• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK judge OKs sterilisation of man with mental age of six year old

dirtpoorchris

King of Videos
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
10,079
Reaction score
3,168
Location
WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au

The 36-year-old man already has a son and does not want to become a father again, but is unable to make decisions about using contraception, London's High Court heard.Judge Eleanor King ruled that the man, referred to only as "DE" in court proceedings, could be given a vasectomy as having another child could cause him "serious psychological distress".
"I have reached the conclusion that a vasectomy is undoubtedly in DE's best interests after having heard all the evidence," she said.
Has Pandora's box been opened for a subclass of society that isnt allowed to breed in the UK's future? A six year old is smart enough to know the basic jist of birds and the bees. So I want to know if this man agreed to the viscetomy or not. Just because he said "I dotn want to have another kid" doesnt mean "Disable my seed from being able to spread forever." I want to know his exact intention. If they can do this for "personal best interest" why not cut off rapists balls for the "best interest of society"? Just sayin'.

"I dont want to have a kid" could mean he was trying to appease the judge and saying "I wont have any more I promise". So what is the context? Or did the judge say, "We are going to do a special operation on your balls that will make it so you cant have kids anymore more. Is this what you want?" Im worried the guy might have been confused and the judge let his personal standards get in the way and would like to know more about this.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I would say this is just the UK being ****ed as usual, but with more and more people in the US supporting forced sterilization of people, I can't. It seems as if people think they have the right to make decisions on other peoples bodies because of crimes or because someone doesn't understand their actions and to perfectly frank I consider it sick.
 

lizzie

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
28,581
Reaction score
31,551
Location
between two worlds
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's really a sort of complicated issue. In nature, the unfit wouldn't typically be breeding, and if they did, the chances of their offspring surviving would be lessened. With humans, who desire to defy nature, most of us can't stomach to watch nature at work among our own species, so we try to make accomodations and prevent the natural course of things when people who aren't equipped for child-rearing have children. It could very well be a slippery slope, and the implications need to be considered very carefully.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
33,086
Reaction score
21,954
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That's basically it. He already has a child, but is mentally incapable of giving a valid consent for the snip. He's got the gist of how to do it, but not the ramifications. His parents went to court to get a legal permission for the op.
 

dirtpoorchris

King of Videos
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
10,079
Reaction score
3,168
Location
WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
WTF.....I can't view foreign sites but want to know the details.
A BRITISH judge has taken the unprecedented step of sanctioning the sterilisation of a man with the mental age of a child, ruling that it was in his best interest.

The 36-year-old man already has a son and does not want to become a father again, but is unable to make decisions about using contraception, London's High Court heard.

Judge Eleanor King ruled that the man, referred to only as "DE" in court proceedings, could be given a vasectomy as having another child could cause him "serious psychological distress".

"I have reached the conclusion that a vasectomy is undoubtedly in DE's best interests after having heard all the evidence," she said.

The man does not have the capacity to give his consent to the vasectomy, the court heard.

His family and doctors have backed the move but the decision - the first of its kind in Britain - had to be made by a judge.

Experts say he has an IQ of 40, meaning he has the mental age of a child aged between six and nine. He is unable to live alone, has limited speech and cannot use money, Judge King said.

He and his girlfriend, who also suffers from severe learning difficulties, had a son in 2010.

The court heard that the couple have been together for 10 years but do not currently see each other without supervision, in order to "keep them safe".

A vasectomy will allow the man to resume a sexual relationship with his girlfriend, the judge said.

King said in her ruling that DE, described as a "friendly, gentle person", was greatly distressed by the birth of his son and did not comprehend that it had resulted from having sex with his girlfriend.

The child is cared for by the girlfriend's family, she added.

King paid tribute to the man's parents, saying they had "worked tirelessly to give him the best possible quality of life and in particular to ensure that he has as much independence and autonomy as can possibly be achieved".

DE has "prospered and achieved far beyond what may have been expected given his level of disability" thanks to their care, she added, including managing to work at a local market stall.
This story doesnt make sense already. How can he be apt enough to have a job but so clueless of breeding?
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
61,165
Reaction score
21,603
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm ok with it particularly with the parents consent. This also gives the man more sexual liberty without the result of likely parentless child(ren) that society has to pay for.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
61,165
Reaction score
21,603
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'd be fine with castrating violent rapists, but that is a different topic.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'd be fine with castrating violent rapists, but that is a different topic.

