E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA 32-year-old pregnant woman from Massachusetts, known only as Mary Moe, is at the center of a heated battle over abortion and sterilization, in a case so complex you could use it to teach an entire course on bioethics.
Moe suffers from severe schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder. She has been pregnant before: The first time she had an abortion, and the second pregnancy resulted in a boy now being raised by Moe’s parents. Between her abortion and the birth of her son, she suffered what court papers refer to as a “psychotic break," and had to be hospitalized. She now takes medication, but her diseases are so severe that she is still not in touch with reality.
Forced abortion for mentally ill woman? No way, court says
At a court hearing last December the state Department of Mental Health asked that her parents be made her guardians. The parents wanted their daughter, then two months pregnant, to have an abortion. During that hearing doctors testified that the drugs Moe is taking threatened the health of her fetus. They also said stopping them would place her at serious risk of going "deeper into madness."
The judge found the argument for an abortion persuasive. She ordered that Moe's parents be appointed as co-guardians, and said they could do whatever was necessary including having their daughter "coaxed, bribed, or even enticed ... by ruse" into a hospital where the abortion could be performed. The judge added that Moe should be sterilized after the abortion so that the same situation did not come up again.
The decision was immediately appealed. Now, a Massachusetts appellate court has overturned the lower court, and sterilization is off the table. The appellate court said that if Moe were competent she would not want an abortion, since she has said she does not want one. So no abortion is in store either.
Did the appellate court make the right decision? I think so -- but for the wrong reasons.
The state of North Carolina just paid out big sums of money to people who had been sterilized without their consent in the 1960s and 1970s. Sterilization has been abused again and again in this and other countries. There is no reversing it. Whatever needs to be done to help Moe, it is not sterilizing her.
If she is not to be sterilized, can severely mentally ill persons like Moe be told never to have sex? The court didn't broach the subject, but it is a key ethical question.
It is probably impossible to prevent Moe from having sex. But given her mental state she is hardly capable of consent. I think she needs to be on permanent birth control until and unless she somehow recovers from her mental illnesses. Then, and only then, should she be free to have a child.
What about the abortion? She cannot consent to it. The Massachusetts courts are trying to guess what she would want if she were competent using some of her statements to guide them. That is a hopeless quest. Moe is too sick to tell us anything. And, despite the judges’ efforts, it is pointless to pretend to know her wishes about this pregnancy.
Her poor parents do not want to worry about their daughter, raise one of her children and find themselves with another. But their stake in all this disqualifies them to decide what ought to happen.
What we are left with when autonomy is gone and family are conflicted is trying to do what is best for Moe and her fetus. I do not think an abortion clearly meets that principle.
If Moe’s medicines put the fetus at risk, then try to lower the dose. If Moe herself becomes even more impaired, stop. If Moe cannot possibly raise the baby and her parents cannot either, then adoption is the best road to follow.
Allowing Mary Moe to become pregnant again is not in her best interest. Ending the life of her fetus when she cannot tell us what to do is not in the best interest of the fetus. There is a lot to think about in the case of Moe, but forced sterilization and non-consensual abortion should not be part of that thinking.
What do you think about the case of Mary Moe? Tell us on Facebook.
Related:
Leave a Comment:
I agree with the author regarding the sterilization, but an abortion for someone in such a state and so medicated seems reasonable. The abortion was something that both the parents and court wanted, and the woman is too psychotic to consent or oppose. What idiots appealed the decision, and what was their standing to intervene?
Is it a crime for someone to have sex with a person who cannot consent to it? Hmmm...if so there should be a rape investigation, because if she's that messed up the guy should have known better.
As the woman, Moe, is described, her mental state without meds ... facts not drugs ... should rule. The drugs she is given will not change her brain cells, her genes, her physical disorders... all of which will affect any fetus she has. The drugs are pacifiers which mitigate the violence of her deficiencies. Unless the bioethicist can give us conflicting facts on what I allege (i.e., change the genes themselves to pass a normal, healthy physiology onto the unborn child) surely we must consider the facts: the mother's abnormalities, and what kind of genes belonged to the male who fathered the infant.
Personally, I do not believe in abortion even based in this case, I suppose, on a huge "what if." Still, let that rule. If there is a chance the child will be normal I think that abortion is not the answer.
However, regarding Moe herself. Personally I feel strongly she must be regarded and analyzed as she is naturally. Drugs may assist behavior, but they are not behavior themselves. I doubt our bioethicist himself could know what the ultimate downside the effect of those drugs can or will have on the reality of Moe's ability to deal appropriately with life.
