Mother of 9 sues doctors for making her sterile

[Kaleigh]

I am late on this. I am guesing this was done without her knowledge?? If so, that''s wrong. Plain and simple. Do I think she should have more kids?? NO. But who am I ?? I am guessing most of us don''t think she should have more kids. But it''s hard because this didn''t happen to you... Just imagine if it did... You''d be very angry.

If this is the way our country is going?

They do this imagine what else they can do.....

 

[Cehrabehra]

bottom line is she is going to win because NO ONE has the right to take your fertility away like this - I can''t believe the doctor was so stupid as to not realize this. I don''t think that doctor should practice. Whether or not I or anyone here including the doctor thinks she should have more is absolutely moot and totally for discussion (and not action) only.

 

[katamari]

In addition to all the changes Neat have been pointing out, that Clinton put into place in the 1996 welfare reforms, most states also require the fathers of the children of the women and children on TANF (via billing and garnishment) to pay for all medical costs for their children (including childbirth, which they are billed full price for) and are also required to reimburse the state for costs incurred by the state from the child. So, yes, the men are "punished," too.

The forced sterilization debate is nothing more than covert classism where the non-poor feel entitled to rights--in this case, the biological process of reproduction--while arguing they should be taken away from the poor.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 1/6/2010 9:44:32 PM
Author: katamari
In addition to all the changes Neat have been pointing out, that Clinton put into place in the 1996 welfare reforms, most states also require the fathers of the children of the women and children on TANF (via billing and garnishment) to pay for all medical costs for their children (including childbirth, which they are billed full price for) and are also required to reimburse the state for costs incurred by the state from the child. So, yes, the men are ''punished,'' too.


The forced sterilization debate is nothing more than covert classism where the non-poor feel entitled to rights--in this case, the biological process of reproduction--while arguing they should be taken away from the poor.

While I absolutely LOVE the way you phrased your last paragraph/sentence and agree with it - I think sometimes this is more about taking the rights away from the foolish or stupid than just simply the poor.

 

[iluvcarats]

Date: 1/6/2010 9:44:32 PM
Author: katamari
In addition to all the changes Neat have been pointing out, that Clinton put into place in the 1996 welfare reforms, most states also require the fathers of the children of the women and children on TANF (via billing and garnishment) to pay for all medical costs for their children (including childbirth, which they are billed full price for) and are also required to reimburse the state for costs incurred by the state from the child. So, yes, the men are ''punished,'' too.


The forced sterilization debate is nothing more than covert classism where the non-poor feel entitled to rights--in this case, the biological process of reproduction--while arguing they should be taken away from the poor.

I don''t feel entitled to more biological rights than anyone else. But I am tired of paying more and more and more taxes.

 

[katamari]

Entitlement spending has been on the decline for decades.

I probably should watch myself on this one, because I know that people don''t necessarily come to PS for these types of debates. I stick by my statement, but I also, of course, respect anyone''s opinion who disagrees.

 

[iluvcarats]

Date: 1/6/2010 10:08:02 PM
Author: katamari
Entitlement spending has been on the decline for decades.


I probably should watch myself on this one, because I know that people don''t necessarily come to PS for these types of debates. I stick by my statement, but I also, of course, respect anyone''s opinion who disagrees.

I''m not exactly sure where all our money goes. All I know is that the government just keeps finding some reason to keep taking more.(federal and state -NY) If I thought it was doing some good, I''d gladly give it. Maybe it''s going to help people who need it, and maybe it''s buying $100 toilet paper for the pentagon. I wonder how much of the money slated for welfare recipients actually makes it to them.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/6/2010 10:16:32 PM
Author: iluvcarats

Date: 1/6/2010 10:08:02 PM

Author: katamari

Entitlement spending has been on the decline for decades.



I probably should watch myself on this one, because I know that people don''t necessarily come to PS for these types of debates. I stick by my statement, but I also, of course, respect anyone''s opinion who disagrees.

I''m not exactly sure where all our money goes. All I know is that the government just keeps finding some reason to keep taking more.(federal and state -NY) If I thought it was doing some good, I''d gladly give it. Maybe it''s going to help people who need it, and maybe it''s buying $100 toilet paper for the pentagon. I wonder how much of the money slated for welfare recipients actually makes it to them.

Since welfare reform in 1997 the rolls have declined dramatically and so has spending. They certainly are finding ways to spend a lot of money-but it isn''t on welfare. It''s on the war.

