Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've been listening to an Irish radio station and an interesting topic was brought up. Somebody emailed in saying that they work with severely mentally disabled adults. She explained that they have sexual urges, but having no way to release them she suggested that it would increase their quality of life to be sterilised. Her justification is that sometimes they get very upset and on occasion some try to relieve those urges by sexually assaulting other people in the care home.
    There was another woman who sterilised her severely disabled daughter so that she wouldn't get upset with periods which she didn't understand.

    So, do you think sterilisation of severely disabled adults should be an option to prevent their frustration and the potential of them harming others?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It should be an option but definitely not compulsory.

    EDIT: Not that you ever said it should be compulsory
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's not like the can actually perform the actions needed to have children. Does sterilisation get rid of sexual urges, though?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They should just hire someone to help them fulfill their sexual urges.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    if they're capable of assaulting someone, they can surely be taught to masturbate?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If it was introduced potential for abuse and pressure for severely disabled people to be sterilised would be there, and be very real. As much as, in terms of survival of the fittest, severely disabled people having children makes little sense, the individual right of the disabled person to have children still stands.

    Disability spans across a wide spectrum of severity. None of us on here are likely to understand it enough to have a strong opinion on either specifically 'yes' or 'no'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I saw a really disturbing tv drama once about a woman with a young mental age and a guy with Downs Syndrome who ended up having sex and because they didn't use contraception she got pregnant and had to take the abortion pill it was really disturbing because she didn't really understand what was happening to her. Maybe in those sort of cases it would have been a good idea but in actuality I think parents would think it too extreme a measure.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought sterilisation just prevented them from having kids, rather than riding a person of their sex drive.

    I've heard about chemical castration for men, i'm sure there would be some equivalent thing for women. Obviously it shouldn't be compulsory, but perhaps the option should be there in extreme cases. Doesn't really sit right with me though, its like neutering a dog or something.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lucinda_x)
    I saw a really disturbing tv drama once about a woman with a young mental age and a guy with Downs Syndrome who ended up having sex and because they didn't use contraception she got pregnant and had to take the abortion pill it was really disturbing because she didn't really understand what was happening to her. Maybe in those sort of cases it would have been a good idea but in actuality I think parents would think it too extreme a measure.
    Yeah, I remember that. She got really ill because it'd gone wrong, and then the mother had to explain herself to the doctors...

    IMO, it should be an option for carers to be able to decide whether to do this to a person or not. But I wouldn't be happy with it being offered by healthcare professionals; it should be a last resort as far as I'm concerned.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There was a case in 1990 where a Health Authoruty sought a declaration stating that it was not unlawful to sterilise a girl suffering a serious mental disability after forming a sexual relationship with another patient.

    It was held as a necessity by the House of Lords.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    This is something that you initially think "f*** no that's against their rights!" but once you actually think about it does make some sense.

    I have been told that periods can be very painful for girls. Mentally disabled girls still get them but are not of a maturity that they actually understand them. They are not going to be having sex anyway so I see no reason why they should have to undergo them each month purely because of ... well ... what?

    I can also understand that male patients might be more inclined to sexually assault other patients and sterilisation can stop this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If it benefited the person involved and helped protect others around them, then sterilisation could perhaps be considered.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Deano88)
    I thought sterilisation just prevented them from having kids, rather than riding a person of their sex drive.

    I've heard about chemical castration for men, i'm sure there would be some equivalent thing for women. Obviously it shouldn't be compulsory, but perhaps the option should be there in extreme cases. Doesn't really sit right with me though, its like neutering a dog or something.
    sterilisation does not prevent sexual activity or feelings. it merely prevents off-spring. chemical castration requires a dampening of the sex hormones, so inducing menopause in the man/woman using them. the drugs used are zoladex, lupron, and a few others (names escape me). however, this has the effect of weakening people's immune systems, decreasing bone-density (running risk of osteo-parosis from a young age), and these drugs have been associated with severe health problems including fibromyalgia, rheumatic conditions and others. do a google search for "lupron horror stories". plus the drugs need to be administered every month or three-months by injection, or a daily nasal spray.



    (Original post by Geisskane)
    So, do you think sterilisation of severely disabled adults should be an option to prevent their frustration and the potential of them harming others?
    i would just like to interject that "severely" disabled people can span people who are completely incappable of sex due to the severity of either their physical or mental disabilities (we're talking about people who have a vocabulary of about 8 noises, are double incontinent, unable to feed themselves, unable to even move their arms, let alone masturbate or manipulate a partner); right through to people such as Stephen Hawking, who is severely physically disabled, but has a perfectly working mind... should Hawking have been sterilised? i hope you can see talking about severe disability is not black and white.

    the girl who had the hysterectomy was severely disabled. as in never developed past the mental age of a few months old. this meant every 28 days she would experience cramps etc. how fair was it for her to endure this? in this case, i think the mother knew what was best to care for her daughter.

    the sterilisation cases of people with downs etc concerned people with moderate and mild disabilities. which meant people who actually had enough cognitive functioning to know 1. how to masturbate, 2. what they should and shouldn't do without other's consent (to a certain degree), and 3. basic sexual awareness if this is taught in a manner appropriate to their mental age and understanding.

    in this instance, i think the fraser/gillick competence guidelines should be followed concerning the maturity of the person with regards their own body, contraception and ability to care for a child. if the person is deemed to be below fraser competence then it is the responsibility of the parent/carer to ensure the disabled person is kept safe and/or given contraception if they are still wishing to have sex.

    bear in mind also, sterilsation is an invasive operation, which involves severing the tubes of men or women. for men, it is done under local anaesthesia, where the men are fully able to see what is done. however, for women, it requires a laparoscopic procedure and at least a day, if not several in hospital, plus morphine... why put someone through that when there are methods of contraception as effective as sterilisation?

    or do we hold such little value for people that we say disabled people should not breed?

    who dictates this, and where should the line be drawn?


    (Original post by dn013)
    They should just hire someone to help them fulfill their sexual urges.
    this is an ethical nightmare. which if we discussed it here, the thread would go very very off-topic. but why should anyone have the right to buy another person? the causes for peope being within the sex industry are varied, but Melissa Farley et al found consistently accross 5 countries and later accross 9 countries that circa 90% of sex workers wish they could exit the profession immediately to work somewhere else, but there was not the facility to do so. so what gives anyone the right to buy another person, just because they are there, does not mean they "should" be bought.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.