Ouch! Talk  permalink

DAN to fight for Katie's womb - help us?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 20 of 142
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by GumChewingFreak (U6927399) on Monday, 8th October 2007

    Hey everyone,

    As I am sure you are aware Katie, who is a 15 year old girl with CP,
    is being given a hysterectomy [removal of her womb - excuse my
    spelling!] as her mother fears that she MIGHT have painful periods.

    I am sure that most of you will feel the same sence of disgust and
    anger that I am feeling and I hope all of you feel the burn to do
    something about this.

    I am trying to orgonise a demo for Katies womb as soon as we can and I
    would really like the help and support of as many of you as possiable.
    I suspect it would be somewhere central, like London, and it would
    need to be before Katies surgery.

    I will be getting in touch with the europian court of human rightys
    later today and seeing what they have to say about it all. Then I will
    be doing a little resurch on where Katie lives, who her Dr is and
    when/where they plan to do her op. If any of
    you have to time to do a little looking your self or can pass these kind of messages on to as many of your disabled/non-disabled friends, I would really
    appreciate your help.

    Please, please spread the word and urge as many people as possiable to
    join us in fighting for the rights of a young woman.

    Let people know what we're planning and that they are free to join the Facebook Direct Action Network group, the
    DANmail on Yahoo! groups or e mail me directly - Jo.with.DAN@Gmail.com

    Remember - NOTHING ABOUT US, WITHOUT US!

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Wheelie EDSer (U1114809) on Monday, 8th October 2007

    Is there a website other than those? I hate Facebook, and I don't sign up to Yahoo cos it's a faff. I'd rather something I could read without signing up - cos I AM interested!

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by shiva_x (U1829800) on Monday, 8th October 2007

    There isn't at the moment, but i believe Jo/GCF is in the process of setting up one...

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Moonwolf (U4817556) on Monday, 8th October 2007

    I've got spare server space and can rustle up something pretty quick if someone needs it. Can do a domain to go with it too.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by cornishandy (U3322829) on Monday, 8th October 2007

    You would probably have most power by linking with a larger group like Scope and all act together. Dozens of splinter groups won't be so effective. This needs the clout of large numbers.

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Moonwolf (U4817556) on Monday, 8th October 2007

    I don't think Scope is actually going to be much use. The problem with established "charities", is that they have to take into account the "big picture" all the time, and watch what they say - not so much for legal issues, but because they're always keeping in mind their funding.

    There was one HYS post I recall seeing where someone said they'd never donate to Scope because of Scope's comments on the topic. Scope, and organizations facing similar trials, will always *have* to keep that in mind.

    Individuals, on the other hand, have much freer rein - they're not having to balance doing what's right and appeasing potential donors.

    Let's be honest here. Katie's pretty much a done deal, it's "too late" to have an effect. The only thing that can be done is to use this as a catalyst to start bringing it to people's attentions and force-educate them as to why this is so wrong, in the hopes that somewhere along the line enough of *them* will mobilize to make changes.

    Cynical? I don't think so. There's been no "official" reaction as far as I'm aware, and that's the only way this can be prevented. As we've seen time and time again in the past, judges will rule against someone with a disability if the medical profession says it's "in their best interests", regardless of whether or not common sense, morality, or common decency disagrees.

    For now, ABs are still the ones calling the shots, and the legal system are the ultimate conservatives.

    It stinks, but the best way to fight the issues is to make them public, and hit people where they're most vulnerable - their desire to be seen as "good" by everyone else. It takes a certain degree of brutality to force a change in perception, and one way to do that is overwhelming by numbers.

    I used that to good effect when we went against the local transit authority a couple of years ago to get them to start providing effective Paratransit service (rather than just the bare minimum required by law). The exposure, both from myself online, and from the groups that were appearing in the media on an almost daily basis, did far more to get those changes made than any amount of rational debate could have.

    It goes against most people's desires to try to force things. It's impolite, it's demonstrative, it's rude, it's uncivilized.

