British judge orders disabled 22-week pregnant woman to have abortion

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,916
Criminal Mexi Midget
http://www.foxla.com/news/british-judge-orders-disabled-22-week-pregnant-woman-to-have-abortion?fbclid=IwAR3rMlTGU34MIZ19qhlbv4j2l1WXhScBMgTEv2txqRw3S-wscNxPr2JrbwY
But the judge said the woman didn’t have the mental capacity to make her own decisions even it look like she wanted to continue the pregnancy.

“I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,” she said, pointing out that she didn’t fully comprehend what having a baby entails.
when you are a ward of the state the state will decide what is better for you......
 
  • Like
Reactions: bambooshots

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,229
Scotland
Fake (EDIT: sorry for the pejorative language) Out of date news: the was a ruling based on expert medical opinion that the mental health of a mentally disabled woman with a pre-existing mood disorder might be at stake if the pregnancy was carried to term. A judge therefore decided to allow the medical staff caring for the woman to terminate the pregnancy. However, that decision was appealed successfully today - see link - so there is no threat to the pregnancy.

I hope we see how this turns out in the end, for determining whether the physicians' predictions were correct should factor in to future decisions. Also, one wonders how this pregnancy came about (the woman has a mental age of 6-9 years) and why it has been left so late to make the decision.

EDIT: FWIW in the UK the wishes of the family do not have a privileged position in the medical care of people who are unable to engage in informed consent about medical care. The physicians are responsible for the health of the patients, not the family. Personally, I think that is best. From personal experience, it becomes a nightmare if the family cannot agree. Also, hypothetically there may be cases in which the relatives do not have the best interests of the patient at heart.
 
Last edited:

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 10, 2013
681
38,916
Criminal Mexi Midget
Fake news: the was a ruling based on expert medical opinion that the mental health of a mentally disabled woman with a pre-existing mood disorder might be at stake if the pregnancy was carried to term. A judge therefore decided to allow the medical staff caring for the woman to terminate the pregnancy. However, that decision was appealed successfully today - see link - so there is no threat to the pregnancy.

I hope we see how this turns out in the end, for determining whether the physician's predictions were correct should factor in to future decisions. Also, one wonders how this pregnancy came about (the woman has a mental age of 6-9 years) and why it has been left so late to make the decision.
how do you claim there is no threat when 3 experts said otherwise? this woman is lucky her mom is still around, w/o her the courts do decide.
 

vertical smile

macrumors 68040
Sep 23, 2014
3,915
5,116
It is a sad day when courts are making the decision whether or not to kill off an otherwise healthy babies.

Also, one wonders how this pregnancy came about (the woman has a mental age of 6-9 years) and why it has been left so late to make the decision.
Maybe it was a Rita Leeds or "MR F" type situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eatrains and VulchR

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,229
Scotland
It is a sad day when courts are making the decision whether or not to kill off an otherwise healthy babies.
It is sad for many reasons, but killing healthy fetuses is not the issue - the issue is balancing the interests of this particular woman versus the fetus she carries, and the physicians in the case worried that the woman would be at risk. Also, the courts had to be careful. There is always the possibility that we as a society would be willing to risk the health of a mentally disabled woman in order for her to deliver a healthy baby. I know all of this sounds like unnecessary government interference - heaven forbid a government interjecting itself into people's personal lives like this routinely - but this case was more complex than it probably seemed from the news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,039
Sorry - what I meant was there was no threat of forced abortion given the successful appeal. Also, see edit above about the role of the family in medical care in the UK.
Well when the government is flipping the dime and the doctors work for the government.......It's not hard to see why many in the US might have an issue with such a system in the land of the free when people like Sanders gets up and screams about single payer. We colonized and whooped King George's ass to get away from **** like this. ;)
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,229
Scotland
Well when the government is flipping the dime and the doctors work for the government..
The physicians in the UK do not work directly for the government, and most physicians in the UK hate the current UK government. All theoretical possibilities aside, there is little evidence that the UK government foists treatment decisions on UK physicians. Quite apart from anything, it is always possible to get private medical care. This case was special because the woman was sufficiently mentally disabled she could not engage completely in informed consent.

One more thing: the US's private healthcare system does not prevent physicians from abusing their power: just consider the history of lobotomies, forced sterilisations in mental hospitals, 'treating' homosexuality with intracranial stimulation, the prescription opiate crisis, or the giving of ketamine experimentally to agitated patients without their consent (see link).

