A High Court judge is being asked to make legal history and sanction the first sterilisation of a man in this country because it is ‘in his best interests’.
Referred to as ‘DE’, the 36-year-old, from the Midlands, has learning difficulties and already has a son with his girlfriend, born in 2010.
The court heard that DE does not want to become a father again, and another child could cause him ‘psychological harm’.
Experts have assessed that DE is capable of consenting to sexual relationships.
But he does not have capacity when it comes to making decisions about contraception and cannot be relied upon to use condoms or other birth control methods effectively to prevent pregnancy.
This ingenious idea formed the basis of Nazi Germany
Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany’s racially based social policies that placed the improvement of the Aryan race through eugenics at the center of Nazis ideology. Those humans were targeted who were identified as “life unworthy of life” (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), including but not limited to the criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane, and the weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will
Eugenics was all the rage in America before WWII; Britain had flirted with Eugenics as well with the Fabians especially fond of Eugenics:
http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/12/british-eugenics-disabled
A popular fad-science in its day much like present-day CAGW. The Nazis just put the ideas into practice – and history shows us the horrific results.
Sad to see Britain returning to their old twisted ways. I thought we were past all this?
Why can’t they just take the kids away if he’s incompetent?
I’m glad they still wear wigs, because otherwise it’d be hard to take them seriously.
Why doesn’t the article discuss his girlfriend’s situation? Is she similarly incapable of using birth control?
The guy does not want to father any more children! A vasectomy is the easiest way to insure that outcome. I was 38 when I had a vasectomy and I know men that had them at earlier ages. It has nothing to do with Eugenics.
Did you go to court to get your vasectomy?
no! I was not considered mentally challenged. I guess in the UK people need to go to court for things like that.
If it was consensual, it wouldn’t have involved the courts.
Even in this country if a person is legally mentally challenged they need to get legal permission for medical procedures such as a vasectomy.
So this happens all the time, except that it is the first time it has happened,
If they claim it is the first! That is what they want to claim. If you believe it, that is what you want to believe.
That’s the whole point. There are far more people just like DE floating around out there, enough to bring that court to a standstill for decades, if not permanently.
And in the next breath:
But he already made the decision not to have more children. The court is unnecessary and unconstitutional here and this issue can easily be handled by a carer or family member, if they weren’t the ones that applied to the court along with the NHS. As can be seen here from the article:
Taking this to court was entirely unnecessary and is just making the court and various lawyers richer. Luckily his parents will be paying.
I was a grandfather at the age of 28 and I adopted one of my wife’s granddaughters. When that marriage ended I did not want to have any more children and neither did my partner as she had trouble carrying children full term.
Did you go to court to get your vasectomy?
Grandfather at 28 ? SHITE ! This man doesn’t need a vasectomy he needs a lobotomy !!
Not long ago I saw a TV clip of some guy who fathered more than 20 children with over 15 women and of course was proud of all and responsible for none (numbers are plus or minute but fairly accurate) My inclination was to give him a vasectomy using a razor blade, starting at one knee and making a big upside down U.
Regardless, I would consider him a rare candidate for a vasectomy. —and, I detest the idea of eugenics.
That is a rare candidate for a forced vasectomy!
Grandfather at 28! You could become a great-grandfather at 43! And a great-great-grandfather at 59! And a great-great-great…………..oh, never mind.
Jimbo:
The lady I married was 9 years older that I was and she had 3 children and 4 grand-children.
Let’s think about this! I have aunts and cousins that were married at 14, became grand-parents at 30 and great-grand-parents at 50.
The US also sterilized thousands. So did Canada and Sweden (they continued to do so well into the ’70s). Peru had a forced sterilization program during the ’90s financed by USAID among others.
So the Nazi’s weren’t the first nor the only ones to use eugenics programs, they are just the most infamous example.
Chris: This isn’t about eugenics. I’ve worked with state supported adults with learning disabilities who have had up to the last count as I haven’t seen them for six years now , three babies all taken into care. They weren’t even bothered , the only people that were bothered were the social workers telling them that it’s ‘their human rights’ to have children.
In the UK learning disabilities is ridiculously funded due to the policy of living in the so called ‘community’ . I know one service which costs around £450.000 per year to keep three people living in that community who have recently complained about the noise and inappropriate behaviour. It’s no ones fault just a stupid placement.