As I said, we have many people that feel they have a right to remove bodily functions of other individuals due to crime or inability to understand their decisions. It's just sick.
 

iliveonramen

Pontificator
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
11,257
Reaction score
5,711
Location
On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This story doesnt make sense already. How can he be apt enough to have a job but so clueless of breeding?
Yeah...I can sympathize I guess with the family that they will be taking care of children that he has but.....stinks too much of government making decisions they have no right making.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,248
Reaction score
12,116
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au



Has Pandora's box been opened for a subclass of society that isnt allowed to breed in the UK's future? A six year old is smart enough to know the basic jist of birds and the bees. So I want to know if this man agreed to the viscetomy or not. Just because he said "I dotn want to have another kid" doesnt mean "Disable my seed from being able to spread forever." I want to know his exact intention. If they can do this for "personal best interest" why not cut off rapists balls for the "best interest of society"? Just sayin'.

"I dont want to have a kid" could mean he was trying to appease the judge and saying "I wont have any more I promise". So what is the context? Or did the judge say, "We are going to do a special operation on your balls that will make it so you cant have kids anymore more. Is this what you want?" Im worried the guy might have been confused and the judge let his personal standards get in the way and would like to know more about this.
no...the legal procedures were followed to allow this... what is the problem? It happens all the time in the US, so why on earth cant it happen in the UK as well?
 

Morality Games

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,156
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
As I said, we have many people that feel they have a right to remove bodily functions of other individuals due to crime or inability to understand their decisions. It's just sick.
... it may be wrong or less than ideal, but "sick" is a little extreme. The people they raped didn't want to be subject to invasive action, either.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
61,165
Reaction score
21,603
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As I said, we have many people that feel they have a right to remove bodily functions of other individuals due to crime or inability to understand their decisions. It's just sick.
If you are willing to legally be obligated to raise and pay for the child as your own, you have a point. Otherwise I don't think you do.

The topic of violent rapists is another topic that I won't go further on for this thread.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No Cookies | thetelegraph.com.au



Has Pandora's box been opened for a subclass of society that isnt allowed to breed in the UK's future? A six year old is smart enough to know the basic jist of birds and the bees. So I want to know if this man agreed to the viscetomy or not. Just because he said "I dotn want to have another kid" doesnt mean "Disable my seed from being able to spread forever." I want to know his exact intention. If they can do this for "personal best interest" why not cut off rapists balls for the "best interest of society"? Just sayin'.

"I dont want to have a kid" could mean he was trying to appease the judge and saying "I wont have any more I promise". So what is the context? Or did the judge say, "We are going to do a special operation on your balls that will make it so you cant have kids anymore more. Is this what you want?" Im worried the guy might have been confused and the judge let his personal standards get in the way and would like to know more about this.
He could just use condoms and the partner use a morning after pill? Some people honestly, take things far to far for a small issue that can be resolved easily.
Here's an example: BBC NEWS | UK | England | Humber | Cold sufferers told to avoid A&E

Albeit it is from 2009.

Health officials in Hull have warned that people with coughs and colds using urgent care services could be putting other patients' lives at risk.

In the past six weeks, 64 people went to accident and emergency units with a cold, headache or flu, said NHS Hull.
Some people overreact to illnesses/Problems that can be treated over the counter at a pharmacy. It is stupid. The man overreacted to a simple problem and it became national news.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
61,165
Reaction score
21,603
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From the article:

"King said in her ruling that DE, described as a "friendly, gentle person", was greatly distressed by the birth of his son and did not comprehend that it had resulted from having sex with his girlfriend." The girlfriend also has mental disabilities.

Nor did the man - according to the article - say he opposed this. Rather, what the article is essentially saying is that he doesn't understand what a vacestomy is or does, therefore he cannot decide. It does not say he opposed it, but rather is incapable of grasping where babies come from or what a vacestomy can do - having an IQ of only 40.

He has the intellect of a 6 year old and parents make medical and surgical decisions for children all the time. How many children scream they are afraid of the dentist or doctor? Or screams he/she doesn't want an immunization shot. Does that mean the child then is in control? However, because he technically is an adult then it took a court to enforce the parents decision of this "child" - who has the mind of a child.
 

joko104

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
61,165
Reaction score
21,603
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He could just use condoms and the partner use a morning after pill? Some people honestly, take things far to far for a small issue that can be resolved easily.
Here's an example: BBC NEWS | UK | England | Humber | Cold sufferers told to avoid A&E

Albeit it is from 2009.



Some people overreact to illnesses/Problems that can be treated over the counter at a pharmacy. It is stupid. The man overreacted to a simple problem and it became national news.
How reliable to you think a 6 year old who doesn't even understand pregnancy going to be in using a condom?

And why? Never in his whole life is he ever going to be capable of raising a child. There result? The mentally challenged girlfriend becomes a baby-making machine that he bio-fathers - all then parentless children dumped into the system.

I think his parents made the right decision and I see no reason for him to have to mess with condoms and the restrictions of them. In short, I see it as a good thing for him too - particularly since he said he doesn't want to have more children.
 

dirtpoorchris

King of Videos
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
10,079
Reaction score
3,168
Location
WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
He could just use condoms and the partner use a morning after pill? Some people honestly, take things far to far for a small issue that can be resolved easily.
Here's an example: BBC NEWS | UK | England | Humber | Cold sufferers told to avoid A&E

Albeit it is from 2009.