 

[katamari]

Date: 1/6/2010 10:16:32 PM
Author: iluvcarats

Date: 1/6/2010 10:08:02 PM

Author: katamari

Entitlement spending has been on the decline for decades.



I probably should watch myself on this one, because I know that people don''t necessarily come to PS for these types of debates. I stick by my statement, but I also, of course, respect anyone''s opinion who disagrees.

I''m not exactly sure where all our money goes. All I know is that the government just keeps finding some reason to keep taking more.(federal and state -NY) If I thought it was doing some good, I''d gladly give it. Maybe it''s going to help people who need it, and maybe it''s buying $100 toilet paper for the pentagon. I wonder how much of the money slated for welfare recipients actually makes it to them.

Excellent point. Our state budget is heinously irresponsible and we are in better shape than a lot. The federal debt is beyond embarrassing. I would love to see all of those problems healthfully addressed, too.

 

[iluvcarats]

Date: 1/6/2010 10:20:49 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/6/2010 10:16:32 PM

Author: iluvcarats

Date: 1/6/2010 10:08:02 PM


Author: katamari


Entitlement spending has been on the decline for decades.




I probably should watch myself on this one, because I know that people don''t necessarily come to PS for these types of debates. I stick by my statement, but I also, of course, respect anyone''s opinion who disagrees.

I''m not exactly sure where all our money goes. All I know is that the government just keeps finding some reason to keep taking more.(federal and state -NY) If I thought it was doing some good, I''d gladly give it. Maybe it''s going to help people who need it, and maybe it''s buying $100 toilet paper for the pentagon. I wonder how much of the money slated for welfare recipients actually makes it to them.

Since welfare reform in 1997 the rolls have declined dramatically and so has spending. They certainly are finding ways to spend a lot of money-but it isn''t on welfare. It''s on the war.

Yes, I agree. Except it is war(s)

Disgusting!

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/6/2010 10:22:53 PM
Author: iluvcarats

Date: 1/6/2010 10:20:49 PM

Author: neatfreak

Date: 1/6/2010 10:16:32 PM


Author: iluvcarats

Date: 1/6/2010 10:08:02 PM



Author: katamari



Entitlement spending has been on the decline for decades.





I probably should watch myself on this one, because I know that people don''t necessarily come to PS for these types of debates. I stick by my statement, but I also, of course, respect anyone''s opinion who disagrees.

I''m not exactly sure where all our money goes. All I know is that the government just keeps finding some reason to keep taking more.(federal and state -NY) If I thought it was doing some good, I''d gladly give it. Maybe it''s going to help people who need it, and maybe it''s buying $100 toilet paper for the pentagon. I wonder how much of the money slated for welfare recipients actually makes it to them.

Since welfare reform in 1997 the rolls have declined dramatically and so has spending. They certainly are finding ways to spend a lot of money-but it isn''t on welfare. It''s on the war.

Yes, I agree. Except it is war(s)

Disgusting!

Yes, wars. Even worse.

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:46:29 PM
Author: 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.'

You read my mind. Ditto. Huge Ditto.

 

[packrat]

Anybody seen the movie Dave, where a lookalike stands in for the President? I watched it a looong time ago, so I''m kinda fuzzy, but I remember a scene where he was at a conference table, discussing where the Govt''s money should go, and he was trading this for that, this surplus should go to cover this debt etc, and trying really hard to make things better for everyone, not just certain people, and I remember thinking, jeez, if only it were that easy! There''s too much politics in Politics. I just wish people would look out for themselves and watch out for the little guy, and play fair. Maybe things wouldn''t be in such a mess. I need a magic lamp.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

While I agree that people should not be paid a "per child rate" there are some potential long term benefits to providing medical care and food stamps to needy children.

Mal-nourished children do not have optimal brain development, and the brain goes though a significant period of development in the prenatal period and in the first 3 years of life. A malnourished child is at risk for learning problems, attention problems, problems with impulsivity, and social problems. Than what happens? They grow up, don't get a good education, make impulsive decisions, and end up costing the government money (via welfare, medicaid ect). Putting resources towards small children is an investment in our future.

I know it is hard to get past parents who make really stupid decisions, but I have to deal with difficult parents quite often. I remember a colleague asking me why I was putting up with a difficult mother, and I said "because the child did not choose who he/she was born to, and the child is my patient." I think a lot of programs like WIC really do have the best interest of the child in mind.

