rights (well, ALL things, really, all things that matter in any way)

I believe that black people would have been referred to as "Negroes" in 1940's USA, yes
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 108
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/25/2011 8:45:09 PM
So you are under the impression that if this mother is able to have her mentally challenged daughter sterilized, that the whole of all mental disabled people will be sterilized against their will? You think that's how the system works? You don't think courts will be looking at each case and it's evidence, they will just co-sign all mentally ill people's fertility away?

Not all mentally disabled people are incapable of having children they want and taking care of them. It always has to be on a case-by-case basis. I have no idea how skin color got involved in this thread.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 112
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/26/2011 9:07:50 PM
Ummmm Folks...this case isn't ground breaking...it isn't precident setting...there's literature all over the place on how and when a mentally retarded person can be sterilized...there are proceedures in place in the UK, Canada, and the US...

Here's the US standard:

Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions at IIT

CSEP Home Programs Library About Us Publications
PROGRAMS Codes of Ethics Introduction Index Of Codes Mental Health/CounselingUsing a Code of Ethics Authoring a Code of Ethics Function and Value of Codes of Ethics Bibliography Other Codes of Ethics Collections Ethics Across the Curriculum Ethics Bowl IIT Code of Ethics Nano Ethics Bank Software Engineering Archive
Print | Email

American Association on Mental Retardation (formerly American Association on Mental Deficiency)

Organization : American Association on Mental Retardation

Source : CSEP Library

Date Approved : March 1974
Other Version(s) in our collection : None
Disclaimer : Please note the codes in our collection might not necessarily be the most recent versions. Please contact the individual organizations or their websites to verify if a more recent or updated code of ethics is available. CSEP does not hold copyright on any of the codes of ethics in our collection. Any permission to use the codes must be sought from the individual organizations directly.


Sterilization of Persons Who Are Mentally Retarded

I.Introduction

Mentally retarded persons have the same basic rights as other citizens. (1) Among these rights are the rights, in conformance with state and local law, to marry, to engage in sexual activity, to have children and to control one's own fertility by any legal means available. Since sterilization is a method of contraception available to most North American adults, this option should be open to most retarded citizens as well.

However, recent reports on cases involving the sterilization of mentally retarded individuals without even the most elementary legal and procedural safeguards raise serious questions concerning the adequacy of current efforts to protect the human and constitutional rights of such citizens. Indications that retarded persons have been involuntarily rendered incapable of procreation because of presumed social irresponsibility, real or supposed genetic defects, or as a quid pro quo for release from an institution or receipt of financial assistance and social services are deeply disturbing, to say the least.

The American Association on Mental Deficiency is pleased that various legislators, governmental agencies, and a few other professional organizations have begun to speak out on the issue of sterilization. We believe it is our obligation, as the oldest and largest organization of professionals in the field of mental retardation, to make known our position on the matter, especially as it relates to mentally retarded persons.

II.Definition of Terms

A.Sterilization:

A surgical procedure, the primary purpose of which is to render an individual incapable of procreating without impairing his or her capacity to engage in sexual activity.

■Commentary: Sterilization, as presently practiced, differs from other methods of contraception in that its effects are usually permanent. Reversal requires additional surgery which is not predictably successful.

In the medical context sterilization is considered an elective procedure; the consequences are major, although the surgery itself is frequently minor.

B.Voluntary Sterilization:

Refers to the performance of a sterilization procedure with the informed consent of the patient, or, where the patient cannot give "informed consent," but would presumably do so if competent, with the concurrence of his or her personal representative (acting as a surrogate) and a court, acting in his or her interest.

■Commentary: Currently (as of February, 1974), no jurisdiction has a statute prohibiting voluntary sterilization.(2) Such procedures are governed by the same general legal, ethical, and professional consideration's which apply to other forms of elective surgery. These considerations include informed consent, confidentiality of the patient-physician relationship, and the right and duty of the physician to refuse treatment which he or she believes is illegal, unethical, or medically unnecessary.

