Sterilisation first option for the disabled

by Vince Chadwick
Jan. 2, 2013, 2:30 a.m.

PARENTS of women with intellectual disabilities are going straight for sterilisation procedures rather than ”existing and viable options” to help control menstruation and contraception, a national Senate inquiry has heard.  Associate Professor Sonia Grover, a gynaecologist at the Royal Children’s Hospital, told the hearing she was horrified when she received ”straight-out” requests for hysterectomies. She said increasing access to respite care, helping women manage their periods, and ensuring contraception is in place are options ”so these young women, if they are able, can enjoy a close sexual relationship without risks of pregnancy if they are not able to have a pregnancy and care for a child”.  Under Australian law, parents wishing to sterilise a child or adult children who cannot give consent for non-therapeutic reasons must apply to the Family Court or, in some states, a guardianship board.

However, Dr Grover expressed frustration with the therapeutic test. ”The question really is: Is this a procedure you would do on a non-disabled person?” she said. ”We should not be doing a sterilising procedure if we would not be doing it in somebody who did not have a disability.” The inquiry into the involuntary or coerced sterilisation of people with disabilities in Australia began in September as part of the government’s response to a series of calls from the United Nations for an end to non-therapeutic sterilisation without consent, regardless of disability.  The executive director of Women with Disabilities Australia, Carolyn Frohmader, said options such as family planning and menstrual management were not being explored because the sexuality of young women with disabilities was not widely accepted.

”Parents and other care-givers are not made aware of these or are discouraged from understanding their effectiveness,” Ms Frohmader told a recent hearing in Melbourne.  In one case from Queensland in 2010, an 11-year-old intellectually disabled girl (”Angela”) was sterilised after she began getting her period, which was heavy and irregular, at age nine. Contraceptive pills were ineffective, two gynaecologists reported she would benefit from the removal of her uterus, and a Family Court judge was satisfied less-invasive treatments had been exhausted.  ”I am not a doctor but I am the mother of a nine-year-old child and I found that case very problematic for a whole range of reasons,” Ms Frohmader said.

The inquiry has so far received just five submissions, including one from a parent explaining her wish to have her 27-year-old intellectually disabled daughter sterilised.  ”Her own life is not stable enough to support another life,” the parent wrote. ”Advocates who say she has the ‘right’ to have a child need to factor in her ability to be responsible for that child.”  The author said they had already raised three children, but at 54 did not want to raise their grandchild. ”Sterilisation of my daughter is one thing that I can ensure for her before I die, otherwise who will?”  The inquiry is receiving submissions until February 22 and is due to report on April 24.

http://www.naracoorteherald.com.au/story/1213079/sterilisation-first-option-for-the-disabled/?cs=7

New-born babies: not persons, and not fully human – P. Z. Myers

vjtorley

P. Z. Myers is one of the 25 most influential living atheists. He is also on record as saying that he doesn’t believe that new-born babies are fully human, and he makes it clear that he doesn’t regard them as persons, either. Almost no-one noticed when P. Z. Myers made these utterances, because they were made in a comment on one of his recent posts. (See here for P.Z. Myers’ post,here for one reader’s comment and here for P. Z. Myers’ reply, in which he makes his own views plain.) So, what exactly did P. Z. say? In response to a reader who claimed that there is one very easily defined line between personhood and non-personhood – namely, birth – P. Z. Myers replied:

Nope, birth is also arbitrary, and it has not been even a cultural universal that new-borns are regarded as fully human.

I’ve had a few. They weren’t.

Let me state at the outset that I have no doubt that P. Z. Myers is a good father; but that is not the issue here. His views on new-born babies are the issue.

For the benefit of readers, here is a list of the 25 most influential living atheists:

Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer, Peter Singer, Steven Weinberg, Paul Kurtz, Lawrence Krauss, Edward O. Wilson, P. Z. Myers, James Randi, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Peter Atkins, John Brockman, Philip Pullman, Barbara Forrest, David Sloan Wilson, Ray Kurzweil, William B. (“Will”) Provine, Kai Nielsen, Susan Blackmore and Richard Carrier.

