The point is that thousands of people in the U.S. were sterilized at the turn of the last century for having epilepsy.
At the time, epilepsy was thought of as being a symptom of higher order brain dysfunction- that if one was epileptic, one was necessarily retarded, schizophrenic, or in some other way mentally defective. Therefore, sterilization was as acceptable (and necessary, in some people’s opinions) to perform on epileptics as it was upon people who were severely retarded.
We still don’t completely understand epilepsy, but we do know now that it has nothing to do with IQ level or relation to mental diseases. Small comfort for those who were sterilized ‘for their own good’ by the state.
I won’t even go into the cases of people being sterilized for the crime of being poor.
Let me ask you- if this law gets passed, and people suffering from a certain disease are sterilized due to incapacity, and then a cure for this disease is found and that element of the law is repealed, is your reaction to someone who was sterilized before the cure was found just to shrug your shoulders and say, “Well, sucks to be them”?
The guardians would have to have a specific reason for the request, and it would have to go through specific vetting. Yes, it can always happen that a medical advance can change the result of any major surgery. A diabetic might have a foot amputated, and then they discover a cure for diabetes. Terri Schiavo was taken off her feeding tube, and then they discover a cure for PVS. Guardians, often with the assistance of the courts, need to make tough decisions all the time.
In the case of females, they can be put on something like Depo-Provera, but for males there isn’t anything non-surgical that can be done to prevent that person from incurring responsibilities that are beyond his ability to consent to.
In truth, I think the women are the greater concern. There have been documented cases of women being raped who are in comas or severely retarded. Depo or something similar would work in most cases, but it, like any hormonal drug, certainly has the possibility of causing permanent damage. Protecting the patient from sexual assault is obviously the best choice, but I would assume most of the guardians think they’re doing that already.
Well, actually, if you’re only talking about responsibilities, there is one non-surgical thing that could be done: change the law so an incompetent male has no parental rights or responsibilities.
Of course you didn’t, because the newspapers don’t know all the facts, because it’s none of their business.
The first of article is a Daily Mail editorial, so everything in it gets an immediate 50% credibility knock. It’s a rag that lives for right-wing moral outrage and sniping at public services. The second article is a report on the reaction to the first. It doesn’t question the decision.
The fact is that the Daily Mail doesn’t know the facts of the case, isn’t qualified to comment and isn’t legally responsible. It is perfectly possible that the parents, through no fault of their own or for a lack of trying, cannot provide adequate care, and have demonstrated their inability. Who is in the best position to make a judgement call on this? Personally I’d leave it to those who know the case , have dedicate their lives to helping these people and have a legal duty, rather than some self-important journalist looking for an emotional story.
As the Guardian article explains, great lengths had already been taken to try to support this family. But if it’s not in the children’s best interests you can bet the likes of the Mail would be the first to be call for resignations and prosecutions if anything happened to them.
In short; Daily Mail = reactionary contradictory bullshit.
And what about the children he fathers? What about the women he impregnates who also might be incompetent? To use a snotty phrase from earlier in this thread: “Sucks to be them”?
What about the children fathered by a man who dies or leaves the country shortly before they’re born? The answer to that is the answer to your question.
You suggested they should be on Depo or otherwise sterilized, and I assume you haven’t changed your mind about that. Abortion is also a possibility.
I thought you were complaining about them being sterilized, or is it only the men you’re concerned about? Abortion is just as permanent as sterilization, what if she is cured or declared competent later? Depo is pretty effective, but it’s hormonal which could potentially mean serious side-effects and it’s not 100% effective.
My point is that we’re talking about very tough choices. It’s silly to act as if only one of those choices can lead to permanent effects on these very vulnerable people.
Sorry to hear you dismiss all those single-parent kids so easily. Going on welfare, finding a new father, or giving the child up for adoption are a few possibilities that come to mind.
Then she can try again later. To put it bluntly, there are more embryos where the first one came from.
In the famous “Baby M” trial, one point argued by surrogate (biological) mother Mary Beth Whitehead’s side was that biological father (or, as they called him, sperm donor) William Stern’s wife’s multiple sclerosis made her “unable” to care for a child.
How many other physical, emotional and/or mental conditions would make one an unfit parent?
Lots of things could, but few of them must. I don’t see how one parent having MS is remotely a sign of unfit parentage. The majority of people with physical conditions, with enough support, would be able to parent, I think.
Mental conditions are harder. There are lots of things that could incapacitate someone, or make them unfit, but most of them only at the extremes.
Andrea Yates is unfit, and it looks like everyone knew it before she took tragic action. But had she gotten extensive treatment in time, would she still have been unfit? I don’t know the answer to that.
Nope. Let me draw your attention to the part of your post I was originally responding to, so you’ll understand why I’ve been focusing on males: “but for males there isn’t anything non-surgical that can be done to prevent that person from incurring responsibilities that are beyond his ability to consent to.”
I simply mentioned something that could be done to prevent incompetent males from incurring those responsibilities.
If an incompetent man impregnates a woman but is unable to provide for the children, would they be disadvantaged? Sure. But no more than many, many other children are, and plenty of those other children overcome it and go on to live fulfilling lives. Our society already has measures in place to help single parents and to prevent people from becoming parents before they’re ready, and if they’re not good enough, I’d suggest improving them rather than sterilizing anyone who might cause an inconvenient pregnancy.
Finally, note that I’m only opposed to sterilization, because someone who’s mistakenly sterilized under a flawed law will never be able to reproduce even if the law is corrected (well, some cases can be reversed, but not reliably). OTOH, I could accept putting incompetent women on birth control, or requiring them to abort or give their children up for adoption, which wouldn’t prevent them from reproducing in the future if the law is changed.
Let me remind you once again of what you wrote: “but for males there isn’t anything non-surgical that can be done to prevent that person from incurring responsibilities that are beyond his ability to consent to.”
Yes, the responsibilities still exist… but not for that person. They exist for the mother (who presumably did consent, otherwise she’d have used birth control or aborted; if she’s incompetent, those things would’ve been forced upon her under the parts of your plan that I’m not contesting), or the adoptive family (who also consented), or perhaps the taxpayers (who consented by passing the law putting this system into effect).
That person incurs responsibilities. The fact that it can be shunted off doesn’t change the responsibilities themselves. I want the child not to be conceived, not an after-the-fact attempt at damage control. And, as I already said, I would expect this to have to go through steps, not be some off-the-cuff decision.
In previous discussions with you, you have expressed an unwillingness to limit anyone sexuality even when they are completely incapable of making reproductive choices or caring for a child. I really don’t want to get into yet another of those conversations with you.