Disabled Woman Coerced into having a Hysterectomy

hawley

This article in today's Irish Times shocked me. The fact that all of this happened so recently. Women being given contraceptive pills without their knowledge, being coerced into a having a hysterectomy. How could anyone treat vulnerable women like that?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/rosaleen-mcdonagh-traveller-women-who-don-t-have-children-are-pitied-1.4526284%3fmode=amp

hawley

There was a time when disabled people’s sexuality was deemed dangerous – a universal taboo. Conversations often took place in an abstract, absent vacuum without our presence and voices. The pathologising of our sexuality by medics and service providers makes cultural questions concerning consent complex. Moving from the general elements of sexism involves engaging with particularities relating to intersectionality. The disability lens widens the narratives of misogyny, gender-based violence, trafficking, sex work, sexual abuse, rape and femicide. These fears are also realities for women like us.

The experience of ableism and sexism coupled with ingrained notions suggests that we as women should be controlled and contained. The management of our sexuality can involve cohesive contraception, forced sterilisation, and dangerous medical interventions. Finding ourselves under surveillance brings with it an imposed vulnerability. Privacy, independence, the freedom of bodily integrity and the right to be sex positive is often framed in the category of us being positioned and labelled vulnerable.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/disabled-sexual-assault-victims-have-a-right-to-be-believed-too-1.3727382%3fmode=amp

biko

I feel for her. No-one should be forced to take the pill or to have an hysterectomy.

But I take issue with the wokeist language the article is written in:

It was the early 1990s. Feminism was continuing to push Ireland into a much more humane and diverse space.

The female body was struggling to get away from the hands of church and State.

The infantilisation of disabled women’s bodies was very oppressing and depressing.

My cerebral palsy meant these two mighty and brutal forces of patriarchy had a tight grip upon my body.

ILoveYourVibes

Its like an alien abduction.

Think of how terrified she must have been. Your body being violated.

They treated her like an animal ....like she was a cat to be spayed.

How can humans be like this???

Obviously some of us are not that emotionally intelligent tbh. I would have thought Drs would be more so ..obv not.

What is wrong with us???

She must be traumatized poor thing.

Str8outtaWuhan

Remember it was nurses and doctors that did this, so next time "you thank them for their service" , remember the power they have over you when you are at your most vulnerable.

shtpEdthePlum

biko wrote: »

I feel for her. No-one should be forced to take the pill or to have an hysterectomy.

But I take issue with the wokeist language the article is written in:

Yeah she should be ashamed for her wokist language used in relation to the church who who forced her to undergo a surgical procedure to prevent her from reproducing because she's disabled and a traveller. That's the biggest issue here.

Str8outtaWuhan wrote: »

Remember it was nurses and doctors that did this, so next time "you thank them for their service" , remember the power they have over you when you are at your most vulnerable.

Hot take.

jam_mac_jam

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Yeah she should be ashamed for her wokist language used in relation to the church who who forced her to undergo a surgical procedure to prevent her from reproducing because she's disabled and a traveller. That's the biggest issue here.

It might have more impact if it was written clearly. I am having difficulty understanding what happened to her because of the way it is written and I read over it twice.

Obviously disgusting to have anyone undergo medication without their consent.

biko

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

prevent her from reproducing because she's disabled and a traveller. That's the biggest issue here.

I doubt the traveller aspect had any weight on the suggestion of surgery. At least I find no support for it in the article.

gctest50

This would

....The vomiting and nausea started.
It was difficult to hold the joystick of my wheelchair or to hold my head up.
My pain was excruciating.
The nearest chemist was on O’Connell Street.
My body was weak from losing so much blood.

ILoveYourVibes

biko wrote: »

I doubt the traveller aspect had any weight on the suggestion of surgery. At least I find no support for it in the article.

Im not so certain. But i mean the things done to women in this country anyway.:(

biko

biko wrote: »

I doubt the traveller aspect had any weight on the suggestion of surgery. At least I find no support for it in the article.

I think it would be less likely to have happened to somebody who was settled.

biko

It's not only 1990s Ireland. Unfortunately those were the times, and western society have progressed beyond it now.

In forerunner Sweden 62,000 Swedes were sterilized until the mid 70s.

The policy of sterilising unmarried mothers was explicitly a Social Democratic policy and lasted from the mid-1930s until the mid-1970s.

It was a form of eugenics. The mentally handicapped were sterilised and so were tens of thousands considered to be guilty of 'asocial' behaviour. That category included unmarried mothers.

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/single-mothers-were-forcibly-sterilised-in-sweden-we-dont-hear-much-about-that-30351488.html

the purple tin

biko wrote: »

It's not only 1990s Ireland. Unfortunately those were the times, and western society have progressed beyond it now.

In forerunner Sweden 62,000 Swedes were sterilized until the mid 70s.


https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/single-mothers-were-forcibly-sterilised-in-sweden-we-dont-hear-much-about-that-30351488.html

Israel were secretly doing it up until ten years ago :eek:

https://washingtondailyreport.com/years-denying-israel-finally/

Eric Cartman

I agree that she absolutely shouldnt have had kids but the way in which it was done was awful. I think the traveller aspect of it is somewhat overplayed as I doubt the doctors cared and in the article it seems to suggest that having kids is somehow more important to traveller women than settled ones, which is obviously complete crap

anewme

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Yeah she should be ashamed for her wokist language used in relation to the church who who forced her to undergo a surgical procedure to prevent her from reproducing because she's disabled and a traveller. That's the biggest issue here.

I felt the article was extremely well written and gave a clear insight into this ladies personality, life and background. I got a real sense of her own strength and beliefs from it.

The people going around constantly in search of woke say enough about themselves by doing that.

One eyed Jack

hawley wrote: »

How could anyone treat vulnerable women like that?

It isn’t because they are women that people with disabilities are treated as they are. It’s because of their disability that they are considered vulnerable in the first place and why they are treated differently to people who are regarded as having capacity to give medical or legal consent.

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Yeah she should be ashamed for her wokist language used in relation to the church who who forced her to undergo a surgical procedure to prevent her from reproducing because she's disabled and a traveller. That's the biggest issue here.

It IS an issue because the Church didn’t force anyone to undergo any surgical procedures. The State on the other hand, through legislation, permitted people with disabilities to be treated in the way they were, and to an extent still are. Support for the idea comes from the fact that it is considered that they do not have the capacity to form consent, feminist awakenings or otherwise notwithstanding -


”During this time, my feminist consciousness was ignited.”


The language she’s choosing to use presents something of a distortion of reality, from her own individualised perspective. The State obviously cannot afford the luxury of her individual perspective when it comes to the protection of people with disabilities. You’re choosing to overlook for example the fact in her particular circumstances, the man she met whom she describes as “tender and smart” is the same person who handed her £20 for a taxi home after she had the hysterectomy performed which prevented her from following in the footsteps of her mother who had borne 20 children. The Church would have an issue with a hysterectomy being performed, no issue with the amount of children anyone can produce.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it would be less likely to have happened to somebody who was settled.

No it was equally as likely to have been done regardless of whether the individual in question was a traveller or settled. In fact it would have been far more likely to have been done to an individual from a settled family because as an individual with a disability, they were far more likely than travellers to be institutionalised, where they would be subject to abuse including, but not limited to rape, and one of the outcomes being pregnancy and the birth of a child or children which the parents were regarded as being incapable of taking care of due to their disability, whereas travellers are not generally given such consideration.

Jequ0n

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it would be less likely to have happened to somebody who was settled.

What a lovely bit of unfounded fuel in the fire