Some people overreact to illnesses/Problems that can be treated over the counter at a pharmacy. It is stupid. The man overreacted to a simple problem and it became national news.
Thats what I was thinking... If the guy is smart enough to have a job of any type then he is obviously smart enough to use a condom or his wife be put on birth control. I seriously wonder if this is a case of the judge thinking he knows whats best do to his personal morals and the guys family's suggestions. I understand that people dont want to see little retarded children popping up that are harder to take care of on society's dime... But if this guy is being bamboozled into this I would really like to know. "I dont want more kids." doesnt equate to "sever my sperm tubes". Even retarded people have a right to procreate if they want to, even if they dont want to now but may change their mind in the future. Would it be okay to give a 6 year old a vasectomy? Then why is it ok for judges to order it on men like this? He is a 6 year old trapped in a grown ups body right?

I would like to hear this guys own thoughts on this before they go through with it even if he has trouble speaking. If the guy cant make decisions for himself then it should still be his own idea. Judge asks, "Are you ok with this operation?" If the guy says yes then the judge can say, "I agree also."

It shouldnt be, "I dont want (or currently not planning) any more kids."

"Seeing as my judgement is better than yours prepare for vasectomy."
 

DiAnna

Hooter Babe
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
46,365
Reaction score
24,889
Location
Northern California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Am I the only one who has no problem with this? The man's parents are his legal guardians, I presume, made their case to the judge and the judge agreed. End of story.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
... it may be wrong or less than ideal, but "sick" is a little extreme. The people they raped didn't want to be subject to invasive action, either.
No, it's not extreme at all. Promoting the idea it's ok to remove the bodily functions of people against their will is sick. Yes, the people that were raped didn't ask for it, but that has nothing to do with your actions. Doing harm onto a person because they did harm onto someone else doesn't make your action right. It is just as twisted if not more so than the actions of those you are acting on. The old eye for an eye type of justice is just barbarianism.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How reliable to you think a 6 year old who doesn't even understand pregnancy going to be in using a condom?

And why? Never in his whole life is he ever going to be capable of raising a child. There result? The mentally challenged girlfriend becomes a baby-making machine that he bio-fathers - all then parentless children dumped into the system.

I think his parents made the right decision and I see no reason for him to have to mess with condoms and the restrictions of them. In short, I see it as a good thing for him too - particularly since he said he doesn't want to have more children.
My point is that rather than making a big fuss and event out of the scenario, he and his partner could just use condoms and birth control pills. No national story, no big fuss.
If he or his partner isn't responsible enough to use condoms then he clearly needs to grow up and deal with it in a more mature manner. (Unless of course he is retarded (in the professional sense), then he may require assistance.)
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Am I the only one who has no problem with this? The man's parents are his legal guardians, I presume, made their case to the judge and the judge agreed. End of story.
I don't buy into the idea that parents have the right to remove bodily functions of their children.
 

Spriggs05

Anarcho Facist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
854
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Am I the only one who has no problem with this? The man's parents are his legal guardians, I presume, made their case to the judge and the judge agreed. End of story.
The problem people have with it is that he could have just used condoms and not made a big fuss out of the whole scenario. However since he apparently has no idea how to use them, his legal guardians could have just (awkwardly) shown him and he could have just dealt with it himself, rather than taking a case to court and wasting time for the justice system. That's my point anyway.
 

Higgins86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
15,818
Reaction score
7,888
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
one less mouth for my tax money to feed and house.
 

DiAnna

Hooter Babe
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
46,365
Reaction score
24,889
Location
Northern California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't buy into the idea that parents have the right to remove bodily functions of their children.
The problem people have with it is that he could have just used condoms and not made a big fuss out of the whole scenario. However since he apparently has no idea how to use them, his legal guardians could have just (awkwardly) shown him and he could have just dealt with it himself, rather than taking a case to court and wasting time for the justice system. That's my point anyway.
The guy has the mind of a 6 yr old. He will always have the mind of a 6 yr old. He has already fathered a child that he has no capacity to care for, and the parents don't want him fathering more, presumably because they could be held responsible for raising the children or paying support for them. This guy wasn't castrated, for crying out loud. He had a vasectomy. Now he can diddle to his little 6 yr old mind's content without fathering a litter of kids that someone has to pay for.

I do not have a problem with this.
 

Dr. Chuckles

King Conspiratard
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
12,895
Reaction score
2,909
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Has Pandora's box been opened for a subclass of society that isnt allowed to breed in the UK's future?
Seems he is telling the court he doesn't want children, but isn't competent to guarantee that with traditional BC measures.

I'm not sure what the problem is here?
 
Top Bottom