[Perfect7]

This is something DH and I talked about tonight as one of those "what if" conversations. Our son has (besides MR, and either autism or schizophrenia depending on who he's seen that week) Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy. Any offspring he produced would probably not make it past birth because this disease gets worse with each generation. That's not to mention that fact that it's extremely likely he would never be able to live independently, much less provide for a child. I thought this might be an interesting topic. What do you think?

[Nevada Jen]

I am thankful that it is not something I have to think about because my DD's condition makes her sterile but even if it didn't, I don't think its much of an issue for SEVERELY disabled childen. They are not going to be having babies anyway because they do not have enough independence for that to happen. But it is definately an interesting query related to moderately disabled children. I am interested to hear what others have to say. I am kind of right down the middle. I know a young woman with downs who definately could raise a child with her higher funtioning boyfriend and I think that when she was a preteen, no one would have imagined that she would be at this point. I definately think it should be a parent's choice, not something the state could mandate for certain disabilities or IQ levels.

[Indy]

I have three sons with disabilities. Two of them are not capable of managing their own affairs, let alone a child. I was at one time a shelter workshop director. We provided work for nearly 110 clients on a daily basis. The ranges of disabilities was dramatic. One thing that seems to not "disabled"...the need to have sex. While it is a drive, many of our clients did not have the mental ability to control the desires. Staff was never allowed to be one on one with several clients. So on this side, I support it.

On the other side, who are we to determine whether someone can handle a child or not? Maybe I am wrong about my sons (like I have been before) and they are perfectly capable of raising a child. Maybe it is not the way I would, but they could raise the child.

[Perfect7]

When I was in high school, I worked on an Alzheimer's unit at a nursing home. Though the residents were not mentally cognitive of much, they also still had the sexual desire and there were several instances of us catching some of them attempting to engage in it. Obviously, those with severe physical impairment would not be able to engage in sexual intercourse on their own but there is also rape to consider and the potential for pregnancy. I can see the logic for both sides and was just curious if others had ever thought about this.

[MamaS]

For severely disabled females, there is both the danger of rape and the discomfort of monthly periods. Imagine an adult female with the mental age of a 3-year-old dealing with cramps, bloating and menstruation along with adult diapers etc. Sterilization can make their lives more comfortable and perhaps allow them to live in managed care, or even at home.

[DreamingAzure]

I think that it's something all parents of children with disablities needs to look at. I have a 20 year old cousin who has mild FAS and RADish tendancies. While she acts and functions at a high level, she has no capability to connect cause and effect when it comes to her sex drive. We have urged her father to take her to get her tubes tied on numerous occasions, but I don't think he has done it. At this point she has been kept in a group home where they monitor...but at some point she is going to get cut loose...and the last thing we need is for her to start popping out babies!

I currently work with a social services group that runs group homes for people with mental retardation. Several of our clients have children who have been adopted out or are being raised by family.

I wouldn't want to see the Goverment come back in and tell me that my child HAD to be sterilized, but it's something that I think I would do as a responsible parent.

[crazycanuck]

For me, this is a big "no".

I work with people with developmental disabilities both at home and outside the home. The people I work with (both places) are affected enough by their disabilities that they require full-time support and can't live independently. There's no risk of them getting pregnant - they are always with a staff. The few who are high functioning enough to go out on their own for a few hours during the day, are, as a result, also high functioning enough to learn about birth control and safe sex.

Sterilizing this population, who is most at risk of sexual abuse, won't prevent them being sexually abused - it will just prevent them getting pregnant as a result.

To prevent sexual abuse, most agencies have criminal record checks, references, etc. as part of their screening process during hiring.

The population of people with disabilities that I do see getting pregnant are the mildly to moderately disabled people, who live independently, but perhaps don't have the ability to make healthy choices. I particularly see it with some young women who have FAS, or who are intellectually or emotionally delayed - they want to be loved, and they want to be mothers. However, they have trouble taking care of themselves, and are certainly not ready to take care of a baby. What ends up happening is that they get pregnant, baby is born, and the Ministry takes the baby. Over and over.

Sterilization isn't the answer here either - education and support is. If we were to start sterilizing this at-risk "high functioning" population, how do you decide who is affected enough to be an unfit parent, and who could parent with support? It's a very slippery slope. Rather than sterilize these folks, we should provide social skills training, sex education, and parenting courses (think highschool with the doll that cries and whatnot). Then, if someone has been through that simulated parenting experience, done reasonably well, and still wants to parent, further training and support (prenatal classes, parenting classes, lifeskills training, etc.). A bit expensive? Sure! But still cheaper than having a child grow up in care.

Last but not least - for children (teens) with disabilities who are likely to be sexually active, I fully support a blend of supervision, education, and, if they are sexually active, mandatory (according to the parents) birth control. For what it's worth, if I had a non-disabled child (teen) who was sexually active, he/she would be using mandatory birth control also! Teens, disabled or not, don't really have a concept of permanent serious consequences. They think things just happen to other people - hence drinking and driving and other such risky behaviour.

I think I read somewhere that they'll be coming out with a male "pill" in the next few years...

[Dickons]

Forced sterilization in history is worth reviewing.

Who is to say that any member of society today is any more capable of making a decision of such magnitude on behalf of another than they were in the 20th century?

Under yesterday's criteria 'orphans and homosexuals' were included in those to be sterilized...

Sterilization – FREE Sterilization information | Encyclopedia.com: Find Sterilization research

Regards,
Dickons

[kay]

While I do think that "they" should be sterilized, I have a hard time with determining who "we" are that I would trust to decree who "they" are. Way too much power, and way too little control. But it's a problem. Supervision is not infallible, and background checks are not perfect, and mandatory birth control is easily sidestepped or forgotten. I have no answers for this one.

[athikers]

I often think of this with my son... who is at two years old just cute and adorable... but will one day have everything that goes with severe frontal lobe injury... not the least of which is an inability to control sexual impulses.

Still brain injury is very unpredictable, I don't know what he will be like 5 years or 10 years or 15 years from now, so I don't think I have the right to make that choice for him.