Mother of 9 sues doctors for making her sterile

[luckystar112]

Link

The link is actually about all the backlash she''s getting now that the lawsuit has been made public.
What do you all think of this?

I''m torn. Obvious malpractice aside, this woman appears to be quite the idiot.
She''s only 35, had her first baby at 14, only lives with 4 of her children, is on public assistance, and is a single mother. Multiple fathers.

This of course differs from the duggars who have the means to provide for ALL of their children in some way.

On the other hand, it is her right to have as many kids as she wants, and it''s terrifying that a doctor would take it upon his- or herself to sterilize her. On the...third(?) hand, I can''t say I feel terrible about the fact that she can''t have any more children.

Just wondering what you all think....

 

[meresal]

This is one of those "Floodgates" I never want to see opened. If it is allowed, who knows where it will stop.

So my answer is, No, I do not think women should be told/made so that they cannot have more children by anyone.

ETA: However, I think the government putting a cap on how many children they will give you assistance for, is a VERY good idea.

 

[yssie]

Edit.


Ditto the gov't cap.

 

[vespergirl]

Honestly, I can''t think of a better person to forcibly sterilize (outside of the Octomom). I don''t believe in welfare, so I''m all for birth control, abortion, and sterilization.

Because our govt. will probably never get rid of welfare entirely, I think that women who are receiving welfare benefits should be required to get a temporary-sterilization contraceptive device like an IUD or Norplant. If they find that too intrusive, then they can turn down their welfare benefits and get nothing. I would also offer free contraception, sterilization and abortion services for anyone who wants them. It''s much cheaper to pay for that than to support endless cycles of generational poverty.

 

[radiantquest]

Yes, there are many perspectives with this. I am on the side of her not having any more children. That does not mean that I have the right to permanently take that away from her. What is legal and what makes sense is not always that same thing.

 

[Lauren8211]

That''s a very scary slippery slope, allowing people to decide who should be sterilized.

I may not agree with people''s decisions, or the fact that we financially support those decisions as a country, but there''s no WAY I''d support people deciding to sterilize other people because they think they''ve had too many babies! Sick!

 

[somethingshiny]

I''m really torn. I think that this woman NEEDED to be sterilized but it should not be a dr''s decision. If it''s allowed in any way for any medical condition or non-condition, it would be devastating.

I do not think the gov''t needs to place a cap on children. For example: many Catholics are forbidden by religion to use BC of any kind. And, if you take away the help, these children could starve. You can''t mess with religion and you can''t let babies starve. period.

I also think it''s very closed-minded to think there''s NO need for public assistance. When I was growing up my dad got into a horrible car accident. We had no income for months while he was recovering. We HAD to have public assistance to live. My mom had 4 children, 2 weren''t even in school yet so she couldn''t exactly go to work, nor would she have made enough money to cover half of the bills. She made what money she could by babysitting in our home and making/selling things. It''s ignorant to think that just because people need help that they must not be trying.

 

[luckystar112]

Vesper, I tend to agree with you about welfare--unless the recipient has mental or physical handicap, of course. I agree that there should be a cap to how many kids you can have. At the same time, what would that mean for the children? The money technically isn''t FOR the mother, it''s for them. Although we all know that the money is not always used that way.

If you believe her story, it sounds like this woman did request a IUD, and the doctors gave her a tubal ligation instead.

HOWEVER, I have yet to confirm this (got the information from the comments in the article). But it sounds like she may have signed a consent form for the tubal ligation after all. Again, not confirmed, but some people in the comments are saying that the consent form was sent to her previous lawyer (who dropped the case). Now she has a new lawyer and the consent form can''t be found.
Also in the comments section, they are saying that she sued CVS a while back (and won) because she got pregnant after using expired spermicide.
If that''s true then

.

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:14:18 PM
Author: somethingshiny
I'm really torn. I think that this woman NEEDED to be sterilized but it should not be a dr's decision. If it's allowed in any way for any medical condition or non-condition, it would be devastating.

I do not think the gov't needs to place a cap on children. For example: many Catholics are forbidden by religion to use BC of any kind. And, if you take away the help, these children could starve. You can't mess with religion and you can't let babies starve. period.