If he wants a vasectomy, why is this in the courts? Why didn’t he just go to the doctor?
Steve go back over the story: It was felt he didn’t have the mental capacity to make that decision so all the do gooders leapt in on his so called behalf. I loike your stuff but I feel your headline is way over the top. Adults with disabilities and especially learning disabilities are more protected than the average person in the UK and in terms of income have more than the person that goes to work. An individual on full benefits here will get nearly £17000.00 per year pure disposable income bar some personal heating and light. There is no rent (paid by housing benefit some places £500 per week oer person in shared accommodation)). there is no local government tax (council tax I pay £2000 per eg)
All 24hr 7 days per week care costs are paid for and so on. So to suggest that this is a Nazi style decision to get rid of parts of the population is over the top. The people most at threat here in the UK are the elderly who have worked hard al their lives , maybe bought a home to try and leave something to their kids ; it is these people that once needing care will have to sell their homes up to a thousand pounds per week .Meanwhile those that have never bothered even trying to work get it free. The elderly without family or advocates have been literally neglected to death in our much admired NHS. It’s been a national scandal for years now.
I actually agree with that decision. As someone who ‘s experience this situation. You can’t keep going on with state subsidised unwanted children. When some who cannot look after children just keep having them , they then go into the care system where generally they are unwanted . For Christ sakes there are plenty of adults who do not have learning disabilities giving birth to kids by different fathers who really are not fit enough to have a pet bird let alone raise a child. We had the infamous Baby P case here in the UK which is really more common than people realise . Are you suggesting that the murdering brutal step-father in this case is too good to have his balls cut off?
I’m vehemently against abortion as it’s another savage act against a child who was conceived out of pure hedonistic couldn’t give a flying duck attitude , however in this case where unwanted babies are being born to a miserable future I agree with the judge.
Hello China!
If anything here in the UK it’s the hardest thing in the world to get a sensible decision made. In this case even if the chap involved wanted to willingly have the snip his advocats and others would have decided he didn’t have the mental capacity to make that decision..
Should have been made much earlier. By the way again here in the UK as in the state; we have many people who through drugs, alcohol and life style shouldn’t be allowed to have kids as they all finish up damaged and in the care system where they are then prey to all sorts of monsters. In poorer countries around the world people dream of education for their kids ; here in the UK there are hundreds of thousands who don’t give a stuff if their kids are educated even though it cost the tax payer around £6000.00 per year.
I did agree with China’s solution to drug dealer: round ’em up and execute them. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
What about executing all vintners, brewers, distillers, bartenders, bar owners, and liquor store owners?
You have much thinking to do before answering.
Well, this is a very hard case to judge and I can see valid points on both sides. Ultimately, when there’s significant and intractable doubt about which course of action is right, it’s best to decide based on what you think, to the best of your ability, is preferred by the protected person. That’s the difference between this case and Hitler — the Nazis decided first, based on their politics, what they wanted, and then made dubious arguments for why the patients must really want sterilization, though on some level they had to know it was a crock.
In this case it appears that the caretakers, the court, and the government truly believe that this will make the disabled person happy, whereas he is clearly not happy with the status quo. In the absence of any other compelling legal argument, that should be the standard that is applied in such a case.
There’s no easy decision in this kind of situation, but there is one that seems better and one that seems probably worse.
RTF
The judge should rule that it is a family matter and none of the government’s business.
Apparently you’re saying they shouldn’t have to ask the court for permission to proceed, since everyone involved agrees it’s a good idea.
Given the history of the Nazis, I think it’s a good thing that there’s a court available to hold a hearing and receive evidence according to established rules. Without that, who decides what the patient’s preference is? The health provider? The parents? The Official Solicitor? Couldn’t each of these parties have some conflict of interest that drives their conclusion? Remember we’re dealing with a grown man who is adjudged to be incompetent to make some of his own decisions. Should any judicial review of that be possible, when the situation involves reproductive rights? Otherwise, if the decision makers are actually eugenicists, there’s nothing to stop them from doing what they want.
If I have to pass a test to get a driver’s license, I don’t see why the health provider and the guardians shouldn’t have to go to court to get permission to sterilize a grown man.
According to the court, this is the individual’s wishes,as well as the family’s wishes.