Her continued pregnancies speak for themselves... even with the help of drugs. Without them it would be far worse. I think sterilization of this patient is a must. Further, how rational is she in her parents' home?
Also, I am curious how the parents can afford to take care of her and her multitude of offspring. I echo a previous question which definitely should be answered, as the article writer pointed out. Who filed an appeal in the original case? And why?
As the lawyers say ... cui bono? Who benefits? (Certainly not Mz. Moe)
I agree with Art regarding sterilization; court ordered birth control should be (and should have been) mandated. However, I fail to see how proceeding with this pregnancy is in the best interests of either Mary Moe or her fetus. There is another method to help determine course of action, however, and that is to have amniocentesis and/or other genetic testing done, as well as reviewing the medications Mary is on and determining what the potential problems to the fetus might be, and weighing the odds of them happening.
To reduce Mary's medication is needlessly cruel and in my opinion, unthinkable. A child born of a schizophrenic mother is genetically inclined to schizophrenia, though that alone is certainly not reason to abort. Couple that, however with the deformities and other potential/likely health problems, and the difficulty of finding such a child a caring home, and termination and subsequent mandated birth control seem the only rational response to take. Let's not forget that this is not only about Mary, but about the quality of life this child could have. ANY life is not always a better choice than no life.
I think the woman have full right to decide what to do with her body its her property.If pregnant, the fetus is still her body part, up to the time of separation and she have full right to decide what to do with it. In the case of mental illness the sick person can not make decisions for oneself and also can not take care of new born so somebody else have to do it for her. In the case of mental illness the forced abortion and sterilization is reasonable but it apply only to mentally sick person.
I think the woman have full right to decide what to do with her body its her property.If pregnant, the fetus is still her body part, up to the time of separation and she have full right to decide what to do with it. In the case of mental illness the sick person can not make decisions for oneself and also can not take care of new born so somebody else have to do it for her. In the case of mental illness the forced abortion and sterilization is reasonable but it apply only to mentally sick person.
This story just makes me sad. No matter what is done, people will be unhappy, including Mary. While I agree that giving Mary and IUD or some sort of birth control like that, I do not agree that she should be sterilized or be forced to have an abortion. Her rights should not be taken away just because she has a mental illness that is beyond control. This case could lead to a slippery slope for reproductive rights for individuals with disabilities. If the courts were to order sterilization or abortion, what's next - others with mental illness being forced to do the same? Women who are paralyzed or have other physical disabilities forced to do the same because of their physical limitations?
And to reduce Mary's medication would just be cruel. She would experience more psychiatric problems, putting both her and baby at risk. Who's to say she won't have another psychotic break if they mess with her meds? They need to focus on her quality of life, for both her and her unborn child. I'm usually very much pro-choice, but not in this situation.
One could insert an IUD into the woman, but who is going to check it monthly to make sure it's in place? Doesn't seem like this woman would be able to be responsible for that. I guess I don't have a problem with sterilization in that regard. I'm also not 100% sure that sterilization is a bad idea for women who keep having unwanted pregnancies that they cannot support. (What that number is... 4, 5?... I don't know.)
As for the abortion, my guess is with the appeals it's a moot point now. Still, I do not think it unreasonable to request an abortion given the fact that she's already had one, and the parents are already stuck raising her first child since she is incapable of caring for this one. Putting the child up for adoption, especially if it is born with issues from the schizophrenia/bipolar meds, might not be feasible. People want "pefect" children these days--and I highly doubt that a child whose mother is a known schizophrenic who was subject to potentially damaging medication during the pregnancy is going to be first on any parent's list.
If she is unable to decide for herself if she wants an abortion,how is she able to decide that she wants to make a baby in the first place? It sounds like she should be kept from having sex,or at least they should get her some long term,non permanent birth control,like an IUD or the implant or something.I don't think she should be sterilized without her consent,but they do need to find some way to get her to stop making kids that she can't take care of.
That's what I was thinking. If she can't consent or deny having an abortion, how can she consent to having sex?
@Ruken - exactly, it would be a de facto statutory rape, but that would require that the court system maintains consistency--not something it's been known for. By the way, what sicko would have sex with a barely functioning schizophrenic??? This clown needs to be locked up for real.