I also think it's very closed-minded to think there's NO need for public assistance. When I was growing up my dad got into a horrible car accident. We had no income for months while he was recovering. We HAD to have public assistance to live. My mom had 4 children, 2 weren't even in school yet so she couldn't exactly go to work, nor would she have made enough money to cover half of the bills. She made what money she could by babysitting in our home and making/selling things. It's ignorant to think that just because people need help that they must not be trying.

Where did you get that comment from?

SS, my comment on the idea of a government cap is mainly based on people that are already on assistance. If the goverment wants to approve a family that has been hit hard financially due to a misfortune, fine... but I have to say, I would not agree with your mom having a 5th child while on government assistance, as I'm sure you being a rational person that she was as well, would not have made that coice anyway.

Also, Catholics are not forced to have sex, which is the only 100% form of BC out there, abstinance.

If there is a law in place that you cannot have increased funding for anymore children once you are on assistance, then it is not the government "letting" babies starve, it is the mother that decided to break the law.

 

[somethingshiny]

Meresal~ The last line of my post was my own vent. Not directed at anyone. That paragraph of my post was in response to a "required sterilization" and the gov''t putting a cap on the NUMBER of children, not the FUNDING.

And, while I agree that my mom would''ve been irresponsible to have a 5th child in those circumstances, she got pregnant 2x while on multiple BC methods. I''d assume that it happens to others too so that can''t be a stipulation of funding. Obviously the only BC that is 100% is abstinence, but we know you can''t require that.

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:26:16 PM
Author: somethingshiny
Meresal~ The last line of my post was my own vent. Not directed at anyone. That paragraph of my post was in response to a 'required sterilization' and the gov't putting a cap on the NUMBER of children, not the FUNDING.

And, while I agree that my mom would've been irresponsible to have a 5th child in those circumstances, she got pregnant 2x while on multiple BC methods. I'd assume that it happens to others too so that can't be a stipulation of funding. Obviously the only BC that is 100% is abstinence, but we know you can't require that.

Ok, lol. I was so lost!

For the record, I still don't agree with someone else deciding that your "time" is up. The cap on funding (ie, having children AFTER being approved for assistance) was just an idea at attempting to stop these "unplanned" pregnancies from happening. However, and I know this is a generalization, many of these women would just expect the money or assistance to come from someone else. One door closes...

 

[Maisie]

If the woman definitely didn''t sign the form then they had no right to sterilise her. They can''t just take it upon themselves to decide that she has had too many children. Even if she is on welfare.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/6/2010 2:54:44 PM
Author: meresal
ETA: However, I think the government putting a cap on how many children they will give you assistance for, is a VERY good idea.

This has been in place for a long time already. Since welfare reform in many states. But it is a state by state policy.

I don't think the government or doctors should have any say on who is sterilized. Period. I may not agree with this mother's choices at all but that doesn't mean that she should be forcibly sterilized.

 

[luckystar112]

Okay, this link is saying that there was never a consent form in her file, nor was there ever. Apparently she asked for a IUD after her 8th baby and they forgot to put it in. So she requested the IUD again for her 9th baby and they made her physically carry it into the hospital room with her. That seems weird to me. Isn''t the uterus kind of streettttcchhhed to hold an IUD at that point?

Anyway, that article also says that she does not have a high school diploma. She''s working on her G.E.D. First baby at 13 was the product of rape. And she''s a grandma already. Oh vey.

I''m teetering between judgement and sympathy.
By her past lawsuit against CVS and her requests for IUDs it sounds like she wasn''t opposed to putting effort into not getting pregnant (however slight), but now she is upset because her current boyfriend told her that he wanted to try for one more boy.

 

[somethingshiny]

After further thinking about public assistance, I definitely think there needs to be changes. I think that candy, soda, etc should not be allowed on food stamps. I think that any rent/bill help should be given directly to the company owed and not to the person.