There is no conflict and the courts should not be involved.
If he wants the procedure he can just go get it scheduled. Why involve a court?
The moment the man was adjudged unable to take care of himself, the court became involved! Since it appears that the court is about to do what you think should happen, I don’t see where the disagreement is!
Dave, he can’t just go get it scheduled because he’s been determined to be legally incompetent. And for the same reason, the parents can’t do so either. There are good reasons for such laws.
And even better reasons to not have whatever laws you are talking about.
They are to ensure the protection of the disabled, something which I hope you will never have to understand the need for.
“Since it appears that the court is about to do what you think should happen, I don’t see where the disagreement is!”
I don’t think anything “should happen”. If he wants a vasectomy, he can get one on his own. Its in Britain so he can schedule one 5 years from now with their vaunted national health service free of charge. I don’t think a court should be hearing a case of this type. If people don’t find this chilling its “game over” for the magna carta era, to quote Dr. Hansen.
Steve I know social services in the UK rather well and believe me they would have gone around the houses to stop this or better still reach a right decision. We have to be very responsible before bringing children into this world and abortion is a carnage solution to that lack of responsibility. A solution that corrodes us all . All this is a bloke with a learning disability who seems to enjoy sex and would be happy to take the snip. Usually in the UK it’s a load of lefties demanding the human right to have a child regardless of whether it will go into the care system or be looked after properly. The very same people the want every woman to have the right to kill that child if decided its not wanted.. #
All this bloke has lost is ability to father kids left right and center -not his life and for all we know and my guess , this is what he would have wanted.
There shouldn’t be any government involvement. It is a family matter.
I don’t see any “valid points”. A government has no business sterilizing people or even supervising his visits with the girlfriend. There are not 2 sides to this story.
The court is being asked to authorize a sterilization. They’re being asked because it could be bad for the patient to leave all power in the hands of the two people he lives with. As for the supervision, he is in custody! He is expected to live within certain rules of behavior, which might reasonably include not fathering an unlimited number of children.
Family matter. The government has no business being involved. Bad shit happens every minute somewhere.
What if the guardians weren’t his parents or other trusted relatives, but just court-appointed strangers? Would you agree with me then?
What if global warming was real?
I hear you man, but I’ve seen stuff you probably can’t even imagine.
He wants a vasectomy. His family wants him to get a vasectomy. Get the government out of it, and no more straw man arguments.
Indeed. And since the US government will soon be paying for our healthcare, we will be expected to live within certain rules of behavior. Maybe we can limit the amount of bacon and beef a person can purchase on account it might lead to heart disease? You can make arguments for supervising anyones behavior for the good of society but there is a trade off between what sounds reasonable and overall liberty. I prefer a world with liberty for the majority with the cost that some people will screw up their lives, as opposed to a government nanny state controlling my every move.
I’m not saying the rules of behavior should be different because the government’s paying for his kids’ health care! I’m saying that there’s nothing wrong with telling a man who’s in court-ordered custody that there’s a limit on the number of kids he can have if neither parent can afford to bring them up. That’s a different argument and one that’s still relevant even if the government doesn’t pay a penny toward health care for his kids.
You said, “You can make arguments for supervising anyones behavior for the good of society but there is a trade off between what sounds reasonable and overall liberty.” In point of fact I was not making any argument for supervising the behavior of a free adult for the good of society. I don’t believe in that at all! This man is in custody, and it sounds like he doesn’t want any more kids but is having a hard time managing the tasks that are required to limit the number he fathers.
That sounds to me like a situation where the parents might want some level of custody, and of course you can’t have that without a court’s involvement. I’m not going to get bogged down in this issue; it appears to be a simple matter of a severely disabled person who needs a little help with things, and the parents probably want the backup that’s afforded by a custody ruling. It’s best for the patient, and in many cases it’s also very beneficial for the parents, whose lives can be totally upended by having such a son in their care. Yes, it’s true that government has been known to make a royal mess of it. But I haven’t seen any evidence of that in this article. If the parents have come out and said “We don’t want the courts or social services involved, we want our son to have legal independence”, then I’d say it merits some close attention before drawing a conclusion about whether it should have happened in the first place.
The fellow has a learning disability and will just keep popping the kids out whether he wants to or not and the kids will go into care- is that what you want?