    But to paraphrase Mencken, there comes a time when we have to spit on our hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. Else we'll never see any progress.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by fgaughan (U8420327) on Monday, 8th October 2007


    You would probably have most power by linking with a larger group like Scope and all act together. Dozens of splinter groups won't be so effective. This needs the clout of large numbers.
     


    Scope is the the RNId, they do sod all, surely you should know that ?

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by iamaposeur (U9510934) on Monday, 8th October 2007

    "I am trying to orgonise a demo for Katies womb as soon as we can"

    I couldn't help but giggle at that. Don't get me wrong I'm as disgusted by what is happening to Katie as the next person, but I think just organising a protest for Katie's rights would be less comical than a demo for her womb.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by NuttySurvivor (U2017168) on Monday, 8th October 2007

    Please keep us informed on here of what you're doing.

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Peter aka Sociable (U6743562) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007

    Apology for duplicate posting as I have also posted these comments to the original Katie thread too:

    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    I fully understand and sympathise with the feelings everyone has expressed so far but, just one word of caution. We all might want to be a little more careful about how we discuss this very sensitive and emotive issue.

    As I understand it from all the reports so far, all that has happened is a request has been made by the Katie’s mother for this surgery to be considered, and the doctors involved in her care, being fully aware of the obvious ethical, moral and legal implications of this request, have rightly confirmed they are seeking advice before responding to the request one way or the other.

    This is, of course, a long way from Katie being in imminent danger of the unwarranted and unnecessary forced removal of her womb against her expressed will.

    As I said earlier, things are never as clear cut as some would make out and this is a sensitive issue and so requires sensitive rather than emotive handling if any campaign is not to backfire on Katie. So perhaps a little restraint by everyone not directly involved in the case might be in order right now, at least until the full facts are known.

    Yes there are broader disability issues raised by this specific case, but the issue here is not just about Katie having the right to say “No”. It is equally about her right to say “Yes”, regardless of if it involves an elective or life saving procedure the same principle should apply.

    Should I eventually lose the capacity / ability to give express consent to any treatments that might help me and which, but for that incapacity I would have requested for myself, I personally want my next of kin to be able to have the right to ask for such procedures to be undertaken on my behalf.

    This is clearly one of those issues where each case has to be considered on its own individual merits. I would not, however, want others not directly concerned with me to have a right to veto any such decision I might have reasonably wanted made on my behalf by others simply because they themselves do not approve.

    Clearly in all such situations protections need to be in place to protect people from any abuse of the rights outlined, but incapacity should not, of itself, rob an individual of the right to have such procedures at all and under any circumstances.

    As I indicated before, I suspect that what will come of this is that the right to have a request considered will be confirmed, but that they might very well correctly decide that, in this specific case, the treatment requested can not be justified right now.

    We of course have a right to express opinions about the general principles involved here, but I do not believe it is for us, or indeed the general public, to decide what should happen in this specific case but that this must and should be down to only those directly involved with the case and fully aware of the Katie’s actually situation rather than speculation as to her situation.

    Anyway that’s my extra 2 cents for what its worth.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Sarah (U8452349) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007

    Sociable, I think you expressed that very well.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Peter aka Sociable (U6743562) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007

    Many thanks missusoverall much appreciated.

    Just as an update this is a new article being carried by the BBC discussing the various ethical considerations which people might find very interesting:

    See: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/...

    Essentially they are saying: 'Wait and see the best approach'

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Chris_Page (U557481) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007

    <<Let's be honest here. Katie's pretty much a done deal, it's "too late" to have an effect. The only thing that can be done is to use this as a catalyst to start bringing it to people's attentions and force-educate them as to why this is so wrong, in the hopes that somewhere along the line enough of *them* will mobilize to make changes.>>

    And as the issue has already been dropped from national news coverage, we must work to get it back on the discussion table. I'm not advocating putting undue pressure on this particular case, but this proves that we must remain vigilant to porential abuses and not be cowed by those who accuse us of being paranoid, as was said to me on Ouch the other day. We have to get non-disabled people to look more critically at such procedures and not automatically accept them as "a good thing".