So she gives birth to a child with very possibly serious health problems due to exposure to her psych meds while in the womb? Psych meds that cannot be stopped because she is so extremely mentally ill? And we condemn a child to being trapped in a broken body, and probably languishing in the foster care system? And if she's this mentally ill, might she not end up hurting the child she's carrying in some other way in addition to her medications? I'm not a fan of abortion, but there are times when what is best for everyone is not pleasant. I think in this case, abortion, and most definitely forced sterilization are warranted. If abortion and forced sterilization are not the answer in this case, what is the answer?
Forced sterilization and abortion not an answer? Tell that to Obama's science czar John Holdren. Back in the 1970s he was worried about overpopulation.
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Normally, I'm of the opinion that it's up to the woman in question b/c it's her body and she's the one who has to live with the repercussions of her decision, but in this case an abortion and some kind of tubal ligation to followup it up seem more than appropriate as this woman is clearly not even remotely capable of even a shred of responsibility.
Why don't we just ask her to work on solving world hunger and clean energy while we're at it? I think it's more than safe to say that her current mental capacity and ability to reason are never going to change for the better regardless of what medications she's on and the idea of allowing her to potentially get pregnant again is a lot more irresponsible than any sterilization or abortion that should've already taken place.
Overpopulation isn't real, praise Jesus, praise Jesus!
Incase you are a FOX viewer, that was sarcasm.
I'm a FOX viewer and I'm confused. Are you saying overpopulation IS real? If so then congrats you just kicked the hornets nests of one of my biggest pet peeves. Let me guess, you're single and childless. Well then why not off yourself and make room for an additional soul with a more positive outlook on life.
And one more thing, "Incase" you're a hippie liberal "incase" isn't a word. It would be "in case". No sarcasm here. You're obviously an idiot.
And lastly, I think you're post takes the Lord's name in vain. Tisk tisk. Of course you're probably one of those militant atheist types. Either way, sucks to be you.
This is what the personhood measure would do, put a stop to and the women would be having these children for the family or the state to raise no matter what happens to them. These mentally ill women or their families will have no say what so ever and all will suffer especially the children. Look I don't the answer as each case has to be handled on its own.
Yes it is! This woman is having babies that are not wanted and will have tons of medical problems, and she is not capable of keeping her legs together, not taking her meds, which should include birth control.
Since she can not be responsible in doing so, YES she should have an abortion and be sterilized.
The tax payers are so over burdened by unwanted children that they have not the resources to provide for their own let alone paying a life time for people like this woman and her unwanted babies.
To let her have this child and then discard it like trash is cruel and unthinkable. To expect the tax payers to pay for this child for a life time is also a cruel and unthinkable burden on them.
That is the cold hard truth.
Parenting is a job best done responsibly and in good faith or not at all. I think there are circumstances that permit society stepping in when having a child would mean putting that child at great risk.
My question is how the devil let her get near a man with all her mental problems??? What louse is that desperate to have sex with someone who is playing on another planet???
In the case where someone is so sick as this article indicates how it it fair to bring a child into this world that may suffer with the same problems. There are tests that can be done to check the genetics of the fetus. I feel those need to be done and then decisions be made from there.
I don't think a mythological being let her get close to someone and have sex. There are not enough facilities and caregivers on the planet to hold all the mentally ill. You should volunteer at a local mental institution to understand that.
Might be the answer , that depends upon the question .
If she cant make her own decision on the abortion how did she make a decision to have sex?
If her parents are her gaurdians and if its what they feel is best for her then then let them do it.
Assuming this child is born. Why saddle an adoptive parent with a child that will most likely, exhibit signs of schizophrenia as it matures? Why saddle taxpayers with raising this child? Why saddle the grandparents with the guilt of putting this child up for adoption? I see no problem with forced sterilization for this case. There are too many people in this world who can't contribute to society in any meaningful way. The world is getting overcrowded and it will spread to the U.S. It's time to stop with this "civil rights" mess and start worrying about what is good for the society as a whole. Bringing a child into the world, with the background that it has, is not good for society.
The chances of this child having mental health issues are not 100%, in fact, they aren't even above 50%. So, it is more likely that this child will be healthy (mentally) than not.
I'm for eugenics when it comes to truly mentally disabled people and those with genetic disorders. While permanent may be a bit extreme, we should at least be medicating both males and females with some type of birth control that would at least lower odds of conception.
What they did in North Carolina was not a proper eugenics program, they were sterilizing perfectly normal people. That was a butchershop.