No matter what the system, eternal vigilance....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,039
The physicians in the UK do not work directly for the government, and most physicians in the UK hate the current UK government. All theoretical possibilities aside, there is little evidence that the UK government foists treatment decisions on UK physicians. Quite apart from anything, it is always possible to get private medical care. This case was special because the woman was sufficiently mentally disabled she could not engaged completely in informed consent.

One more thing: the US's private healthcare system does not prevent physicians from abusing their power: just consider the history of lobotomies, forced sterilisations in mental hospitals, 'treating' homosexuality with intracranial stimulation, the prescription opiate crisis, or the giving of ketamine experimentally to agitated patients without their consent (see link).

No matter what the system, eternal vigilance....
You want to compare the US system circa 1950 to the UK system in 2019? Most physicians in the UK hate the current UK government because they're paid like ****.

As far as this case is concerned, I'm more interesting in how she got pregnant and what's being done to the "father". Unless this was two mentally disabled people carrying out adult like acts and an "opps" occurred, why isn't the man in jail?
 

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Feb 22, 2003
7,837
5,883
New Hampshire, USA
Even in the US, it's rarely been "My body, my choice".

A better saying is "My body, governments choice".

The worst thing about this story is the justification that they used. They implied it was for the mother's health claiming that abortion was less dangerous then childbirth.

In truth, I think that it was more about saving money and the healthcare system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkcerda

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,229
Scotland
You want to compare the US system circa 1950 to the UK system in 2019?
The last link about ketamine was 2018. :( Also, no so long ago there were some fairly disastrous attempts at gene therapy for which one of the main researchers involved admitted they had not done enough preclinical work. Profit motive makes clinical research rushed.

As far as this case is concerned, I'm more interesting in how she got pregnant and what's being done to the "father". Unless this was two mentally disabled people carrying out adult like acts and an "opps" occurred, why isn't the man in jail?
Agreed.
 

Plutonius

macrumors 604
Feb 22, 2003
7,837
5,883
New Hampshire, USA
As far as this case is concerned, I'm more interesting in how she got pregnant and what's being done to the "father"
They are in the process of trying to identify the father and I'm sure he will be found and prosecuted.

That doesn't take away from the fact that the government is forcing an abortion on a healthy woman with a healthy pregnancy.

What comes next ?

If a pregnancy is identified as having possible genetic issues, should the government force it to be aborted ?
 

BoxerGT2.5

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2008
1,929
11,039
They are in the process of trying to identify the father and I'm sure he will be found and prosecuted.

That doesn't take away from the fact that the government is forcing an abortion on a healthy woman with a healthy pregnancy.

What comes next ?

If a pregnancy is identified as having possible genetic issues, should the government force it to be aborted ?
It all depends on what the government wants to eradicate. Iceland has almost zero babies born with down syndrome and it's not because the men and women in Iceland don't have the ability to fire out an extra chromosome. Heavy handed genetic counselling is the big pusher of that in a UHC system.
 

vertical smile

macrumors 68040
Sep 23, 2014
3,915
5,116
It is sad for many reasons, but killing healthy fetuses is not the issue
I would say that a court-ordered killing a healthy unborn baby is sad, not matter what the situation is.

the physicians in the case worried that the woman would be at risk.
While the article doesn't give a lot of detail, it appears that there is no medical risk to this woman to bring the baby to term.

It is the mental health of the woman that is in question (according to the link), and how having a baby would impact it.

Most physicians' expertise is on the medical side of things, not mental health, excluding the medical professions that is exclusive to mental health. But, most social workers typically excel in mental health, and would be a lot better judge on the situation.

The article didn't specify what, if any medical professionals were involved in leading to the judge's decision, but they did mention the social worker that sided with not terminating the pregnancy.
 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,229
Scotland
They are in the process of trying to identify the father and I'm sure he will be found and prosecuted.

That doesn't take away from the fact that the government is forcing an abortion on a healthy woman with a healthy pregnancy.

What comes next ?

If a pregnancy is identified as having possible genetic issues, should the government force it to be aborted ?

See post #2 above - the decision was appealed successfully, so the government of the UK is forcing nothing. Also, I found your comment about genetic abnormalities ironic since the physicians were trying to protect a mentally disabled woman.
[doublepost=1561578090][/doublepost]
...
While the article doesn't give a lot of detail, it appears that there is no medical risk to this woman to bring the baby to term.

