British legal history sterilisation sanctioned man severe learning difficulties

British legal history sterilisation sanctioned man severe learning difficulties

 As a parent of a 24 year old man with learning disability, who has always been concerned about when and if he becomes sexually active how I will make sure he uses protection, I would welcome a law that could make it possible for decisions to be taken out of the hands of close family, especially where the person in question does not have the mental capacity to be responsible for this themselves. I understand that is one big imposition on the human rights of the adult. I have found there is far too much red tape involved which takes into consideration human rights, but which fails to take into consideration the vulnerable adults and others best interests. Parents and carers and end up being accused of imposing their view and failing to consider human rights, rather than being seen as being supportive, often there are too many do-gooders out there enforcing a persons rights which are clearly not in the interests of that persons health and welfare. So I welcome this move..yet it should always be carefully considered for each individual.

 

 

A disabled man will have to be sterilised because it would damage his life to have any more children, a judge ruled yesterday. 
Mrs Justice Eleanor King said the man, who has a mental age of between six and nine years, was deeply distressed when his girlfriend became pregnant four years ago.
The child is now being looked after by his grandmother.
However the judge decided sterilisation ‘was in his best interests’ as he could not be relied on to use condoms or other birth control methods to prevent another pregnancy.
The 36-year-old, who can only be referred to as DE, is in a long-term relationship with his girlfriend – who also has learning difficulties. 
While he is dependent on his parents, the court heard that he had got to the stage where he could catch a bus, go swimming, or go and buy a coffee by himself.
The judge made it clear that DE’s relationship with his girlfriend, which was disrupted by her pregnancy, should be supported and the couple ‘should be permitted to resume their sexual relationship’.
But she said that having another child would threaten his hard-earned independence. 
And she insisted that the vasectomy would let him have ‘as normal a life as possible as soon as possible’.
‘DE is unequivocal in expressing his wish not to have any more children,’ she said.

The application to Mrs Justice Eleanor King, sitting in the Court of Protection, was made by DE's local NHS Trust with support from his parents, his GP and the local authority involved in his care

Claiming the ruling would be in his best interests, she added: ‘DE’s hard-earned achievements, whether they are learning to swim by imitation as he can’t process spoken instruction, or getting a bus on his own, must be treasured.’
The application to sanction a vasectomy had been made by the man’s NHS trust, supported by his parents, GP and the local authority that organised his care.