The purpose of my post today is to ask each of the 25 most influential living atheists five simple questions:

(a) Do you believe that a new-born baby is fully human? Yes/No (please see Question 1 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(b) Do you believe that a new-born baby is a person? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 2 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(c) Do you believe that a new-born baby has a right to life? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 3 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(d) Do you believe that every human person has a duty towards new-born babies, to refrain from killing them? Yes/No (please see Questions 1, 4, 5 and 6 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

(e) Do you believe that killing a new-born baby is just as wrong as killing an adult? Yes/No (please see Questions 1 and 7 below if you find it difficult to give a clear answer to this question).

I’m asking these questions, because I think the world has a right to know how the 25 most influential living atheists view new-born babies. The moral status of new-born babies is an ethical issue of vital importance, and I’d like to know what the world’s leading atheists think about this subject. Because I’m a generous person, I’m giving them four days to answer my five simple questions. The countdown ends at 12:01 a.m. (one minute past midnight) onFriday, 21 January, 2011, Greenwich Mean Time (UTC). I think that’s quite enough time for the word to get around, and for people to respond.

And in case some of these atheists object that they’re too busy to respond, let me state that I will happily accept, in good faith, responses written on their behalf by friends, acquaintances, personal assistants or people who have read their books and can quote relevant passages, complete with publication details and page numbers. If someone responding on behalf of an influential atheist wishes to preserve his/her anonymity, he/she is free to use a pseudonym. Please note, however, that I will not be imputing views to influential atheists on the basis of anonymous responses. That would be irresponsible.

To respond to my five questions, all you need to do is write a brief comment at the end of this post – for example:
(a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) No.
Note: If you are replying on behalf of an influential atheist, please list his/her name, your name (if you are willing to give it) and your connection with the atheist in question.

Here are my answers to some questions which I anticipate that people will ask about my quiz:

Question 1. How do you define “fully human,” “person,” “right to life” and “wrong”? I don’t. We’re all grown-ups here. I’m quite happy to let you use your own definitions.

Question 2. What if I believe that a new-born baby is neither clearly a person nor clearly a non-person, but somewhere in between? In that case, please answer “Gray” to question (b) above.

Question 3. What if I believe that talk of “rights” is meaningless nonsense, for babies and adults alike? In that case, please answer “No, and I don’t believe adults do either” to question (c) above.

Question 4. What if I believe that our duties towards babies and adults alike are defined by the society we happen to live in? In that case, please answer “No” to question (d) above. Obviously if you believe that, then you believe that people living in a society which tolerates infanticide don’t have a duty towards new-born babies, to refrain from killing them.

Question 5. What if I believe that we have a duty to refrain from killing new-born babies, not because we have a duty towards the babies as such, but because it would cause great anguish to their parents if they were killed? In that case, please answer “No” to question (d) above. I’m asking you whether you believe we have a duty towards the babies, to refrain from killing them. I’m not asking about duties towards their parents.

Question 6. What if I believe that we normally have a duty towards new-born babies, to refrain from killing them, but that it may be OK inexceptional circumstances – e.g. if the baby is suffering excruciating pain, or is very severely deformed? In that case, please answer “Yes (qualified)” to question (d) above.

Question 7. What if I believe that killing a new-born baby is a terrible, terrible thing, but that killing an adult is even worse? In that case, please answer “No” to question (e) above.

Question 8. Don’t you know that there is very little myelin in a new-born baby’s brain? Don’t you know that a new-born baby lacks an autobiographical memory, a concept of self and a theory of mind? Sure I do. You’re not telling me anything new; I didn’t come down in the last shower. All I want is an answer to the five questions I listed above, from the 25 most influential living atheists.