It is the mental health of the woman that is in question (according to the link), and how having a baby would impact it.

Most physicians' expertise is on the medical side of things, not mental health, excluding the medical professions that is exclusive to mental health. But, most social workers typically excel in mental health, and would be a lot better judge on the situation.

The article didn't specify what, if any medical professionals were involved in leading to the judge's decision, but they did mention the social worker that sided with not terminating the pregnancy.
I hope the correct decision was made to allow the pregnancy to continue and that the woman will be OK. However, this is asking somebody who has the mental age of 6-9 years old with a history of mood disorder to cope with the considerable stress and pain of pregnancy, childbirth, and its its aftermath (e.g., possible post-partum depression). I am not sure there is much medical evidence to go on since the case is so unusual. However, the risk to mental health was sufficient that at least 3 physicians were concerned. Of course they are not gods, and cannot foretell exactly what will happen, but I do think it is good that the courts have decided the case taking into account all the available evidence. At this point all we can do is hope for the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

vertical smile

macrumors 68040
Sep 23, 2014
3,915
5,116
However, this is asking somebody who has the mental age of 6-9 years old with a history of mood disorder to cope with the considerable stress and pain of pregnancy, childbirth, and its its aftermath (e.g., possible post-partum depression).
Is this something one of the physicians stated? I cannot find it in the article linked nor with a search.

Everything I can find states something similar to this:

NYT said:
The judge noted the risks posed by the woman’s behavioral and psychological problems, and suggested that the grandmother, who vowed to care for the child, might have to leave the mother and the home at some point.
And a quote from the Judge:
Fox 11 said:
She added that having a child would be more traumatic for the woman than aborting it, as she wouldn’t be able to take care of the child due to the risk posed by her mental health problems and it would have to be put in a foster
So, nothing about the impact of being pregnant or giving birth will have on the woman's mental health, but how things would be after the baby is born as in the safety of the baby of potentially being around the woman, and the emotional impact of having to give up the baby for adoption.

Imo, the baby's safety after it is born is definitely not a reason to kill an unborn baby, as there are many ways to mitigate that if the courts feel that the grandmother cannot care for the baby, such as adoption.

As for killing an unborn baby for the reason of the emotional impact of giving the baby up for adoption, if the woman has a mental capacity of a 6-9 yo, then she would most likely be much more resilient in this type of a situation than someone with the mental capacity of an adult. I am not expert, but the social worker probably is, and the judge sided against their opinion.

So again, not a good reason to kill an unborn baby.

I am very curious to the reasoning that the Judge's order was overturned, I haven't found any actual reasoning from the three judges on the appeals court.
 

vertical smile

macrumors 68040
Sep 23, 2014
3,915
5,116
What comes next ?

If a pregnancy is identified as having possible genetic issues, should the government force it to be aborted ?
I am on the fence with this issue.

If it was forced abortions, regardless of how the family felt, then I am definitely against it. That is Nazi-level stuff.

It all depends on what the government wants to eradicate. Iceland has almost zero babies born with down syndrome and it's not because the men and women in Iceland don't have the ability to fire out an extra chromosome. Heavy handed genetic counselling is the big pusher of that in a UHC system.
This isn't forced abortions, correct?

My wife and I went through something like this back in 2016. A blood test showed a higher than average risk of Down syndrome, and the doctor recommended seeing a genetic counselor. My wife had to get an amniocentesis to test for downs.

Luckily, everything came back as perfectly healthy, and we also found out that our baby was a girl.

But, the event was very traumatic for both my wife and I, and left a mental scar on myself to this day.

What made things worse is that my wife had a really hard pregnancy that almost killed her and our baby. After my wife started feeling ill, she was rushed into an emergency C-section, as she was going through heart and kidney failure. The baby was born at 30 weeks and was super tiny @ 2 lbs. 4 ounces (1 kilogram for the rest of the world), and lived in the hospital for 2 months, but is now perfectly healthy 3yo.

I always wondered if the amniocentesis influenced the complications of my wife's pregnancy. I also wondered what would of happened if our baby tested positive for down syndrome. I would have wanted to abort the baby, but knowing my ultra-conservative wife, she most likely wouldn't of wanted to.
 

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,823
I suspect many of the american's moaning about the ruling, said absolutely nothing when Israel was sterilising people without consent tbh.