I was surprised to learn that many families who are in the military are paid so little that they qualify for food stamps. Often these are married families, and many have big families. The mother usually ends up staying at home because daycare is more than her earning potential. On top of that, there is a head of household who is going to a war zone for a long period of time. My point is not everyone who needs help from the government is leaching off of it. Many people are just trying to make ends meet the best way they can.

As for the women with 9 kids. I don't agree with her decisions, but I don't think that gives someone the right to tie her tubes without her consent if that is really what happened.

 

[fieryred33143]

Thank you Neat for being the voice of reason.

This is about a woman who had a medical procedure performed on her without her consent. This is wrong. Period.

Where or why this turned into a debate on welfare is beyond me.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/6/2010 8:38:46 PM
Author: neatfreak
Vesper Did you read my posts above on family caps? Welfare these days IS NOT an entitlement. There ARE a lot of conditions you need to meet to receive it. And even if you have more kids-you don''t get more money except maybe in one state. And there is an ''at a time'' limit of 2 years and a LIFETIME limit of 5 years. So the days of people living off welfare for their entire lives are over. States do have some discretion over what they want to do, but most are stricter, not more lax.

Before you go spouting off about welfare policies maybe you should understand what they are.

Yes, I do understand welfare policy, and also the inherent flaws in it, which is why I feel entitled to "spout off" about how poorly they are implemented.

Even though most states do have limits, they are very easy to get around. Here is a quote from http://www.mdrc.org/publications/51/overview.html:

All states allow exceptions to time limits, but the specific policies and their implementation vary. All states allow exemptions (which stop the time-limit clock), extensions, or both. Exemptions are most common for “child only” cases (which account for about one-third of all welfare cases nationwide and are not subject to time limits in any state) and for recipients with medical problems. In many states, recipients who comply with work requirements but are unable to find jobs can receive extensions, although states define and assess compliance in different ways. As a result, some states routinely grant extensions to recipients reaching time limits, while others close most of these cases.

I personally know a woman with 6 kids by 4 different men who has been on welfare for over 35 years. She just packed up the kids and travelled from state to state (only staying in each a couple of years), living in shelters and seefy motels. Besides welfare checks, her entire family was also receiving Medicaid. I am good friends with her oldest daughter (who left home at 18 and shuns her mother''s irresponsible lifestyle) and she said that even though her mother is fully capable of full-time work, she chooses to live in the middle of nowhere where there is no work so that she can keep saying that she can''t find anything so that she can keep receiving checks. Trust me, there are many more people like her out there.

 

[steph72276]

Date: 1/7/2010 12:16:47 AM
Author: fiery
Thank you Neat for being the voice of reason.


This is about a woman who had a medical procedure performed on her without her consent. This is wrong. Period.


Where or why this turned into a debate on welfare is beyond me.

Ditto

 

[rhbgirl24]

Date: 1/6/2010 4:15:39 PM
Author: 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%.

I'm not exactly sure - has it been? I've never heard anyone by me and my DH say it. lol

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/6/2010 3:04:45 PM
Author: vespergirl

Because our govt. will probably never get rid of welfare entirely

Well, it has. There is no welfare anymore. Thank President Clinton for that. There are food stamps, but not everyone qualifies for them.

AGBF

 

[rhbgirl24]

Date: 1/6/2010 8:03:32 PM
Author: packrat


Hows about...the Sterilization Selective Service? At 14 it's mandatory to be sterilized, boys and girls. At 25, IF you have the means to support a child, you can choose to have it reversed. If you are still living in mom and dad's basement eating ramen every night and no job, then..no. If you lose the means to support that child, you get sterilized again.

This was exactly what I was stating.... you should be able to show you can support a child, properly take care of them BEFORE you are allowed to have them..... helps our world and nation in so many more ways than one. Of course it would be a NIGHTMARE setting up that scale of who is responsible enough or not, then you can get into genetics and could be banned from having a child because a disease or mental illness runs in your family, so this opens up a HUGE floodgate. But in theory it works wonderfully.... at lease in my head - maybe I should take that jog with you???

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/6/2010 9:15:19 PM
Author: somethingshiny

Welfare is for HELP. I expect that there are currently very high numbers on welfare. I expect the majority of them will get back on their feet. That's what public assistance is there for and that's what I choose to focus on rather than those who have no intentions of bettering themselves.