Question 9. What is the relevance of all this to Intelligent Design? Simple. Many of these influential atheists are on the record as saying that we can go on behaving ethically, even if there is no Designer of life and the cosmos. Fine. Here’s a splendid test case: the moral status of new-born babies, and our obligations towards them. I’d like to see how they answer my questionnaire, and I can assure these atheists that a lot of people will be watching.

Question 10. What if I refuse to answer your questionnaire? Fine. If you do not respond, and if no-one responds on your behalf, I shall assume by default that your responses are: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. (e) No. Why? Because that’s about the most consistent set of responses that I can conceive of an atheist making, if he/she were also a materialist. Please note that I said “assume.” I did not say that I would impute those views to influential atheists who choose not to respond. There’s a very big difference.

Question 11. Are you seriously suggesting that a new-born baby has the same rights as an adult? What about the right to drive or vote? Reply: in this questionnaire, you are being asked about one right only: the right to life. The question I’m asking is: do you believe that a new-born human baby has a right to life or not? It is perfectly obvious that new-born babies don’t have the right to drive, which isn’t a natural human right in any case.

Question 12. Are you implying that people who don’t believe new-born babies are persons support infanticide? No. Let me be quite clear about that. I simply want to know what the world’s most influential atheists think about the moral status of new-born babies.

Finally, let me remind readers that this post is about new-born babies. It is not about the morality of abortion, or about the moral status of an embryo or fetus. I would like to ask readers to keep their comments to the point.

UPDATE: THREE of the 25 most influential living atheists (Professor Peter Atkins, Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Michael Shermer) have already responded to my quiz (see comments 27, 29 and 33 below, respectively). I would like to thank them all for their prompt and courteous responses. ONE atheist (James Randi) has refused to respond (see comment 28 below). At least he answered my email, so I’ll give him credit for that.

I have also added the responses that I believe Professor Peter Singer and Professor Steven Pinker would give, on the basis of their published writings, from which I quote (see comments 64 and 65 below).

UNCOMMON DESCENT

Killing of Unborn Children with Downs – Genocide

It is the opinion of this Society that the government is guilty of genocide, a crime against humanity which is a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. New Zealand is a signatory to the Convention that was passed by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Relevant section of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Our complaint is that in February 2010 the government of New Zealand instituted the “Antenatal Screening for Down Syndrome and other conditions – Quality Improvements” programme. This programme was introduced by the Ministry of Health following advice from the Ministry’s National Screening Unit [NSU] without public consultation. Cabinet papers obtained under the Official Information Act state that the outcomes of the programme will be a reduction in the number of births of people with Down syndrome, with around 90% of unborn children diagnosed with the condition being aborted.  The programme is funded by the state and targets all pregnant women in New Zealand in their first trimester on the basis of providing information to women to make decisions about their pregnancies, including abortion.  People with disabilities are the only group of people in New Zealand targeted for selective abortion. Down syndrome, and other conditions that are targeted, are genetic conditions that have no cure. The basis of first trimester screening is to enable woman to have an abortion within the 20 week timeframe if an abnormality is detected. Other reasons for prenatal diagnosis, such as parent education, hospital selection and delivery management, do not require testing during the first trimester and can be safely left until the later stages of pregnancy.  The preventing of birth of a group of people falls within the definition of genocide under international law.

This Programme was introduced by the Ministry of Health following advice from the Ministry’s National Screening Unit [NSU]. Documentation obtained under the Official Information Act from the Ministry of Health included the document Summary of Key Informant Interviews Antenatal Down Syndrome Screening Final Report which states that, “The programme will be cost beneficial for the population and the health system. The scan highlighted literature that supported the premise that the economic costs of screening outweigh the high costs associated with the long term care needs of an individual with Down syndrome.”

