Birth control for mentally handicapped?

  • Thread starter Thread starter camerong
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

camerong

Guest
I am in a mental health law class, and a question was just posed–what can be done to prevent a mentally handicapped person from procreating? Assume for the question that without some kind of birth control, there is a significant chance the person will get pregnant (apparently that is true in at least one case we are discussing).

The response among the group (and the court) was that artificial birth control was an appropriate measure. For those of us who object to ABC, what can be done? Thoughts?
 
The mentally and emotionally disabled should be protected by their families - and by extension the parish family - so they are not victimized sexually by anyone.
 
kage_ar said:
The mentally and emotionally disabled should be protected by their families - and by extension the parish family - so they are not victimized sexually by anyone.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t always happen unfortunally.
 
camerong said:
I am in a mental health law class, and a question was just posed–what can be done to prevent a mentally handicapped person from procreating?
Click to expand...
They are asking the wrong question. Why do they believe this that those who have mental handicaps should be “prevented from procreating”?

Have these future lawyers learned NOTHING from the past efforts at eugenics? Or do they even know about them?

The US had compulsory sterilization laws in many places for those who were deemed “unfit,” or “idiots,” etc. The US was the first country to do this. Where do you think the Nazi’s got their idea for it?

Compulsory sterilization is a crime against humanity.
camerong said:
Assume for the question that without some kind of birth control, there is a significant chance the person will get pregnant (apparently that is true in at least one case we are discussing).
Click to expand...
So, the question must be asked: So what?
camerong said:
The response among the group (and the court) was that artificial birth control was an appropriate measure. For those of us who object to ABC, what can be done? Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Protecting those so severely handicapped as to require 24/7 care is the solution for them. They should be protected from predators and those who would do them harm.

For those who will go on to live independent lives, they should be taught the same thing as everyone else: abstinence outside marriage, the purpose of marriage, and natural family planning within marriage.
 
To what degree do you mean by mentally hanicapped? I know plenty of people who have a severe mental illness (thank God for medicine) but have a healthy marriage and children 🙂 I guess this falls more under emotionally handicapped but both can intertwine in some cases; and having a severe mental illness, left untreated, can lead to mental delusions and very poor choices…

And I agree with the post about eugenics…these kinds of questions I believe allude to eugenics.
 
While I can see how eugenics would be a concern, I don’t think they necessarily believe they shouldn’t reproduce, but rather they are referring to people who are so mentally handicapped that they can’t control their actions and end up sleeping around. Because of their state they’d be totally unfit to be a parent. In this case, these children would become dependant upon the state, and that person would keep having children.

I agree with whoever said that the family and parish needs to watch and protect these people. Sterilization or birth control shouldn’t be forced on them. There is an ideal situation and we should be striving for that.
 
Whitacre_Girl said:
While I can see how eugenics would be a concern, I don’t think they necessarily believe they shouldn’t reproduce, but rather they are referring to people who are so mentally handicapped that they can’t control their actions and end up sleeping around. Because of their state they’d be totally unfit to be a parent. In this case, these children would become dependant upon the state, and that person would keep having children.

I agree with whoever said that the family and parish needs to watch and protect these people. Sterilization or birth control shouldn’t be forced on them. There is an ideal situation and we should be striving for that.
Click to expand...
People who do not control themselves sexually are putting themselves and others at risk for disease. If they cannot control themselves, due to some sort of mental illness, they should be institutionalized- just as someone would be institutionalized who endangers themselves or others in other ways because they can’t take care of themselves.
 
To answer the question ‘what can be done for a person in such a situation’, you first need to ask ‘what exactly is it about their situation that makes it wrong for them to procreate in the first place - ie what are the ‘bad’ effects that might result if they DID procreate’.

A combination of different options may be needed to effectively handle the situation - perhaps counselling appropriate to their ability to understand their situation, extra supervision in regards who they come in contact with, as one poster said, even insitutionalisation (always as a last resort of course).

Sometimes it’s just a matter of the person needing a little extra support and resources compared to your average parents if they do have children. Of course parents who are in a lot of other predicaments also need extra help, so we shouldn’t automatically view someone who suffers from a mental illness or intellectual disability as automatically completely different from someone who is poor, a regular teen mother or whatnot.
 
Thanks for all the good thoughts. The context was about a person who had the IQ of a three year old. Apparently, this person had the ability to have sex, and would, given the chance.

I suppose the answer is that it would be better to risk children from such a situation than to cause a person to use birth control. I wish I had all these good responses during class so that I could have raised this point of view, but I didn’t have a chance to think through it much before class ended. It is interesting how everyone else in the room simply assumed some form of ABC should be used.
 
First, mentally handicapped is a euphemism for mentally retarded and does not refer to the mentally ill.

I think a woman who is severely mentally handicapped/retarded (i. e. the mental state of an infant or toddler) is a person who does not have the capacity to consent to sex. Such a person should be protected from sexual abuse, which of course would make contraception superfluous.