There IS no welfare!!! Where have you all been? President Clinton did away with it! He gave in to the conservatives who wanted to get rid of the so-called "welfare moms". He did the unforgiveable ; he lost any moral compass he had on social issues. No one has any welfare (i.e. money) anymore. People can get food stamps if they qualify or Title XIX (Medicaid) if they qualify. Some people who have been laid off are on Unemployment. Some disabled people receive money through the Social Security Administration. There is no "welfare" anymore, no more Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a program I used to administer for my local municipality (Greenwich, Connecticut).

A family of four used to receive $444.00 per month to live in Greenwich, CT where the lowest rent for the cheapest apartment was $600.00 per month. If anyone worked, the money was subtracted from the $444.00 stipend. If anyone worked off the books, it was welfare fraud.

Now there is no welfare and people are still blaming women for being on welfare. The poor just cannot win!!!

AGBF, social worker

 

[Bia]

Date: 1/7/2010 7:39:35 AM
Author: steph72276

Date: 1/7/2010 12:16:47 AM
Author: fiery
Thank you Neat for being the voice of reason.


This is about a woman who had a medical procedure performed on her without her consent. This is wrong. Period.


Where or why this turned into a debate on welfare is beyond me.

Ditto

exactly

Why is this even up for debate? Her being on public assistance is irrelevant in this case. She never consented and yet they went ahead anyway. Why, because they believed they were doing her (her kids?) a favor? They thought there were in a position to make that decision for her? Whatever the reason, it is her body, and therefore it was wrong. No medical professional should be given the authority to make these decisions for people. The certainly shouldn''t be allowed to get away with it after the fact.

The doctor/s who performed this ''procedure'' should be held 100% culpable, and imo, should be under investigation for malpractice (with the deep consideration of forfeiting their licensing).

 

[fieryred33143]

Date: 1/7/2010 9:17:41 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/6/2010 9:15:19 PM
Author: somethingshiny

Welfare is for HELP. I expect that there are currently very high numbers on welfare. I expect the majority of them will get back on their feet. That''s what public assistance is there for and that''s what I choose to focus on rather than those who have no intentions of bettering themselves.

There IS no welfare!!! Where have you all been? President Clinton did away with it! He gave in to the conservatives who wanted to get rid of the so-called ''welfare moms''. He did the unforgiveable ; he lost any moral compass he had on social issues. No one has any welfare (i.e. money) anymore. People can get food stamps if they qualify or Title XIX (Medicaid) if they qualify. Some people who have been laid off are on Unemployment. Some disabled people receive money through the Social Security Administration. There is no ''welfare'' anymore, no more Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a program I used to administer for my local municipality (Greenwich, Connecticut).

A family of four used to receive $444.00 per month to live in Greenwich, CT where the lowest rent for the cheapest apartment was $600.00 per month. If anyone worked, the money was subtracted from the $444.00 stipend. If anyone worked off the books, it was welfare fraud.

Now there is no welfare and people are still blaming women for being on welfare. The poor just cannot win!!!

AGBF, social worker

I wasn''t going to get into the welfare discussion and still will not but wanted to pass along this study which supports AGBF''s comments above. It is a short read, 5 pages but gives an overview of some changes that have occurred since the welfare reform in 96.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/900980_welfarereform.pdf

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/7/2010 9:17:41 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/6/2010 9:15:19 PM
Author: somethingshiny

Welfare is for HELP. I expect that there are currently very high numbers on welfare. I expect the majority of them will get back on their feet. That''s what public assistance is there for and that''s what I choose to focus on rather than those who have no intentions of bettering themselves.

There IS no welfare!!! Where have you all been? President Clinton did away with it! He gave in to the conservatives who wanted to get rid of the so-called ''welfare moms''. He did the unforgiveable ; he lost any moral compass he had on social issues. No one has any welfare (i.e. money) anymore. People can get food stamps if they qualify or Title XIX (Medicaid) if they qualify. Some people who have been laid off are on Unemployment. Some disabled people receive money through the Social Security Administration. There is no ''welfare'' anymore, no more Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a program I used to administer for my local municipality (Greenwich, Connecticut).

A family of four used to receive $444.00 per month to live in Greenwich, CT where the lowest rent for the cheapest apartment was $600.00 per month. If anyone worked, the money was subtracted from the $444.00 stipend. If anyone worked off the books, it was welfare fraud.