This is eugenics which proclaims that only the perfect have a right to be born. The screening programme is a search and destroy mission and is a further major step on the slippery slope. The government seeks to conceal the true purpose of the programme by calling it a “quality improvement” rather than national screening programme. The government states that it is providing a service to families by giving them a choice whether to terminate the life of the child with Down syndrome or to allow the child to be born. We should be aware that this is part of a strategy of social conditioning. Right to Life contends that the government has decided that children with Down syndrome are not valued or wanted in our community. Its intention then is to encourage families to abort children with Down syndrome. The insidious option to terminate the life of the child will ultimately become a duty to kill the child before birth. With the acceptance of eugenics ultimately it may be expected that with the rationing of diminishing health resources the health care for the disabled will be restricted.

It is the opinion of this Society that the screening programme is in violation of Article II [d] of the Convention, Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. People with Down syndrome fall within the definition of “disabled persons” and are recognized under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons as a group which forms part of a nation. Under that Declaration disabled persons “have the same civil and political rights as other human beings” and must be protected, against all exploitation, all regulations and all treatment of a discriminatory, abusive or degrading nature.” These rights are further reinforced under Article 10 of the Convention on the Rights of Disabled, which states “State Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.”

We request that the government cease this screening programme. In the event that the screening programme is not terminated Right to Life New Zealand will lay a formal complaint with the United Nations [The Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide] against the government of New Zealand for genocide by imposing measures to prevent births of children with Down syndrome. The World Health Organisation [WHO], states that the classification for Down syndrome is a “mild to moderate disability.” Most children with Down syndrome participate in public and private educational programs. Educators and researchers are still discovering the full educational potential of people with Down syndrome. Today people with Down syndrome live at home with their families and are active participants in the educational, social and recreational activities of their community. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways. Women who have an unborn child diagnosed with Down syndrome or any other disability need and deserve the support and compassion of the community to accept their child as a valued and loved member of the family and community.

The government should promote a culture of life by ensuring that families who have unborn children with Down syndrome receive compassion and are given all the encouragement and support needed to bring their child to birth. After the birth of their child they should be provided with the services necessary to assist them in providing for the special needs of their child.

Scoop Politics Independent News

Enabling the disabled

With sensitised education for the disabled high on Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal’s agenda, all eyes are on the 2011 Census which will provide crucial statistics on the number of disabled Indians and what disability they suffer from. But a raging dispute has broken out within the disability sector about the exact question in the Census questionnaire and Census Commissioner Dr C Chandramouli is being lobbied by different groups.  World over, asking the right question has proven the key to getting accurate disability figures. According to a 2009 World Bank Report, in countries which ask a simple yes/no question, disability statistics range from 0.5 per cent of the total population (Nigeria) to 3.8 per cent (Ethiopia).  In countries which list the types of conditions, the number is only slightly higher. But in countries which ask specific activity-related questions (for instance: do you have trouble walking/ remembering?), disability statistics range from 10 per cent (Poland) to 19.2 per cent (United States) of the country’s entire population. The more specific the question, the more likely it is to yield a higher percentage of disabled people.

The Indian Census asked a question on disability for the first time in 2001 (see box). Based on this question, the Census Commissioner estimated that 2.13 per cent of the population, or roughly 25 million Indians, were disabled.  But this  number has been criticised for being too low. Javed Abidi, a disability activist and the head of National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP), says the low number is because the question in the 2011 Census merely listed the type of conditions, which world over have excluded many disabled people. He adds that the Census enumerators in 2001 were not sensitive. “In fact, they did not even identify me as disabled,” he  complains.

Mithu Alur, founder of Able Disable All People Together (ADAPT, formerly Spastic Society of India) says when she  spoke to Chandramouli, “he admitted that the 2001 data for the disabled was not robust, as they had very little time”.  But while there is agreement on the need for a better question in the 2011 census, agreeing on the details has run into rough weather. Two drafts have emerged amongst the competing NGOs, each accusing the other of trying to hog the limelight.  All are agreed that the new question on disability must be activity-based (like in the US and Poland), but there is a dispute about what the exact question will be.