And would you propose such eugenics program be run by the state? Or the federal government? No thank you very much. Keep the government the hell out of our private lives.
Question is if this girl is in the mental condition she's in, why aren't her parents legal guardians? And if so, why don't they have the right to have her sterilized? Abortion is a little different in that we're talking about a human life already in the making. No easy answer there.
I think what they meant is that it is never the solution unless they're the ones that have to pay for the birth & child raising.
Where is the father in all this? Why is the this pregnancy solely the responsibility of the mentally ill woman and her parents?
Because the father isn't pregnant, genius.
From an earlier article (if I recall correctly), they don't know who the father is. And whoever he is, he's not admitting to statutory rape. If she's this mentally incapacitated, she's not capable of consenting to sex.
These two sentences copied from the article seem to contradict one another. If her current dose isn't working well enough to bring her to reality, lowering the dose seems like it'd be worse. Yes? Also, as a person with bipolar disorder (but not schizophrenia), those meds can not be given in any dose during pregnancy.
As to the gist of the article, I was under the impression that surgical sterilization can, and has been, reversed. It's also not 100% reliable. There have been instances of women getting pregnant years after a tubal.
Why is the court basing their decision on "if?" This woman is not competent. End of story.
THIS IS SCIENCE:
FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because the classification of the biological relationship that is based on the behavior one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body.
as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B and HCG--- so her body doesn't kill it, steals her nutrients to survive, and causes her harm or potential death.
"The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site. For this purpose, it uses several mechanisms:
It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.[2]"
"Progesterone enriches the uterus with a thick lining of blood vessels and capillaries so that it can sustain the growing fetus. Due to its highly-negative charge, hCG may repel the immune cells of the mother, protecting the fetus during the first trimester. It has also been hypothesized that hCG may be a placental link for the development of local maternal immunotolerance."
"It is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species."
-- Gale's Science of Everyday Things.
just like a parasitic twin ---
"an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it"
pregnancy CAUSES HARM:
since a man can kill his tapeworm at anytime, so should a woman abort unwanted, human-parasitic fetus, too.
Mary has said -- apparently in a more rational state -- that she does not want an abortion. Which is the crux of the matter -- from that point of view, it's not an 'unwanted' fetus.
Wow. Now I know what is so wrong with this world. I am currently carrying a "fetus", or "parasite", and there is no way any one can convince me that he is NOT a living child who deserves protection and the chance to LIVE, regardless of potential "imperfections" or the inconvenience he causes me. The proof of that is evident every time I feel him turn or kick in response to my voice or touch, or hear his heartbeat. (Besides, even a parasite is a living creature. But only one kind, given the opportunity, will emerge as a beautiful HUMAN child.) If you have no desire to be a parent, than take steps to prevent a pregnancy in the first place. Do not punish an innocent child because of your refusal to take those steps. (In situations of rape and forced incest, my heart goes out to those women. At the age of 15 my worst fear was that I would have to carry my rapists baby. Thank God that wasn't the case. But, again, why punish the child for his father's crime?)
As far as this case is concerned, I believe there are instances where sterilization is warranted. If a woman (or man for that matter) does not have the LEGAL MENTAL CAPACITY to make informed decisions for themselves, and the condition causing such incapacity is permanent and irreversible, then they are incapable of making the decision to create and nurture a child. However, it is wrong to kill a baby produced by people in such unfortunate circumstances to ease the burden placed on someone else. In cases like this adoption IS an option, if the father does not want to take responsibility for raising that child. There are plenty of people (including myself) who are willing to take in a baby who has learning and/or developmental disabilities (having worked with severe needs children for several years, I have seen the challenge first-hand). It is unfortunate that such an emphasis on perfection and personal comfort is so prevalent in our society. And that, my friends, is why this country is going to hell in a hand basket.
Now let the angry retorts fly! All I can do is hope and pray that some of you reading this will be receptive. To the rest, you are welcome to ignore it.
I dont understand how they allowed the woman to become pregnant to begin with! Her parents are her guardians, they are supposed to be making sure she has her medication every day, how hard is it to include a birth control pill with her daily regimen??? The shots at the Dr's office are good for three months as an alternative. There are missing pieces to the puzzle here. If she is as bad mentally as they say, WHY is she being left alone with men who are obviously taking advantage of her? She needs new a new guardian in my opinion.
Do you not understand that controlling a person is an impossible feat for humans? Humans suck hardcore when it comes to control.