C.Involuntary Sterilization:

Refers to legally authorized sterilization of an individual without his or her consent, generally following professional review procedures set forth in law, but which is not voluntary as above defined.

■Commentary: Twenty-one states currently have statutes permitting involuntary sterilization. Host such laws were enacted in the early part of the twentieth century, and had "protection of society," rather than of the individual, as their justification; in recent years, however, there has been a marked decline in their application to mentally retarded persons.

D.Legally Incompetent Person:

An individual who has been so adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction.

■Commentary: Declarations of incompetence are ordinarily made by courts upon the advice of professionals. Persons so declared usually have guardians appointed by the Court to act in their behalf. Minors are generally considered incompetent under the laws of most states. The age of consent, which may be different from the age of majority in some states, is sometimes used as one basis for determining competence.

E.Person of Impaired Capacity:

An individual who has not been formally declared incompetent, but: (1) on the basis of professional assessment, is found to be sufficiently mentally impaired so as to be unlikely to make a reasoned and informed judgment about an issue as grave as sterilization; or (2) while possessing the mental capacity to make an informed judgment, is under some form of confinement or duress which limits his or bar freedom to exercise such judgment.

■Commentary: Within our society, there is a significant group of persons, who, while never adjudged legally incompetent, in fact lack the mental capacity to form a reasonable decision on serious issues such as sterilization. A second group of individuals also fall within our definition of a "person of impaired capacity." These individuals say possess the intellectual capability to sake reasonably complex decisions on their own behalf but are under the control of or dependent upon an institution, agency, or individual for their support or survival. In such cases, the individual's freedom to exercise unrestrained judgment is restricted by the nature of his or her dependence on the provider agency or individual. For example, regardless of how benevolent the purposes and practices of a public or private residential facility for the mentally retarded may be, the individual resident is constrained by his or bar dependence on the facility for treatment and daily sustenance and, as such, is a person of "impaired capacity." There should be no presumption of incompetence (or of competence) associated with the designation of an institutionalized person as "Impaired."

F.Court:

Usually reform to a state court having jurisdiction in matters of competence and/or commitment of mental patients; however, the tars, as used here, say also be construed to mean an administrative review board, authorized by statute, provided at least one member is an attorney and at least one member is a professional qualified In the clinical and social evaluation of mentally retarded persons.

III.Guidelines

A.Involuntary Sterilization:

The American Association on Mental Deficiency strongly opposes the enactment and application of statutes that permit Involuntary sterilization.

■Commentary: State statutes authorizing the involuntary sterilization of retarded persons are generally based on false and outmoded beliefs about the genetic mutability of mental retardation which were prevalent in the early part of this century. AAMD, therefore, favors the repeal of existing involuntary sterilization statutes affecting the mentally retarded and strongly discourages the application of such laws.

B.Voluntary Sterilization:

In order to facilitate protection of the rights of retarded citizens, and to guard against the possibility of imposing unwanted or unnecessary sterilizations, the general population can be divided into three classes: (1) competent persons or persons who are presumed to be competent; (2) legally incompetent persons; and (3) persons of impaired capacity.

1.Competent Persons: The competent person, or the person who is presumed to be competent, should have the right to exercise free and informed choice, without coercion or constraint, in the selection of contraceptive methods. Such an individual is not distinguished from any other citizen and therefore should be free to initiate the decision to control his or her own fertility and to elect the contraceptive method to be used, if any. Before such a person elects sterilization, the following conditions should be met:

a.He or she should be free from involuntary constraints, such as commitment or legal custody, and possible expressed or implied inducements or contingencies which are controlled by other individuals, agencies, or organizations.

b.Prior to reaching a decision, each individual should be informed about, and have access to, other less restrictive alternative forms of contraception. When other forms of contraception are provided they must be offered under circumstances which favor their effective use.

c.Prior to electing to be sterilized, the person should have a full explanation of the nature and likely consequences of the sterilization procedure and an opportunity to signify his or her understanding. If the person is unable to read, a verified record or transcription of the essential features of the oral interchange should be maintained.

