- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 11,655
- Reaction score
- 3,612
- Location
- WA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
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.
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.
I'd be fine with castrating violent rapists, but that is a different topic.
This story doesnt make sense already. How can he be apt enough to have a job but so clueless of breeding?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?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.
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Has Pandora's box been opened for a subclass of society that isnt allowed to breed in the UK's future?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?