Court Bans Man With Low Iq From Having Sex

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8301100/Court-bans-man-with-low-IQ-from-having-sex.html

The 41 year-old had been in a relationship with a man whom he lived with and told officials “it would make me feel happy” for it to continue.

But his local council decided his “vigorous sex drive” was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a “moderate” learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing.

A psychiatrist involved in the case even tried to prevent the man being given sex education, on the grounds that it would leave him “confused”.

Mr Justice Mostyn said the case was “legally, intellectually and morally” complex as sex is “one of the most basic human functions” and the court must “tread especially carefully” when the state tries to curtail it.

But he agreed that the man, known only as Alan, should not be allowed to have sex with anyone on the grounds that he did not have the mental capacity to understand the health risks associated with his actions.

Under the judge’s order, the man is now subject to “close supervision” by the local authority that provides his accommodation, in order to ensure he does not break the highly unusual order.

The judge concluded: “I therefore make a declaration that at the present time Alan does not have the capacity to consent to and engage in sexual relations.

...........

Mr Justice Mostyn highlighted the fact that the court cannot prevent people from merely making “unwise” decisions, and that a simple test can be carried out to see if a person is capable of consenting to sex based on the act itself rather than the proposed partner.

The judge said it requires an understanding and awareness of the “mechanics of the act”, “that there are health risks involved” and that sex between a man and a woman may lead to pregnancy.

He said that the psychiatrist thought Alan “believed that babies were delivered by a stork or found under a bush”, and that “sex could give you spots or measles”.

On that basis the judge ruled that Alan did not have the capacity to consent to sex, but also ordered that the council should provide him with sex education “in the hope that he thereby gains that capacity”.

Has the clever psychiatrist tried giving Alan sex education or are they assuming Alan can't digest the information and would get confused. I wonder if they managed to call in any expert witnesses for Alan who said he could be capable of understanding if given the correct support.

A tricky case to judge because clearly Alan wants to have sex and is no being prevented from doing so. Clearly he has some understanding of the risks because he says you can get spots or measles, perhaps in his limited way he is demonstrating an understanding but in our IQ orientated world this is taken as him being dumb.

On this judgement how many teenagers would be permitted to have sex as many clearly don't get the risks.

[Vagabond]

Well if I read it right, he is a man and in a relationship with another man so one would have though questioning him about where babies come from begs the question of exactly who has the IQ of 48.

[Riedquat]

Better make sure no animals are allowed to have sex then, because they've all got even less understanding.

[interestrateripoff]

This is more to do with the bloke he was having sex with. Alan has a high sex drive and the courts feared he was being taken advantage of.

What the person with the lower sex drive was being taken advantage off?

Sex can be extremely pleasurable perhaps Alan likes pleasure?

[6538]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8301100/Court-bans-man-with-low-IQ-from-having-sex.html

Has the clever psychiatrist tried giving Alan sex education or are they assuming Alan can't digest the information and would get confused. I wonder if they managed to call in any expert witnesses for Alan who said he could be capable of understanding if given the correct support.

This will probably be answered by reading the decision in full. Newspaper reports like this often give an incorrect feel to a decision like this and often don't get things quite right. The story states that the Act concerned gives courts the ability to make orders relating to people who aren't "intelligent" enough to make them for themselves. That isn't correct. The Act does not mention intelligence, it refers to "capacity" and the two are not synonymous, as far as I am aware. Just because someone is of low intelligence does not mean that he automatically lacks capacity, and vice versa. A Nobel prize winning physicist who is unconcious is unlikely to be referred to as lacking intelligence but he certainly lacks capacity to make decisions.

I haven't had a full read through but the decision its self is long and pretty heavy going. It's worth pointing out that given that the judge has found that the guy does not have the capacity to consent then the court must have had some pretty strong evidence before it because the Mental Capacity Act says that when you are assessing someones capacity then you are to start from the presumption that the person does indeed have cpacity and must adduce evidence to prove that he does not. Also, it's noteworthy that the article doesn't actually make reference to the fact that the order is an interim order and the the judge has given leave to appeal, nor that the order instructs the council to provide him with sex education.

[6538]

This is more to do with the bloke he was having sex with. Alan has a high sex drive and the courts feared he was being taken advantage of.

It's not from the sound of it, although that may be part of the motivation. It's only about mental capacity. Sex carries certain possible risks and the argument is that the chap does not have the capacity to understand those risks and, hence, give consent to them.

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357259/Mothers-court-appeal-sterilise-girl-21-learning-difficulties.html

A mother broke down in the High Court today as she begged a judge to allow doctors to sterilise her daughter with severe learning difficulties in a bid to stop the girl getting pregnant again.

She said her 21-year-old daughter, who can only be referred to as P, is due to give birth to her second child tomorrow and is likely to conceive ‘quite quickly again’ unless her tubes are tied.

Mrs P said her daughter lacks the capacity to make decisions about contraception and that any future babies would be taken away by social services as the family could not afford to raise them.

During the proceedings the woman's mother, Mrs P, addressed the judge, Mr Justice Hedley, and, breaking down in tears, told him: ‘From my point of view, I want the best for my daughter.’

She said P and her children were being kept together as a family unit, but added: ‘Obviously we can't carry on supporting more and more children.’