The first draft is led by a group that includes Abidi. This draft was the result of a day-long roundtable here on March 31,
co-organised by Abidi, and attended by “representatives from 22 states and the Census Commissioner himself”, according to him.

The second draft has been formulated by ADAPT. Alur says these questions are based on a widely accepted, UN-approved standard, called the Washington Group on Disability Statistics (see box). These questions are slightly different from the March 31 model. Alur says her suggestions “are more explanatory and inclusive”.

Alur charges Abidi with not including her NGO in the March 31 deliberative process, and of hijacking the disability agenda. Abidi strongly denies this allegation. “I sent an email to Dr Alur inviting her to the meeting. She did not come, but emailed me the sample questions that she suggested,” says Abidi. “Her questions were raised before the forum, and rejected.” Alur denies this, saying it was a general email which did not “contain any details of the meeting”.  Abidi feels ADAPT’s sample questions are too “western” and unsuitable for Indian conditions. One of the questions the ADAPT wants to ask is “do you have difficulty in walking or climbing stairs”. “Half  of Vasant Kunj will say yes to that question,” says Abidi.

Both Alur and Abidi have a personal stake. Abidi is wheelchair-bound. Alur’s daughter Malini was diagnosed very early with cerebral palsy. Both groups had joined hands to demand amendments to the Right to Education Act in August 2009 to make it disabled friendly.

Regardless of which version finally makes it to the Census questionnaire, disability activists say versions are  improvements from the 2001 Census question as they are more descriptive, and expand the word “mental” in the 2001 question to involve specific forms of mental illness.  Chandramouli could not be contacted by phone. Alur says he has given disability activists till April-end to provide suggestions.

Vinay Sitapati
Indian Express New Delhi : Wednesday, Apr 28, 2010

Indian woman fights for ‘rape’ baby

By Tinku Ray

The story of a pregnant teenager has been making the headlines in India. Lakshmi (not her real name) is 19 years old, but her mental age is said to be only around eight.  She became pregnant after allegedly being raped in a government-run care home, and the state authorities petitioned the local courts to allow them to carry out an abortion.  Their contention was that she wouldn’t survive the trauma of childbirth, and that she wouldn’t be able to take care of a baby.  That court ruled that an abortion should go ahead. But then came the twist – her lawyers and several disability rights groups appealed to the Supreme Court. It overruled the original judgement – allowing her to have the baby she said she wanted to keep.

‘Clothes for the baby’

Today, Lakshmi lives in a different government-run home in Chandigarh. At first glance, she seems like a shy girl with a lovely smile whose answers are monosyllabic and barely audible.  Lakshmi had told the high court in Chandigarh that she wanted to keep the baby.  When I asked her if this was so, her answer was the same: “Yes.”  So I asked her if she had ever looked after a baby before.   Lakshmi’s lawyer, Tanu Bedi, says no one else can decide on her behalf  “Yes,” she replied again.

One of the women in the Nari Niketan, the care home where she was allegedly raped, had a baby and Lakshmi said she fed him milk with a spoon and cleaned him up when needed.  Lakshmi was found two years ago wandering the streets of Chandigarh and placed in Nari Niketan.   She was allegedly raped earlier this year and a guard of the care home has been arrested and is awaiting trial. I asked her nurse if Lakshmi ever talked about what had happened to her.  “At first she was ashamed. When no one knew about it, she didn’t talk about it. But now everyone knows and she talks non-stop about her baby. “And when anyone comes to visit her, she asks them to bring new clothes for the baby. She wants a swing as well.” However, medical professionals who examined Lakshmi said she could not look after a baby. Psychologists say she suffers from “mild mental retardation” and has a low IQ.