I assume this discussion is about a moderately mentally handicapped woman–one who doesn’t need 24/7 supervision but who lacks the intelligence to use NFP or even comprehend the consequences of sex. I honestly think that if a person has the mental state of a child, then they do not have the capacity to consent to sex. The only reason I don’t immediately say ‘yes she should have contraception’ is that contraception is not enough protection. She really needs to be protected from those who would take advantage of her handicapp. She may say yes to sex, but a nine year old can say yes to sex. The man who has sex with the nine year old is still a child molester and the man who would have sex with the adult woman with the mind of a nine year old is a type of child molester too.
 
camerong said:
I am in a mental health law class, and a question was just posed–what can be done to prevent a mentally handicapped person from procreating? Assume for the question that without some kind of birth control, there is a significant chance the person will get pregnant (apparently that is true in at least one case we are discussing).

The response among the group (and the court) was that artificial birth control was an appropriate measure. For those of us who object to ABC, what can be done? Thoughts?
Click to expand...
anyone in your class who brings this up is ignorant of recent history. The issue has already been fought out in the courts. In the early part of the last century forced sterilization of inmates of mental health facilities was routine, there was enormous outcry when this became public knowledge in the 60s and 70s and all kinds of state laws and practices were overturned because of the shock and horror. If a developmentally disabled person is by legal and medical definition incapable of making such decisions for herself, then her legal guardians will make it for her unfortunately.

Since the reason such a step is suggested is often that there is a large likelihood such a person will be victimized by residents or staff of her residential facility, group home, sheltered workshop, or even her own family or aquaintances, you would think well meaning people would address that issue, rather than foisting a drug with major side effects on her as “protection”.
 
Why does the question assume only mentally handicapped females should be prevented from procreating? How about mentally handicapped males?

At what point is someone so mentally handicapped that they should be forced to either take birth control or be sterilized?

Why limit it to the mentally handicapped?

Peace

Tim
 
camerong said:
Thanks for all the good thoughts. The context was about a person who had the IQ of a three year old. Apparently, this person had the ability to have sex, and would, given the chance.

I suppose the answer is that it would be better to risk children from such a situation than to cause a person to use birth control. I wish I had all these good responses during class so that I could have raised this point of view, but I didn’t have a chance to think through it much before class ended. It is interesting how everyone else in the room simply assumed some form of ABC should be used.
Click to expand...
One may never do evil so that good may come of it. Contraception is an intrinsic evil.

Therefore, one can and must do only things that are moral-- protecting this person with supervision and loving care. If such a person were to become pregnant (you don’t say they are a female) or get someone pregnant, then any children born should be lovingly cared for by the family or placed in an adoptive home with loving parents.
 
m134e5 said:
People who do not control themselves sexually are putting themselves and others at risk for disease. If they cannot control themselves, due to some sort of mental illness, they should be institutionalized- just as someone would be institutionalized who endangers themselves or others in other ways because they can’t take care of themselves.
Click to expand...
What a cold opinion of these precious people. These are human beings, created by God. Jesus died for them as much as he died for me.

The family is responsible to care for those in the family who are ill and cannot care for themselves - that is the teachings and commands of Jesus.
 
Orogeny said:
Why does the question assume only mentally handicapped females should be prevented from procreating? How about mentally handicapped males?

At what point is someone so mentally handicapped that they should be forced to either take birth control or be sterilized?

Why limit it to the mentally handicapped?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Yep, lets keep the cripples from having babies, oh and the ugly - and every singly ethnic group we find icky. Guess what, you are thinking just like Margaret Sanger!
 
camerong said:
Thanks for all the good thoughts. The context was about a person who had the IQ of a three year old. Apparently, this person had the ability to have sex, and would, given the chance.

I suppose the answer is that it would be better to risk children from such a situation than to cause a person to use birth control. I wish I had all these good responses during class so that I could have raised this point of view, but I didn’t have a chance to think through it much before class ended. It is interesting how everyone else in the room simply assumed some form of ABC should be used.
Click to expand...
Camerong, I didn’t see your post. I must have been typing mine when you posted it.

However, this is precisely what I thinking: someone with the IQ of a child. I stand by my original post. If this is a woman, she does not have the mental capacity to consent to sex and thus she should be protected by her care-givers to make sure no one takes advantage of her “apparent” willingness to have sex.
 
1ke said:
One may never do evil so that good may come of it. Contraception is an intrinsic evil.

Therefore, one can and must do only things that are moral-- protecting this person with supervision and loving care. If such a person were to become pregnant (you don’t say they are a female) or get someone pregnant, then any children born should be lovingly cared for by the family or placed in an adoptive home with loving parents.
Click to expand...
If such a person were to become pregnant, whoever impregnated her should be considered a rapist. Such a person has no more capacity to consent to sex than does a three-year-old.
 
You basically have the same dilemma with people who are addicts and child abusers. In the interest of society at large it would be better for these folks not to have children. Yet they are people who really lack the ability, judgment, and self-control to abstain from sexual intercourse and take responsibility for their actions.

Mentally retarded adults do have urges like the rest of the human race. To deny them sexual expression by watching them 24/7 could also be construed as violating their human rights. There is no easy answer for this question. I personally think that artificial birth control would be an appropriate medical solution for this problem. It would be ethically no different than forcing a psychotic person to take anti-psychotic medication.
 
Nuns working in war zones where they may be raped are allowed to take oral contraceptives so I guess this would be something similar. But really I agree that this is a very poor solution for the problem. The person should have somebody watch them so that nobody will take advantage of their innocence. They also need to burry whatever kind of monster that would rape a mentally retarded person underneath the jail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top