One of my main concerns for capping the NUMBER of children allowed funding is medical insurance. If the gov''t caps at 4 children, does that mean 5 doesn''t have coverage?? Instead, I think it would be more feasible to offer a percentage paid by gov''t toward medical services, more like standard insurance. I think it would be a deterrent if people realized they were going to have to pay for part of the labor/delivery/check-ups/etc in addition to any candy/soda/etc they think they should have in their home.

My biggest vent about welfare is about the people who use what little money they have to buy cigarettes and beer. How irresponsible can you be?!?

sorry for getting a bit off topic....

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:38:04 PM
Author: somethingshiny
After further thinking about public assistance, I definitely think there needs to be changes. I think that candy, soda, etc should not be allowed on food stamps. I think that any rent/bill help should be given directly to the company owed and not to the person.


One of my main concerns for capping the NUMBER of children allowed funding is medical insurance. If the gov't caps at 4 children, does that mean 5 doesn't have coverage?? Instead, I think it would be more feasible to offer a percentage paid by gov't toward medical services, more like standard insurance. I think it would be a deterrent if people realized they were going to have to pay for part of the labor/delivery/check-ups/etc in addition to any candy/soda/etc they think they should have in their home.


My biggest vent about welfare is about the people who use what little money they have to buy cigarettes and beer. How irresponsible can you be?!?


sorry for getting a bit off topic....

SS-They do not cap insurance benefits. Family cap policies in general simply do now allow the size of the welfare payment to grow when the family adds a new child.

And in some states they do pay copays for births, etc. In Wisconsin and in many other states the state will charge you (or the father in some cases) for the birth of a new baby while on public assistance.

 

[somethingshiny]

Do you think more or less people would be outraged if a man who had multiple children (living with him or not) was given a vasectomy without his consent??

 

[tlh]

Date: 1/6/2010 2:54:44 PM
Author: meresal
This is one of those ''Floodgates'' I never want to see opened. If it is allowed, who knows where it will stop.

So my answer is, No, I do not think women should be told/made so that they cannot have more children by anyone.

ETA: However, I think the government putting a cap on how many children they will give you assistance for, is a VERY good idea.

Agreed.

Poor children that have to live/suffer with their parents poor choices.

 

[Delster]

Anyone who assaults another person against their will must answer for that - any patient who asks for procedure A and is subjected to procedure B is perfectly entitled to sue their doctor not just for negligence but for assault and battery to boot.

I can understand wanting to place a limitation on welfare if the recipient consciously does something while on welfare that worsens their situation. However, it would just be unworkably subjective to try and make decisions about whether welfare recipients had been irresponsible or not. What happens if a woman on welfare is raped and becomes pregnant and decides to keep the child? Does the State force her to give it up for adoption because otherwise the State will have to pay her welfare for that child?

As for the comments on her needing to be sterilised, or there being no better person to sterilise - honestly I can't fathom that attitude. Some of the posts on this thread remind me of this passage from Buck v Bell:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

 

[tlh]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:42:53 PM
Author: somethingshiny
Do you think more or less people would be outraged if a man who had multiple children (living with him or not) was given a vasectomy without his consent??

but aren''t vasectomy''s reversable in most cases?

 

[somethingshiny]

Neat~ Does the "welfare" payment family cap indicate only medical or ALL funding (food, housing)??

 

[meresal]

NF- I wasn't aware that many of those policies are already in place.

I would love to find an article comparing the brith rates among welfare individuals in states that utilize these laws and ones that do not. So if the parents decide to have more, or put themselves at risk of having more children, they are the ones that are taking away from each and every other child they already had.

Do you know how many states do this?

 

[somethingshiny]

Tubal ligation reversal success rates range from 20%-70% depending on many factors including: type of procedure, how long ago it was performed, if there were any complications, etc.

Vasectomy reversal has reports of success rates up to 99% also depending on many factors.

I think more people would be POd if a man had this decision taken from him than a woman to have the decision taken from her.

After reading the second link, I don't think this woman NEEDED a TL. I think she had some rough circumstances throughout her life and while she could have made better decisions, she had no ill intents.



eta~ I'd like to hear more from the dr. My dr has told me that after repeated c-sections (4-5+) the risk of uterine rupture and maternal death rates increase significantly. I wonder if the dr was trying to "help" her and didn't go about it properly or if he was maliciously sterilizing her.