Moral questions

“After consultations we thought that since she’s mentally challenged, an orphan and has been raped in a government institution… it would be in her interest to have the termination,” says Prof Raj Bahadur, director of the Government Medical College in Chandigarh and the man in charge of the shelter where Lakshmi lives.  But Lakshmi’s lawyer, Tanu Bedi, disagrees.   “Can we say just because she has a low IQ, anybody can decide for her and against her specific wish to have an abortion, which has the medical complications and problems for all times to come for her health? In my view it would have been a judicial rape.”   Mr Gupta questions whether the case should be before the courts

The Supreme Court agreed with Ms Bedi. In its ruling, the court said: “Nature will take care of the orphan mother and child.”   There was plenty of outrage at the Supreme Court’s decision.  Many questioned whether the law courts were the place to decide such moral and ethical cases.  Lawyer Anupam Gupta fought the case on behalf of the state government. He says even the local judge raised the issue when the case came before him.  “On the very first day when the matter came up before the chief justice, he appeared reluctant to interfere. This is your baby – he wasn’t referring to the foetus of course – but in a more metaphorical sense. He said this problem is of your making, don’t come to the high court.”   But, Mr Gupta says, “because Lakshmi had been allegedly raped while in the state’s custody, the authorities had no choice. They had failed to protect her and so approached the court to make a decision on what to do.”

‘Arbitrary’

The National Trust for the Welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Mental Disabilities – a government organisation – has offered to take care of Lakshmi and her baby.   It has offered to put her in an independent home, either in the southern city of Bangalore or closer to Chandigarh.  “There she will be able to blossom and develop her life skills,” says Poonam Natarajan, who heads the trust.   “The IQ score is very arbitrary in our country. The whole world is only talking about her as eight years old. But she’s 19 years old, so her life experience is very different.   “Everyone has the capacity of evolve, the capacity to grow if in the right environment. But somehow in the minds of people when it comes to mental retardation, it’s static.

“That is a medical concept that we have to challenge.”   A decision on when and where Lakshmi will be sent is to be taken soon.   At the shelter, Lakshmi is looking forward to being a mother – her baby is due in December.   “I want a baby girl,” she tells me shyly. And as I prepare to leave, she says: “Please visit me again.”

BBC News, Chandigarh

In today’s pages: Schools, Honduras and ‘judicial eugenics’

The Times endorses an unusual idea being considered today by the L.A. Unified School Board: allowing assorted groups inside and outside the district to operate 50 newly built schools over the next four years. Yes, there are pitfalls to this idea, but it’s still the most intriguing experiment to reinvent local education to come along in years. The ongoing crisis in Honduras, meanwhile, is starting to look like it won’t be resolved without some “superpower pressure” from the United States, The Times opines. It’s time to impose sanctions on those behind the coup that ousted the country’s rightful president, Manuel Zelaya, and take other actions aimed at restoring democracy. “Failure to return to constitutional order would send a signal to the rest of Latin America that once again political problems can be solved with an old-style coup.”  And we celebrate the nomination of Regina Benjamin as surgeon general. This “angel-like” figure, known for her work bringing clinics to rural areas, rebuilding health centers devastated by Hurricane Katrina and leading medical associations, “has the potential to be one of the strongest voices in public health in decades.”

On the Op-Ed page, columnist Jonah Goldberg raises an eyebrow over a recent comment in the New York Times from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  ’Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided,’ Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, ‘there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.’  Goldberg lists other prominent abortion backers, including former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who appeared to think that abortion was necessary to cull undesirable elements — like the poor and minorities — from the population. He’d like to see more questioning of such attitudes in the media.

Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project says the Obama administration is breaking its promise to bring transparency to government surveillance programs. The administration is reportedly proceeding with a Bush-era plan to use the National Security Agency to screen government computer traffic on private-sector networks, a program known as Einstein 3 that has no intrinsic security value — but will allow spooks to read e-mail communication between the government and private citizens.  And Deborah Doctor of Disability Rights California challenges Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to document all the fraud he claims to have identified in the state’s In-Home Supportive Services program, a quarter of whose funds he says are wasted. The governor not only hasn’t proven the accuracy of that figure, he has proposed fixes that could well cost more than they would save.

Los Angeles Times