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Peter aka Sociable (U6743562) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007

    I fully agree Chris.

    In fact I have already sent messages to the BBC asking for the debate to be opened up again so these important issues can be discussed and I hope the "management" of Ouch will add their weight to that request too and thereby demonstrate there truly is a two way street where we inform the news as well as have it passed down to us from on high.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Chris_Page (U557481) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007

    The problem is obviously (to me) tied up in the whole concept of dominant ideologies. We, as Disabled people, are seen as "other" by non-disabled people, so our views are not granted the same weight of credibility as those of non-disabled people - many of whom have said quite monstrous things in the Have Your Say debate. So if they hold the dominant view, what chance have we of persuading them when they implicitly challenge the validity of views based on our lived experience? We could justifiably get angry, but then we'll no doubt be portrayed as troublemaking militants, the same as any movement that challenges the comfortable status quo - be it trade unions or the Buddhist Monks in Burma.

    I don't know how we build the necessary bridges, but we need to be careful of compromising too much.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Tim (U1822396) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007

    That's very well put in message 15, Chris, could not put it any better.

    May I plagiarise you when applying the same description to RNID?

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Victor Meldrew 111 (U2515613) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007



    I think this action against the wishes of the girl's mother's decision is plain WRONG.

    Unless someone else is volunteering to take responsibility and care for her until she dies, i say' butt out' and let those responsible get on with things.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Wizard of Ouch - host (U1726404) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007

    Guys. If you're trying to affect the news agenda, you need to do something that will affect it. You can't just say "we want it back in the news". The story has to move on. That's how it works. Until the story has a new element or twist then it's unlikely to come back again as a news item.

    I'm sure you all have the ability to turn it into news should you wish to take it that far. Do remember though that the parents truly believe they are doing the best for their daughter. It's a sensitive issue and is currently personal. Should the NHS lawyers agree it would be fine to do this procedure then there is something to get your teeth into if you believe it is a dangerous legal precedent.

    Wizard of Ouch.

  • Message 19

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Chris_Page (U557481) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007

    <<I think this action against the wishes of the girl's mother's decision is plain WRONG.

    Unless someone else is volunteering to take responsibility and care for her until she dies, i say' butt out' and let those responsible get on with things.>>

    I don't think that is a helpful argument, because it diminshes the the right of anyone to have a view, and stunts any kind of debate on what is a serious issue beyind this case - the right of Disabled people to their reproductive freedom and natural physical development. It's a kind of moral blackmail that you're operating.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to this message.

    Posted by Tim (U1822396) on Tuesday, 9th October 2007

    I think this action against the wishes of the girl's mother's decision is plain WRONG.

    Unless someone else is volunteering to take responsibility and care for her until she dies, i say' butt out' and let those responsible get on with things. 


    Making a forced marriage between things which are foreign to each other does not magic forth a point.

    Just because somebody is not responsible for her care does not make their objections wrong or the mother's decision right.

    When I was little I was made very ill by some bizarre contraption which was supposed to improve my hearing. I feel that my parents were manoeuvred into it by doctors. Either way, it was the wrong decision.

    Report message20

Back to top

About this Board

The Ouch! messageboard has now closed. Messages you have posted will remain archived.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

To continue the conversation visit Ouch's blog (bbc.co.uk/ouch) - now part of BBC News. There you'll find our podcast, regular blog entries and articles, community events, and links to where you can find us on Facebook and Twitter.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Live community panel

Our blog is the main place to go for all things Ouch! Find info, comment, articles and great disability content on the web via us.

Mat and Liz
Listen to our regular razor sharp talk show online, or subscribe to it as a podcast. Spread the word: it's where disability and reality almost collide.

More from the BBC

BBC Sport

Disability Sport

All the latest news from the paralympics.

Peter White

In Touch

News and views for people who are blind or partially sighted.

BBC Radio 4

You & Yours

Weekdays 12.40pm. Radio 4's consumer affairs programme.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.