Will I get Another “Tin Cup” Award?
20 Sep 2002
Some things I understand. That some people with religious, moral or ethical beliefs can denounce abortion and euthanasia. What I cannot understand is how people, organizations, social workers and government can throw common sense to the wind on other social issues. Their failure to realize that the old adage "Mother knows best" is often true. So this year, will I again win the disabled organization’s "Tin Cup" award?
I recently learned of the problems facing a 25 year old mentally disabled man and his mother. He has a mental age of four with limited speech and cannot shave himself. His mother Sandra Crockett, believed that sooner or later he might end in jail for committing a sexual offense. So she did what some believe unconscionable and had him sterilized.
The result? British Columbia’s Public Guardian claimed that her action was "unlawful, unethical, high-minded, arrogant and demeaning" to her son. What a terrible denunciation for a mother who had loyally cared for a totally dependent son for 25 years! So who’s arrogant here?
"Big Brother" government also charged that Mrs. Crockett has subjected her son to ridicule, embarrassment, psychological trauma, loss of sexual drive and the inability to become a parent.
This last part boggles my mind! Today everyone talks about the need for responsible sex. But how can a 25 year old man with a mental age of four who has sexual desires know the true meaning of sex or the responsibility that goes with it? And how could any reasonable person believe he could be a responsible parent? Since he’s incapable of looking after himself how in the name of Heaven could he care for a child? And who among us would elect to have him as a parent?
Advocates for the disabled argue that what happened to this man/boy was a violation of human rights. But doesn’t this man also have a right to be protected from being a parent. Or from being ridiculed? Or perhaps going to jail?
I’m not considered a friend of the disabled because they disagree with me on matters of this kind. Several years ago to emphasize this they presented me with their "Tin Cup Award". They considered I had done more than anyone else to harm the cause of the disabled.
I regret they feel this way. Of course, it would be unconscionable to sterilize every mentally handicapped person. But there are exceptions, and I believe this applies to a sexually active man with a mental age of four.
As a member of their organization I’d endeavour to change the law and give mother’s a little assistance. That they along with their physician, theologian or whoever else they trusted, could make the legal decision for or against sterilization.
Currently mothers’ and doctors’ hands are tied by what’s known as the Eve decision. In 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that sterilization can never be considered a beneficial procedure. Any court of law should understand that "never" is a very unjust word.
This law prevented me as a surgeon from sterilizing a woman with the mental age of two who could not place one child’s block on top of another. Her parents, minister and I all believed it was the humane approach. If this patient had been British the law would have allowed it.
In the Crockett case, the doctor who performed the illegal sterilization has settled out of court and agreed to pay the son $150,000. But his mother says her son doesn’t even know there’s been a legal problem and doesn’t need the money.
Sandra Crockett plans to sue the Public Guardian and wants the law changed. I wish her luck but she will need more than this to change this illogical mindset.
Will I get another Tin Cup award? Possibly. But I’d still rather work with the organization to obtain more funding for those with disabilities. And to try and convince them that mothers, who constantly care for their disabled children, often know best, rather than government bureaucrats and elderly male members of The Supreme Court.