I'm not saying either would be right, but it could factor into a lawsuit.

 

[rhbgirl24]

I sometimes get a lot of slack for thinking this way, however on here we''re pretty free to state our opinion, and we all do.
But I''ve always thought there should be a limit to how many children you should be allowed to have while on government funding or when you cannot provide for your own. I know there is no way to ''prevent'' people from procreating, but I think its absolutely wrong with the state of our nation and the world in general (economy, world food supplies, over population) to continue to have children over and over again when you cannot support them. I do not believe you should go through with the pregnancy or keep the child if you cannot provide for the ones you already have. Urg. Its something that really bothers me. There are always other alternatives - adoption, birth control....

May be way out on a limb here, but I''m a science minded individual, and I''ve always thought it would be great to be able to turn off the ability to conceive at birth and then be able to switch it back on when the woman was ready... however thats more of a sci fi novel than anything else.....

 

[Loves Vintage]

Date: 1/6/2010 4:06:03 PM
Author: rhbgirl24
I sometimes get a lot of slack for thinking this way, however on here we're pretty free to state our opinion, and we all do.
But I've always thought there should be a limit to how many children you should be allowed to have while on government funding or when you cannot provide for your own. I know there is no way to 'prevent' people from procreating, but I think its absolutely wrong with the state of our nation and the world in general (economy, world food supplies, over population) to continue to have children over and over again when you cannot support them. I do not believe you should go through with the pregnancy or keep the child if you cannot provide for the ones you already have. Urg. Its something that really bothers me. There are always other alternatives - adoption, birth control....

May be way out on a limb here, but I'm a science minded individual, and I've always thought it would be great to be able to turn off the ability to conceive at birth and then be able to switch it back on when the woman was ready... however thats more of a sci fi novel than anything else.....

I've heard other people say the exact same thing. Is this something that is typically stated by certain media commentator(s)?

BTW, ditto Delster 100%.

 

[E B]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:12:48 PM
Author: elledizzy5
That''s a very scary slippery slope, allowing people to decide who should be sterilized.

I may not agree with people''s decisions, or the fact that we financially support those decisions as a country, but there''s no WAY I''d support people deciding to sterilize other people because they think they''ve had too many babies! Sick!

I completely agree.

 

[neatfreak]

Meresal and SS Most states have family cap programs-in fact almost all. This website has a good list and you can see that almost ALL states have them. Usually they just apply to cash welfare payments. They do NOT force the child to be uninsured and I believe they can get an increase in food stamp benefits depending on their eligibility and the state's individual policies. But the increase in food stamps is hardly anything and certainly doesn't represent an incentive for a woman to have another baby for more $.

In general, the family cap policies have seen a decline in birthrates in these populations, but it is not generally a huge decline. I want to say around 10% on average but don't quote me on that. It's been a year or two since I have done a lot of welfare policy research I do mostly health policy now-so some of the stats in my head are likely to be out of date.

Link to family cap state by state policies:

http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/HumanServices/WelfareReformFamilyCapPolicies/tabid/16306/Default.aspx

 

[somethingshiny]

Thanks for the link, Neat. IL is not really into the cap according to the link, that''s why I''m unfamiliar.

 

[jewelz617]

The government should have no say on what a woman does with her body, idiot or not. Putting a cap on assistance so people can't abuse the system and keep giving birth to "tax deductions" however, is a great idea. Don't have kids if you can't support them!

 

[Bia]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:36:19 PM
Author: Maisie
If the woman definitely didn''t sign the form then they had no right to sterilise her. They can''t just take it upon themselves to decide that she has had too many children. Even if she is on welfare.

Exactly, if she didn''t consent to this, the doctors should be held accountable. It wouldn''t make a difference to me if she was on welfare and had 20 kids.

And to ditto elle, it is a very slippery slope even considering this. Which is why I don''t believe in sterilizing humans against their will. Where do you draw the line? Pedophiles, rapists, murderers, crack addicts, welfare mothers, mentally retarded?