Should a disabled woman be forced to use contraception?
by Michael Cook | 26 Apr 2020 | 1 comment
A British woman with learning disabilities should be fitted with an IUD against her will, a judge has ruled in the UK Court of Protection.
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust asked the court to compel the woman to have the contraceptive device inserted because the woman has already had four children and is pregnant with a fifth.
More pregnancies could damage her health, doctors believe. All of her pregnancies have been risky because of a congenital malformation of her uterus. One of her children died shortly after birth and the other three have been removed from her care.
But the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, disagrees. "It's my body and it's my life," she told Mrs Justice Gwynneth Knowles.
She agreed to having contraception via three-monthly depo-provera injections but did not want an IUD "I should have the choice on what I want," she said. However, doctors say that she would not keep appointments for an injection.
Notwithstanding the woman’s objections, Mrs Justice Knowles ruled that fitting a contraceptive device after a planned Caesarean section operation would be in her best interests. The woman, she wrote, does not have sufficient mental capacity to make decisions about contraception.
Although many bioethicists would agree with the outcome of this case, Michael Wee, of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Oxford, believes that the judge was mistaken. He told CNA:
“This judgment is deeply problematic because it raises fundamental questions of whether contraception should be seen as an acceptable medical or social intervention to solve a problem, and whether it is the kind of intervention that the state or the judiciary should ever encourage or compel by law …
“It is unfortunately easy to see contraception as a quick-fix solution -- one that conveniently erases fertility from the picture, without seeking to address underlying questions of what is appropriate and responsible sexual behavior, and what social support can be provided for vulnerable people.”
He added: “It is odd that there is no consideration of whether the woman is mentally capable of consenting to sex, even though the judge accepted evidence that the woman does not have capacity to make decisions about contraception.”
“Consent to intercourse and consent to contraception are surely intimately linked, and if there is any doubt about the woman's capacity to have genuinely consensual intercourse then this raises serious questions of abuse and other safeguarding issues relating to any previous, ongoing and future sexual relationships. Contraception does not solve, and may even entrench, such a dangerous situation.”
Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge
I'm not sure who was the first to say, "“Never let a good crisis go to waste". But lots of people are taking this wisdom to heart in the Covid-19 pandemic. It's a time when unconventional ideas may get a warmer welcome than usual because of the fear and the sense of urgency in the air. Perhaps that's why organ donation euthanasia sounds a bit more plausible if Covid-19 victims are doing the donating. See the report below.
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Apr 26, 2020
Two bioethicists argue that victims can offer their bodies for experimentation and organ donationby Michael Cook | Apr 26, 2020
A lifespan approach to bioethicsby Michael Cook | Apr 26, 2020
He has been giving the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine to coronavirus-positive elderly patientsby Michael Cook | Apr 26, 2020
It might save lives but it tests the bounds of privacyby Michael Cook | Apr 26, 2020
A British judge has ruled that a woman should be fitted with an IUDby Xavier Symons | Apr 25, 2020
Patients need not be competent to be euthanised.by Michael Cook | Apr 25, 2020
Neglect of nursing homes is a “humanitarian crisis”. BioEdge
Level 1, 488 Botany Road, Alexandria NSW 2015 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario