Sterilizing Special Needs Children

[lozzy21]

I think some of the people who have commeted on this thread have been a bit nieave, maybe because you havent met many people who have learning disabilitys, i not sure but they are people who have learning disabilitys who fully understand the concept and repercusions of sex but could not cope looking after a baby with out 24/7 support. They are millions of people who have learning disabilitys who live on there own, have paid jobs and get married and unless they mention they have a learning disability you wouldent have a bloody clue. Hell look at Susan Boyle, it wasent untill her brother mentioned it in an interview that any one knew.

As a support worker for people with learning disabilitys iv seen first hand the emotional trauma that they have had to go through because they have had there child taken away from them as soon as they are born, literaly with in 10-15 mins of birth because a social worker who sometimes barely knows them has deemed them incapable to raise the child.
Some of these have been married couples living with minimal support.

They have also been cases where the parents family have requested custody so that they can still have an active part in there childs life but the child has been fosterd/adopted by a stranger because the prick of a judge, again some one who dosent know these people feel it might upset them too much.

Just because we have the capacity, who are we to decide to can and cant have children?

Im also offended by people using the term vegative when refering to some one with a learning disability. Iv yet to meet one person who could come under that classification because of a disability they were born with.

People with head injurys yes but learning disabilitys hell no.

 

[BrandiCanucks]

If there is somebody that is likely to have sex, but unlikely to ever fully understand the implications, be counted on to take contraception or be able to raise a child then I don't see a huge problem with sterilisation. I know that people are saying that this isn't a decision that anyone should make for anyone else but a parent of a child that will never be capable of properly making decisions of this magnitude will inevitably be making alot of huge decisions on behalf of the child
I don't think that this should ever be brought in on a large scale but on an individual basis I think that it's alright if it's for the benefit of the child

Oh, but it has been brought in on a large scale. Between 1907 and 1946, there were over 22 153 sterilizations performed in Canada, and a large chunk of these sterilizations were on women who didn't have a disability, yet had sex outside of marriage and therefore were considered to have a disability.

While a sterilization on my daughter might make her more comfortable in the long run, what, besides pregnancy and menstruation would it prevent? Would it prevent her from being abused? Absolutely not. Would it prevent her from going through extreme hormonal changes that she shouldn't go through for at least another 40 years of her life? Absolutely not.

Like I've said before, it really comes down to this: Would I want someone to force it on me? No. Therefore, I could never do the same to my daughter. If on the chance she did have the cognitive ability to say yes to sex but was not able to comprehend raising a child by herself, then I would absolutely take on the role and responsibility of raising her child for her. Every child, developmentally disabled or not, is a gift. I will be looking at birth control options for my daughter when she hits puberty.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I think some of the people who have commeted on this thread have been a bit nieave, maybe because you havent met many people who have learning disabilitys, i not sure but they are people who have learning disabilitys who fully understand the concept and repercusions of sex but could not cope looking after a baby with out 24/7 support. They are millions of people who have learning disabilitys who live on there own, have paid jobs and get married and unless they mention they have a learning disability you wouldent have a bloody clue. Hell look at Susan Boyle, it wasent untill her brother mentioned it in an interview that any one knew.

As a support worker for people with learning disabilitys iv seen first hand the emotional trauma that they have had to go through because they have had there child taken away from them as soon as they are born, literaly with in 10-15 mins of birth because a social worker who sometimes barely knows them has deemed them incapable to raise the child.
Some of these have been married couples living with minimal support.

They have also been cases where the parents family have requested custody so that they can still have an active part in there childs life but the child has been fosterd/adopted by a stranger because the prick of a judge, again some one who dosent know these people feel it might upset them too much.

Just because we have the capacity, who are we to decide to can and cant have children?

Im also offended by people using the term vegative when refering to some one with a learning disability. Iv yet to meet one person who could come under that classification because of a disability they were born with.

People with head injurys yes but learning disabilitys hell no.

7

Great post x

 

[sophie c]

i work with severly disabled children and often when a female gets her period, i do feel sorry for her, as its more discomfort and pain, (some of the girls are in obvious pain and have mood swings) and its soo unnecasary seen as they are never goin to have children and that is the main point of periods ect......i think contraception to stop periods maybe but im not sure tbh???

 

[Dragonfly]

I remember watching a documentary and Hitler had this done on less sever disabled children, more sever ones they killed. Made me cry so much that program. Its not fair. I havnt read all the thread it but I used to look after special needs young adults also,. I dont see the need for it unless its what sophie said with girls with severe periods and pain i think perhaps something can be done there but I would say thats for medical reasons.


The most infamous sterilization program of the 20th century took place under the Third Reich. One of the first acts by Adolf Hitler after achieving total control over the German state was to pass the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses) in July 1933. The law was signed in by Hitler himself, and over 200 eugenic courts were created specifically as a result of the law. Under the German law, all doctors in the Reich were required to report patients of theirs who were mentally ********, mentally ill (including schizophrenia and manic depression), epileptic, blind, deaf, or physically deformed, and a steep monetary penalty was imposed for any patients who were not properly reported. Individuals suffering from alcoholism or Huntington's Disease could also be sterilized. The individual's case was then presented in front of a court of Nazi officials and public health officers who would review their medical records, take testimony from friends and colleagues, and eventually decide whether or not to order a sterilization operation performed on the individual, using force if necessary. Though not explicitly covered by the law, 400 mixed-race "Rhineland *******s" were also sterilized beginning in 1937.[6]

By the end of World War II, over 400,000 individuals were sterilized under the German law and its revisions, most within its first four years of being enacted. When the issue of compulsory sterilization was brought up at the Nuremberg trials after the war, many Nazis defended their actions on the matter by indicating that it was the United States itself from whom they had taken inspiration. The Nazis had many other eugenics-inspired racial policies, including their "euthanasia" program in which around 70,000 people institutionalized or suffering from birth defects were murdered.[7]