Now there is no welfare and people are still blaming women for being on welfare. The poor just cannot win!!!

AGBF, social worker

Actually, welfare does still exist. Here where I live in VA the program is called TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Here is the link to the state''s website:
http://www.dss.virginia.gov/benefit/tanf/

Also, here''s a statistic on fiscal years 2000 & 2002 (well after Clinton left office) on how many families in VA were on welfare, and how much it cost the taxpayers:
Virginia''s TANF program is called VIEW (Virginia Initiative for Employment, Not Welfare). In June 2000 the state had 67,388 welfare recipients. State expenditures on the TANF program in FY2002 totaled $124,058,733. http://www.city-data.com/states/Virginia-Social-welfare.html

 

[somethingshiny]

AGBF~ I don''t understand. Maybe I''m using the term "welfare" incorrectly. What I''m talking about it Medicaid, disability, Food stamps, Section 8 housing, help with bills, WIC, etc. Is this not "welfare?"

I understand your "the poor just cannot win" and I agree. I hope you didn''t quote me and write that with implications that that''s how I feel. I''m one of the few who have been on this side of the debate.


--------------------------------

WHY has this turned into a "welfare debate?" Because the fact that the woman is receiving state/federal help is what caused a lot to believe that she couldn''t take care of her children that she already had, let alone more. Logically, this lead to a discussion about the issue.


Why are people surprised when PS threads go off topic?? Don''t we always?? lol.

 

[fieryred33143]

Date: 1/7/2010 10:33:36 AM
Author: somethingshiny

WHY has this turned into a ''welfare debate?'' Because the fact that the woman is receiving state/federal help is what caused a lot to believe that she couldn''t take care of her children that she already had, let alone more. Logically, this lead to a discussion about the issue.


Why are people surprised when PS threads go off topic?? Don''t we always?? lol.

You''re right that PS threads always go off topic.

However, some are using the topic of welfare to justify the actions of the doctor or at least to justify the desire of the doctor to perform this procedure.

 

[meresal]

Date: 1/7/2010 10:48:32 AM
Author: fiery

Date: 1/7/2010 10:33:36 AM
Author: somethingshiny

WHY has this turned into a 'welfare debate?' Because the fact that the woman is receiving state/federal help is what caused a lot to believe that she couldn't take care of her children that she already had, let alone more. Logically, this lead to a discussion about the issue.


Why are people surprised when PS threads go off topic?? Don't we always?? lol.

You're right that PS threads always go off topic.

However, some are using the topic of welfare to justify the actions of the doctor or at least to justify the desire of the doctor to perform this procedure.

Fiery, I haven't read the last page, but I "think" only one or two people agree/semi-agree with this doctor. At first it was just a discussion about "alternative" ideas to "try" to keep people from having more children, WITHOUT any forcible action. (ie, forcing birth control or IUD's, etc.)

You are right, bottom line, what this doctor did is illegal and he should have his license removed, if there was no consent. But wouldn't that make for a boring thread... just a whole bunch of people agreeing about personal rights laws?

 

[princesss]

Mere, I was getting all fired up, and then you had to go and make me laugh.

I have nothing to contribute other than a hearty DITTO to Neatfreak, Katamari, and Elle.

If the doctor did, in fact, perform a procedure that she did not consent to, he should lose his license. Period.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

I think the idea of requiring a temporary sterilation device to go on welfare is a really good idea (maybe 6 months without that requirement as some people really do need welfare to bridge a difficult gap/situation). I think then people would make more responsible choices....it really would be a choice to go on welfare and a choice to not have any more children.

Right now there are a lot of elements of the system that are completely out of control!

I don''t support doctors taking it upon themselves to sterilize people and I don''t support abortion, but I think the Norplant/IUD strategy is a really good one!

 

[Bia]

Date: 1/7/2010 11:12:39 AM
Author: Bella_mezzo
I think the idea of requiring a temporary sterilation device to go on welfare is a really good idea (maybe 6 months without that requirement as some people really do need welfare to bridge a difficult gap/situation). I think then people would make more responsible choices....it really would be a choice to go on welfare and a choice to not have any more children.

Right now there are a lot of elements of the system that are completely out of control!

I don''t support doctors taking it upon themselves to sterilize people and I don''t support abortion, but I think the Norplant/IUD strategy is a really good one!

To everything: eek!

To highlighted: I really don''t believe it is that cut and dry.