I remember an episode of LA Law where a father of a retarded young woman is going to have her sterilized.
He stated how his decision is reminiscent of Nazi Eugenics, but counters how she simply isn’t responsible enough to aquire and use birth control OR raise a baby, and forcing her to have an abortion or giving up the child for adoption would be utterly devastating to her.
(the ep. was in the days before Norplant, apparently)
What is the concensus of the SDMB on this issue?
In my mind it would make a difference if the father is still her legal guardian. I am not knowledgable about guardianship but I seem to recall that mentally retarded persons are appointed a guardian by the state. I am for the guardian making the call.
If the mentally retarded person doesn’t think the guardian is acting in her best interest perhaps she could petition the court to have another guardian assigned to her.
I also think the comparison to Nazi Eugenics is a bit extreme. It depends on the intent of the father. If he is concerned about the welfare of the child that doesn’t fit into the category of Eugenics.
Given that the Nazis did indeed practice sterilization of the mentally retarded, I don’t think it’s so extreme. (Of course, America did it even earlier.) Or at least, I need a better reason to agree that it’s not a valid comparison.
I wouldn’t touch this one with a 20-foot pole.
It’s a terrible quandry, IMNSHO.
On the one hand, my trust of the government is such that the idea of allowing, as a general policy, the sterilization of any segment of the population is abhorrent. As Marley23 pointed out, that’s one of the aspects of Nazi Germany’s eugenics programs that isn’t much commented upon these days. I also believe that euthanasia for the mentally retarded, and severely handicapped, was also practiced.
On the other hand - the arguments related in the OP are potentially telling, on an individual basis.
Correct. Sterilization was, for a long time, something idealistic. America and IIRC Sweden were pioneers.
This issue was decided in the case of Buck v Bell in 1927. At the time, it was definitely considered to be a form of eugenics, and therefore worthy of encouragement.
In reality, it’s probably not too hard to get her on birth control. If she’s functional enough to live on her own, it should be none of her business. If she were ill, her parents could administer medication. I don’t see why it would be impossible to include birth control medication as well.
My ex worked at an adult residential facility and most, if not all, of the female residents were on birth control (though from what he said, most were not aware of what they were taking).
I don’t believe sterilization is OK or necessary. But when you get down to it, administering any type of birth control against their will amounts to the same thing.
I’ve always been caught by this issue (bearing in mind that I may be magnifying it in my own head): Some people are developmentally disabled to the point where they are legally considered to be unable to consent to sex. In these cases, why would you NOT sterilize? Is it simply an issue of having ‘evidence’ of rape if a pregnancy results?
Because they can’t consent to sterilization either, is my guess.
No - what brings you to that conclusion? For me, the issue is that I’m not sure how I feel about turning this right over to someone else. (Which is a roundabout way of saying the same thing Kalhoun is about consent.) Historically, it’s had some bad results.
I can agree that it gets murky when it’s the state making the decision- but what if it is a guardian making it? Any significant issues with that?
I don’t know that I’m pro-sterilization, precisely due to the historical precedent, but I do wonder at the possible contradiction in making it criminal to have sex with someone due to mental defect, but still allowing that person to be pregnant and raise a child.
In the Netherlands, currently birth-control isn’t obligatory in institutions for the mentally retarded. Recently, our Socialist democrat Party (PVDA) voted that it would become obligatory. However, in everyday practice, mentally retarded women in institutions are given birthcontrol, usually one of the non-permanent, but long-lasting kinds, like a subdermal shot every three months. If a mentally retarded couple expresses a strong desire to have kids, I believe their guardians have the final word. I don’t know of any such recent cases in the Dutch news. Sounds like a practical solution to me.
As proof of a general positive attitude towards sex in institutions for the mentally handicapped, a Dutch institution had an educational movie made about safe sex for the mentally retarded, about 15 years ago. It had as little as possible distracting features. Even furniture was kept to a minimum, so the audience wouldn’t be distracted by a colorful lampshade or a famililiar wallpaper. Just different types of behavior and a big red cross through the " unsafe-sex" ones.
Why WOULD you opt for surgical sterilisation when there are more effective, safer, non-surgical means which also happen to be reversible?
Mirena for example- which in 20% of users also causes amenorrhea, which would be pretty desirable for many of these women.
I have little problem with birthcontrol for the mentally ill…more problem with surgical sterilistaions or hysterectomies, which are a last resort and should require a legal ruling, rather than just a parent’s wish.
I personally know of a couple who are developmentally disabled who have and are still capable of raising their child.
I personally know of a couple who are not developmentally disabled who have neglected and abused their kids and are now longer in custody of them.
The line is too blurred.
They Nazis sterilized the mentally retarded to improve their race. It was more or less selective breeding. They weren’t concerned about the welfare of the child, rather welfare of their race. The intent was different. I agree that this could be called “Eugenics”, just not “Nazi Eugenics”.
This is a specific case where the mother may not be fully capable of understanding the requirements of having a child. If a 12 year old child wanted a baby I think most people would agree that it is not her right. Perhaps this mentally disabled women has the capacity of a 12 year old.
I am curious to know how mentally retarded this person is. I am assuming that if she has a guardian then it is somewhat serious.
Someone may have a learning disability, and still be capable of consenting to (or refusing) sterilisation or contraception.
If someone is incapable, their guardians and the courts can make decisions in their best interest.
I’m pretty totally against people who are capable of consent having their wishes over-ridden, and believe that if the person is incapable it should be decided what is in their best interest on a case by case basis.
No blanket ruling or judgement will be appropriate in all circumstances.
I am not a lawyer, but I think that a guardian ad litem would be assigned by the court, to protect the retarded person’s interests.
I find it somewhat disheartening, but interesting, that only female sterilization is being discussed.
Don’t retarded males have the same issue?
Just a thought.
Retarded males don’t get pregnant. So, no. They won’t have the same issues.
Retarded males can get someone pregnant–and be thrown in prison for assault/rape.
Same issue. Inability to control/decide sexual issues independently.
Why not court mandated vascetomies for all retarded males? That is similiar to what is being bandied about for females. Afterall, they are being given BC oftentimes without their consent or even knowledge. Since there is no male BC pill at present, vasectomy seems a good solution.
I am not sure of the scenario the people administering the BC are envisioning–sex done by mutual accord or these women being raped over and over.