■Commentary: The intent here is to assure the maximum possible participation of an individual in decisions regarding his or her reproductive capacity. Therefore, the most rigorous guarantees possible of this participation are to be exercised. For example, an illiterate person might be competent to make a decision regarding sterilization; in this case a simple written transcript would be insufficient, and procedures and other assurances should be followed to prevent any possibility of the individual's not participating fully in the decision.



2.Legally Incompetent Persons: A legally incompetent person should never be sterilized involuntarily, and should be voluntarily sterilized only in those exceptional circumstances which have been reviewed and approved by a court of competent jurisdiction. Such court proceedings should be conducted in a manner designed to afford the individual all the procedural safeguards necessary to protect his or her individual rights. In conducting its work, the court should review and affirm that all of the following conditions have been met.

a.The individual is presumed to be physiologically capable of procreation;

b.The individual is or is likely to be sexually active in the near future;

c.Pregnancy would not usually be intended by a competent person facing
analogous choices;

d.Less drastic alternative contraceptive methods have proved unworkable or are inapplicable;

e.The guardian of the person agrees that sterilization is a desirable course of action for his or her ward;

f.The Court has received advice based on a comprehensive medical, psychological, and social evaluation of the individual;

g.The person is represented by legal counsel with a demonstrated competence in dealing with the medical, legal, social, and ethical issues involved in sterilization;

h.The person, regardless of his or her level of competence, has been granted a full opportunity to express his or her views regarding sterilization and these views have been taken into account in determining whether to sterilize the individual.

■Commentary: An individual who is incompetent should not be denied access to sterilization however, the legal, social, ethical, and professional safeguards outlined above should be applied rigorously to assure that the best interest of the retarded individual remains paramount in the decision-making process.

3.Persons of Impaired Capacity: Persons of impaired capacity, as defined in II, E, above, should not be sterilized, except with the approval of a court of competent jurisdiction. The same conditions set forth for sterilization of legally incompetent persons under III, B, 2, above, should apply, except that the additional approval of the next of kin (or if lacking such kin, of a guardian ad litem) should be substituted for the consent of the legal guardian of the person, if there is no legal guardian other than a public official.

■Commentary: It is the intent of this guideline to ensure that retarded persons are afforded adequate safeguards against unwanted or unnecessary sterilizations. Therefore, where doubt exists as to whether the individual is capable of exercising an informed judgment or is under some form of custody or duress, the individual should be considered a "person of impaired capacity," and thereby afforded the additional protections offered under this guideline.

1. See Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons.

2. Based on information supplied by the School of Law, University of Miami.

Adopted March 1974.



I can post the Canadian standard practice if you'd like.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 113
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/27/2011 5:05:22 PM
It would be interesting to know if any of those 21 states that had involuntary sterilization statutes in 1974 still do. I haven't researched it, but I'm surprised there were still that many that late.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 114
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 2/27/2011 6:00:23 PM

It would be interesting to know if any of those 21 states that had involuntary sterilization statutes in 1974 still do.


I posted the rules for conservator and involuntary sterilization in California a while back...a refresher...

Sterilization may occur in the context of a
limited conservatorship but only under certain narrow
circumstances. Sterilization cannot occur in any instance where
it is determined that the individual knowingly opposes
sterilization. Even absent this opposition, for a sterilization
to occur, a special procedure must be followed which involves
many protections for the limited conservatee. These protections
include: mandatory appointment of counsel for the limited
conservatee, appointment of a "facilitator" to assist the
limited conservatee, assembly of a special panel of experts to
personally interview the limited conservatee and make a
recommendation to the court, and investigation by the
appropriate regional center.


You see the issue is if the conservatee (the impaired person) can give "informed consent" for medical attention...(informed consent is the criteria in all the states)...so, the following is what California (just what googled up my friends) does in cases where there is a conservatorship and the conservatee cannot give informed consent:

1. Consent to Treatment -- Since January 1, 1981, a conservator
does not have the power to consent to medical treatment on
behalf of the conservatee unless a court order is obtained which
authorizes substituted consent. The only exception to this rule
is that consent may be given without a court order if the
conservatee does not object to the proposed treatment.