Surely by what happened to the man above this woman should immediately be banned from having sex? I mean she must be having unprotected sex to keep getting pregnant?

If she lacks the capacity to understand contraception does she also lack the capacity to consent?

[interestrateripoff]

The judge added: ‘It is hardly surprising in these circumstances, given that P is a young woman sexually healthy and active, that there should be profound concern about further pregnancies.

‘It was for those reasons that the application was made to this court for an authorisation of sterilisation.

‘The court has a duty, where a person lacks capacity, to make decisions in the best interests of the person if called upon by an interested party to do so. And that is how this case comes before the court.’

From the above article.

So please can someone tell me what the difference is the first person appears to be gay from the description given and is banned from sex, the 2nd one is female and will likely keep getting pregnant, yet the male gets banned from sex meanwhile the female is free to continue having sex.

[6538]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357259/Mothers-court-appeal-sterilise-girl-21-learning-difficulties.html

Surely by what happened to the man above this woman should immediately be banned from having sex? I mean she must be having unprotected sex to keep getting pregnant?

If she lacks the capacity to understand contraception does she also lack the capacity to consent?

Maybe the court will do something similar. The difference is though that this is a report into a case currenty underway (and from only one party to it) wheras the first was a report of an actual decision. The two cases are also very different. In the first the only think that has happened is the granting of a temporary order to be reviewed at a later date. In the latter, the family is asking that an irreversable medical procedure is carried out on someone, They aren't asking for a order preventing the person having sex, from the looks of it.

[interestrateripoff]

Maybe the court will do something similar. The difference is though that this is a report into a case currenty underway (and from only one party to it) wheras the first was a report of an actual decision. The two cases are also very different. In the first the only think that has happened is the granting of a temporary order to be reviewed at a later date. In the latter, the family is asking that an irreversable medical procedure is carried out on someone, They aren't asking for a order preventing the person having sex, from the looks of it.

But surely the precedent has been set?

Aren't both about capacity?

[6538]

But surely the precedent has been set?

Aren't both about capacity?

Yes, but you can't really talk about precidents in such cases because cases like this are rarely identical to others. Also, blanket precidents really have little or no place in cases where peoples welfare is concerned. There's pretty much nothing identical between these two anyway. Yes, they both involve sex and capacity but they involve people of different sexes, in different situations and probably with differing (and possibly fluctuating) levels of capacity and such like. Like I say, one involved an interim order which is to be reviewed in a few months; the other involves an irreversable medical procedure. They aren't the same.

Also, we don't know the full facts of the latter case whereas we have a full judgement to read in the former.

[Number79]

I am not surprised to see that many people have stayed away from this topic.

Imo this is one of those areas where the law should wind it's neck in. Banning someone from having sex or taking the decision to tie a womans tubes are way, way outside of what any judge or court should be able to decide.

[Daft Boy]

Well if I read it right, he is a man and in a relationship with another man so one would have though questioning him about where babies come from begs the question of exactly who has the IQ of 48.

Post of the week

[HPC001]

I am not surprised to see that many people have stayed away from this topic.

Imo this is one of those areas where the law should wind it's neck in. Banning someone from having sex or taking the decision to tie a womans tubes are way, way outside of what any judge or court should be able to decide.

The really depressing thing is people cheer this thinly-cloaked eugenics on.

[6538]

I am not surprised to see that many people have stayed away from this topic.

Imo this is one of those areas where the law should wind it's neck in. Banning someone from having sex or taking the decision to tie a womans tubes are way, way outside of what any judge or court should be able to decide.

I disagree. The issue here is one of protection. If someone had a medical condition which may cause them to die were they to become pregnant and were lacking the capacity to make a decision for themselves would you still be of the same opinion?

The woman in the latter case has already had a kid (two I think) and is incapable of caring for it - from the sounds of things. There are issues relating to her welfare, the welfare of any child, the werlfare of her family, etc. Although having said that, in reality the court will only base it's decision on her welfare. We don't know the facts of the case she may be horribly emotionally distressed every time she get pregnant and gives birth and may not have the wherewithall to know how to stop it happening?

[Number79]

I disagree.

I didnt expect anything else

The issue here is one of protection. If someone had a medical condition which may cause them to die were they to become pregnant and were lacking the capacity to make a decision for themselves would you still be of the same opinion?

No, in that case the decision would probably be sound imo but should be made by the medical profession not someone in a wig.

The woman in the latter case has already had a kid (two I think) and is incapable of caring for it - from the sounds of things. There are issues relating to her welfare, the welfare of any child, the werlfare of her family, etc. Although having said that, in reality the court will only base it's decision on her welfare. We don't know the facts of the case she may be horribly emotionally distressed every time she get pregnant and gives birth and may not have the wherewithall to know how to stop it happening?

As you say, we dont know the details but the way that I read it was that they are poor and her incapable mother cant afford to feed or look after the babies.

Maybe the courts should ban everyone with low iq's from having sex, it would reduce our benefits bill and curb the need for social housing. Or should we just sterilize them?

[6538]

No, in that case the decision would probably be sound imo but should be made by the medical profession not someone in a wig.

The bottom line is that it will be. The Courts will not order a medical procedure like this to be carried out. All they do is give a ruling that a particular treatment is lawful. You still then need to find a doctor to do it.

[Badger]

Maybe his partner is a vegetarian?