This is the inevitable outcome when you have government managing more and more of people’s daily lives. The USA is only a short distance behind Britain. If leftist zealots like Bloomberg think they can control soda sizes, why not send government officials to monitor sexual relations to “keep us safe” and sterilize those who “should not” have children? This trend has been slowly gathering steam since the new deal expansion of the federal government and if its not reversed soon all liberties will be gone.
This is nothing like that whatsoever. If people want to eat lots of sugar even though they are say diabetic then that’s their call. In this case there is a human being created as a consequence and that kid will go into the care system and meet people like Jimmy Saville.
You need so perspective on this issue
There will be much less crime when police can kick your door in any time.
It’s their call now to eat sugar, but I predict in the years to come the government will step in to regulate it. We’ve already seen the first inkling of that with Herr Bloomberg’s ban on large sodas. The overall trend through the years has been more and more government control over everything from the type of light bulb you have to children running a lemonade stand in the front yard. And as I mentioned above, once the government takes over paying for something, then you cede control to them over outcomes. If Obamacare takes full effect, since they will be subsidizing health insurance payments for a large part of the population they will be able to justify controlling people’s behavior. You will not be allowed to eat how much sugar you want because it will lead to large future costs for society at large. Imposed limits on sugar consumption or anything else health related will be easy to justify and I predict it will happen if society does not reverse course soon.
I would also point out the general rule of slippery slop that applies universally to government programs. Sure this one case seems limited. However if the judge rules for the imposed procedure it will set a precedent. The precedent will be followed by “mission creep” where its used to justify a less obvious case in the future, until many years from now the British government is routinely sterilizing people.
People are losing their minds just because it is a medical matter. The court/.any court has no role.
Bring back Pennhurdt Asylum!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG33HvIKOgQ
Heaven forbid you are deemed by the powers that be to be, “unfit to their way of thinking”.
Skeptics, are you listening? Libertarians? Christians? JEWS?!
EUGENICS! Learn it or live it.
Wake the fuck up and realize that family, and not government, is the answer. How many of these tortured children could, and would have been saved by their own.
Those who fail to study history are DOOMED TO REPEAT IT!
Progressives of any color or shape are pure evil.
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men [. . .] are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, [. . .] and that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
One of those rights is surely the right to reproduce in the event that one has the financial means to support a child at the expected cost. That right is so obvious and so basic that it was not even thought necessary to mention in either the Declaration or the Constitution.
An argument has been made on this page, several times by several people, that it’s improper for government to secure this right. The reason offered seems to be that by giving government power to secure this right, government can then use the power it’s been given to do other things it hasn’t been authorized to do, including infringing on the reproductive rights and even murdering the very people who have granted it power through their consent. If this argument had any validity, it would logically follow that there should be no government whatsoever, at any time or any place. What’s being advocated, then, is actually anarchism and social Darwinism, philosophies that are apparently believed to be superior to the status quo for the simple reason that accepting the status quo can lead to Nazi Germany. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t offer an adequate response to that, since my head is presently reeling so much I can’t think straight.
All I can think to say is, yes it appears we’re heading back toward elements of Nazi Germany and Soviet-style government. But if that’s going to happen, it’s going to happen regardless of how much or how little government there is. We can declare independence from it personally and amongst our friends, and we should. But we can’t rid ourselves of this beast on our own. Only God can do that, and He will. In the meantime, we’re all expected to help out the less fortunate when we can, and that’s what I’ve been advocating on this page. Help them out a little, and keep a little eye on a person’s caretakers if he can’t take care of himself. Don’t just walk past him and say, “Well, it’s someone else’s responsibility. I shouldn’t have to be burdened with this.” Freely you have received, freely give. If we don’t follow that instruction, we will eventually find that our gifts are taken away from us.
Britain today is an awful place to which I would hope never to have to move. But the matter we’re debating — whether a court has jurisdiction in such a case — has been standard practice in all civilized countries since time immemorial. The reason for that is simple, as Jefferson made so clear — it is the basic function of a government.
Do I trust government to take care of people properly, on it’s own? Of course not! Do I think that it has some protective role to play as people’s minds slowly rot and turn ever more toward evil thoughts? You bet I do. Let the people check the government, even as the government checks the people. Let the two sides share power, lest one side or the other become overly destructive of people’s rights.