The order authorizing substituted consent may be one which finds
the conservatee incapable of giving consent to any form of
treatment and transfers the sole power of consent to the
conservator. Such an order need be obtained only once since it
applies to all forms of permitted treatment. If the conservatee
is capable of consenting to some forms of treatment but not
others, then the conservator must wait until treatment is
required and obtain an order relating to the specific form of
treatment proposed.


all exerts from:
This handbook has been prepared by the Association for Retarded
Citizens-California (ARC-C), formerly the California Association
for the Retarded (C.A.R.) prior to changing its name on February
5, 1981.
 SunnyBlueSkies23
Joined: 5/16/2011
Msg: 116
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 8/28/2011 6:33:37 PM
My honest opinion? That girl MAY be mentally challenged, and I DO feel bad for her about that (she can't help it,after all....) but to me,she sounds like she's more than a little spoiled.. THE MOTHER of the girl is,in effect,raisng that girl's children! She's done her time,raised her own kids.........now,she gets to do it all over again! No,thank you. I LOVE KIDS,but I can see where her Mum is coming from!! IT"S NOT FAIR to the grandmother to be raising her own grandchildren!!And,obviously the young woman may not completely understand,"When we do this,THIS happens,"but I feel the gramma is completely in her right to ask for sterilization on her daughter's behalf.. There's SO many children already in this world who need love,kindness,and affection...and have NO ONE to offer it to them. Why subject MORE innocent children to that?? For the most part, I AM Pro-life........but I have to make an exception in this case.It would be doing all involved an enormous favor.........the girl would still have her children,but the mother could now rest easy,knowing she doesn't have that worry anymore......poor thing,she has enough on her plate NOW,wouldn't you say??
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 8/28/2011 7:01:17 PM
As far as I know, this 1927 Supreme Court decision, which held that a Virginia compulsory sterilization law was not unconstitutional, is still good law. Here is what Justice Holmes wrote in concluding:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. (citation). Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207 (1927)

I don't know what the law on this is in Canada or other countries.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 119
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 8/28/2011 7:38:59 PM

Three generations of imbeciles are enough."


So...it's ok to practice eugenics...as a method of birth control...removing the rights of a semi-retarded woman is better than allowing her to have an abortion....yep, I see the illogic in this now.
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 128
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 8/30/2011 12:09:55 PM

look no further than what's going on in North carolina right now. This is utterly disgusting


I agree. This is utterly disgusting. I don't understand why the state has not been sued over this. But bear in mind, what's going on now is not the sterilization. It is the "apologies". It's contemptible that there is so much debate over whether or not to compensate these people.

But this is not the same thing as the case cited in the OT. Although some of the people sterilized in NC were mentally challenged, the woman cited in the NC case was merely labeled "promiscuous and didn't get along well with others".


North Carolina was one of the few to expand its reach to women who were poor. Sterilization was seen as a way to limit the public cost of welfare. Social workers would coerce women to have the operation under threat of losing their public assistance


This doesn't seem like a fair comparison to the case in the OT.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 131
view profile
History
Mom goes to court to have mentally challenged daughter sterilized.
Posted: 8/30/2011 8:33:46 PM
Anyone who wants to bring the Third Reich into this should read a little about the history of eugenics. It was writings of American progressives, starting in the late 1800's, which made eugenics such a popular movement. One of the places it took hold, in the early 1900's--and well before Hitler came on the scene--was Germany.

Later, after the Nazis had perverted eugenics into an excuse for mass murder, the movement fizzled out. Before that, though, it had been considered a progressive reform that would improve our society, like women's suffrage and prohibition of alcohol--even if it didn't inspire a constitutional amendment like they did.

Is someone suing for damages in North Carolina because they were involuntarily sterilized? If so, I wonder what they'd argue, since it was legal there at the time. Technically, I don't know what would prevent a state from making involuntary sterilization legal even today, but I think the chances any of them will try are nil.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >