It's the 21st Century and forced sterilization is still a thing

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,318
11,403
113
Low Earth Orbit
I get it. I am three times the ones behind you, but the old dog had to go Pee at 3:30 AM (so 6:30AM your time) and here we are.

Doctor Andrew Kotaska removed two fallopian tubes Instead of one, from an an Indigenous (Inuit) woman in 2019 in the North West Territories. OK.

Does it state anywhere as to why this doctor (Kotaska) removed both fallopian tubes instead of one? Was it a racism thing (?) or a medical thing (?) or some other thing? Just curious. I don’t know the answer.

Kotaska isn’t one of the three doctors being sued in Quebec along with the unnamed health care region facility, whatever, but that’s not relevant. He is an example of something. I’m not sure what, but something.

Tommy Douglas might be a better example.
Biographies and other accounts of Mr. Douglas’s life have either ignored or down-played his striking embrace in the mid-1930s of forced sterilization and segregation for people of “sub-normal” intelligence and morality, says Dr. Michael Shevell in a newly published academic paper.
Nova Scotia, in 1908, was home of the first "eugenics movement" in the country when the League for the Care and Protection of Feebleminded Persons was established in the province.

In 2017, sixty indigenous women in Saskatchewan sued the provincial government, claiming they had been forced to accept sterilization before seeing their newborn babies.
From CBC...

The woman first became Kotaska's patient in 2019, when she was seeking treatment for abdominal and pelvic pain.

In a statement of defence filed in the Northwest Territories Supreme Court this week, Kotaska, an obstetrician/gynecologist, said he planned to operate on the woman to remove her right fallopian tube.

But he said he explained to her there could be complications during the surgery which "might justify further surgical interventions" in order to address her pelvic pain.

When she signed the consent form, Kotaska said the woman had been told that "circumstances that might arise during the course of the surgery might justify departure from the procedures specifically identified," and that she gave her informed consent.

Kotaska also said the woman told him twice she did not want to have any more children.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,318
11,403
113
Low Earth Orbit
From CBC...

The woman first became Kotaska's patient in 2019, when she was seeking treatment for abdominal and pelvic pain.

In a statement of defence filed in the Northwest Territories Supreme Court this week, Kotaska, an obstetrician/gynecologist, said he planned to operate on the woman to remove her right fallopian tube.

But he said he explained to her there could be complications during the surgery which "might justify further surgical interventions" in order to address her pelvic pain.

When she signed the consent form, Kotaska said the woman had been told that "circumstances that might arise during the course of the surgery might justify departure from the procedures specifically identified," and that she gave her informed consent.

Kotaska also said the woman told him twice she did not want to have any more children.

Add on... who was the other woman in the room when she was examined? What does her testimony say?
 

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
2,763
1,679
113
What if the doctors were non-white? No, it doesn't matter; forced sterilization is still forced sterilization. (To be transparent, I DO think there should be instances of such but that involves crimes, not just because).

But as you said, it could still be other races, and it would still be justification for natives to be angry at white people in general.

Maybe the phrase shouldn't be "White"; rather it should be "Colonizers", since that seems to be the term now to describe anyone not native. At least it's broader and encompasses more people.
The other side o that coin is who is being forced to pay for the upkeep of all these kids? Now, if they have the means to support a dozen kids, by all means have them. But if the taxpayer has to pay, then the taxpayer must have some say in the excessive breeding.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,973
2,073
113
New Brunswick
Totally your call.

Well considering the "White institution" of Religion has seriously fucked them over, how health "care" has fucked them over, how "education" has fucked them over, I'm not sure why anyone thinks they DON'T have a reason to hate "White" people.

I don’t I think there’s a rulebook with guidelines for racism. There are American people wearing MAGA Hats that aren’t “White” that are confusing American news commentators for example. 😉

LOL - true nuff. I'm sure if you asked others though they'd give names for people like that.


Out here, the history is more about sterilizing people with mental illness. It doesn’t make it more or less right, but it’s definitely a different tangent for debate.

That's true and yes, that was a thing too.

Speaking of tangents, maybe these woman were not sterilized because they were native, but because they’d each already had five children already and they were looked at as being mentally ill?

It shouldn't matter the reason they were sterilized. It's that they were, without their permission. I mean, if this is okay for Native women, then it'd be okay for anyone and...

Should I wait for the anti-abortion crowd who are "Pro Life" to jump in and say this is wrong because it means women can't get preggers anymore and that's against Gawd's plan, etc?

It might be a bigger payout if that could be proven, ‘cuz it affected their income by limiting the number of children they where supporting to only five each with respect to gov’t spiffs like Family Allowance payouts, etc…?

Doesn't matter. At it's basic level, it's a medical procedure that was NOT given permission for/clarified for permission by the patient and in cases like that it's a huge medical malpractice. It's illegal.

Above you state, “people who ‘could’ be white would…” and though in the link that you provided, it doesn’t say that the guilty parties were white (or that they weren’t white), but it’s a leap of faith, I’m assuming based on historical context without explanation?

The original link didn't say, yes, I agree to that. Which is why I gave a second example and the doctor there WAS white. The original place I saw this story used that picture, so while he was accused of and held responsible for surgical malpractice (or whichever it was he was found accountable for), it wasn't for this one initial story originally.

There's a reason why the doctor's aren't named; confidentiality reasons.

Here's another link I found - from Florida which... wow - discussing the issue.


At the end of the article there's this. "Dr. Ewan Affleck, who made a 2021 film, “ The Unforgotten,” about the pervasive racism against Canada's Indigenous people, said the way forced sterilization happens now is more subtle than in the past. He noted an ongoing “power imbalance” in the country's health system. “If you have a white doctor saying to an Indigenous woman, ‘You should be sterilized,’ it may very likely happen,” he said."

Now, again, are ALL the doctors doing this white? We don't know - confidentiality reasons - but there are some, enough to mention it.

I do wonder now, though, if even the doctors WEREN'T White, that they're being called that as a general, all use term...

Lately I hear Colonizer and Cracker used interchangeably. Good times.

Oddly, Cracker doesn't bother me as much as Colonizer.

Have at it. My family (on my Fathers side) made it to Canada via Australia from England, and to South Africa from Australia, and to Canada from South Africa, but do I hate the English and want historical reparations (?) for myself, and all of my descendants into perpetuity??? It’s not gonna happen, and it’s just part of our family make up and lore, and life goes on.

Mine came from Scotland and England and Ireland. Unless we're Native, we all came from "Somewhere else".

I’m responsible for myself and it’s not the fault of Blackleaf’s ancestors if I’m a screwup or not, so I’m not suing him for 1/8 of his garden plot or 1/4 of his seat on his forklift at his place of employment, or 1/32 of his paycheque, etc…

If we're gonna talk Reparations - which is a whole other subject - we can do that.

Has nothing to do with forced sterilization.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,318
11,403
113
Low Earth Orbit
From CBC...

The woman first became Kotaska's patient in 2019, when she was seeking treatment for abdominal and pelvic pain.

In a statement of defence filed in the Northwest Territories Supreme Court this week, Kotaska, an obstetrician/gynecologist, said he planned to operate on the woman to remove her right fallopian tube.

But he said he explained to her there could be complications during the surgery which "might justify further surgical interventions" in order to address her pelvic pain.

When she signed the consent form, Kotaska said the woman had been told that "circumstances that might arise during the course of the surgery might justify departure from the procedures specifically identified," and that she gave her informed consent.

Kotaska also said the woman told him twice she did not want to have any more children.

Forced
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,973
2,073
113
New Brunswick
I get it. I am three times the ones behind you, but the old dog had to go Pee at 3:30 AM (so 6:30AM your time) and here we are.

Ya, time zones suck.

Doctor Andrew Kotaska removed two fallopian tubes Instead of one, from an an Indigenous (Inuit) woman in 2019 in the North West Territories. OK.

Does it state anywhere as to why this doctor (Kotaska) removed both fallopian tubes instead of one? Was it a racism thing (?) or a medical thing (?) or some other thing? Just curious. I don’t know the answer.

Well I did repost what the article said.

There was no consent to remove the left fallopian tube. No reason for the forced sterilization.

From the article.

"Documents show an anesthetist and surgical nurse became alarmed when Kotaska said during the surgery to remove the woman’s right fallopian tube: “Let’s see if I can find a reason to take the left tube as well.”

Kotaska told investigators he was “voicing his thought process out loud” that removing both tubes would lessen the woman’s pelvic pain, the documents say."

Now, it DOES also say:

"There was no suggestion in the documents that Kotaska was motivated by racism. Kotaska declined to comment to the AP."

So there was no racism element in the removal of her fallopian tube. He just... did it.


Kotaska isn’t one of the three doctors being sued in Quebec along with the unnamed health care region facility, whatever, but that’s not relevant. He is an example of something. I’m not sure what, but something.

He's an example of someone who, without the consent of his patient, sterilized her.

Tommy Douglas might be a better example.
Biographies and other accounts of Mr. Douglas’s life have either ignored or down-played his striking embrace in the mid-1930s of forced sterilization and segregation for people of “sub-normal” intelligence and morality, says Dr. Michael Shevell in a newly published academic paper.
Nova Scotia, in 1908, was home of the first "eugenics movement" in the country when the League for the Care and Protection of Feebleminded Persons was established in the province.

In 2017, sixty indigenous women in Saskatchewan sued the provincial government, claiming they had been forced to accept sterilization before seeing their newborn babies.

Whether it's for racist reasons, or just because a doctor does it on a whim, or if they think "Hey, she's had enough babies", it does NOT matter. Forcing sterilization on a woman is WRONG, it's illegal.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,318
11,403
113
Low Earth Orbit
But he said he explained to her there could be complications during the surgery which "might justify further surgical interventions" in order to address her pelvic pain.

When she signed the consent form, Kotaska said the woman had been told that "circumstances that might arise during the course of the surgery might justify departure from the procedures specifically identified," and that she gave her informed consent.

Kotaska also said the woman told him twice she did not want to have any more children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taxslave2

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
23,152
8,006
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
There was no consent to remove the left fallopian tube. No reason for the forced sterilization.

From the article.

"Documents show an anesthetist and surgical nurse became alarmed when Kotaska said during the surgery to remove the woman’s right fallopian tube: “Let’s see if I can find a reason to take the left tube as well.”

Kotaska told investigators he was “voicing his thought process out loud” that removing both tubes would lessen the woman’s pelvic pain, the documents say."

Now, it DOES also say:

"There was no suggestion in the documents that Kotaska was motivated by racism. Kotaska declined to comment to the AP."

So there was no racism element in the removal of her fallopian tube. He just... did it.




He's an example of someone who, without the consent of his patient, sterilized her.



Whether it's for racist reasons, or just because a doctor does it on a whim, or if they think "Hey, she's had enough babies", it does NOT matter. Forcing sterilization on a woman is WRONG, it's illegal.
Want to hear a screwed up story? I knew guy years ago, and he was an underground miner. There was an accident, and his lungs filled up with dust.

One was pretty bad, and the other one was 90% dead. The bad bad one was causing him all kinds of grief, and the decision was made to medically remove the lung that was operating at less than 10% capacity.

Surgeon removed the wrong lung. Turns out the x-ray was on the screen backwards or something crazy like that. That left this guy with one lung operating at less than 10%, and the good (better, anyway) one removed.

He tries to sue the doctors, but because he was injured on the job… the doctors are able to hide behind shielding, tying into the Worker’s Compensation act.

He fights hard to get around that. He haunts the local legislative buildings. Politicians would see him and turn around and run. Seriously. Eventually he’s able to pursue his lawsuit and serves both doctors involved.

The doctors disappear within days. First one, and then the other both turn up practising law in Texas. He tries to fight for years to no avail, and then he and I lose touch of each other, and I don’t know how the story ends, but probably not well.

There was no consent signed to remove the wrong lung for this guy, but unlike a fallopian tube, they couldn’t just take out the other lung also. True story. Messy.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,973
2,073
113
New Brunswick
Want to hear a screwed up story? I knew guy years ago, and he was an underground miner. There was an accident, and his lungs filled up with dust.

One was pretty bad, and the other one was 90% dead. The bad bad one was causing him all kinds of grief, and the decision was made to medically remove the lung that was operating at less than 10% capacity.

Surgeon removed the wrong lung. Turns out the x-ray was on the screen backwards or something crazy like that. That left this guy with one lung operating at less than 10%, and the good (better, anyway) one removed.

He tries to sue the doctors, but because he was injured on the job… the doctors are able to hide behind shielding, tying into the Worker’s Compensation act.

He fights hard to get around that. He haunts the local legislative buildings. Politicians would see him and turn around and run. Seriously. Eventually he’s able to pursue his lawsuit and serves both doctors involved.

The doctors disappear within days. First one, and then the other both turn up practising law in Texas. He tries to fight for years to no avail, and then he and I lose touch of each other, and I don’t know how the story ends, but probably not well.

There was no consent signed to remove the wrong lung for this guy, but unlike a fallopian tube, they couldn’t just take out the other lung also. True story. Messy.

There had to be consent signed to have the surgery and if there wasn't that's whole levels of wrong. Everything needs consent now almost, stitches I think do, steri-strips don't. Anything that's a 'procedure' type thing requires it.

No, story probably didn't end well at all and those doctors... well, no comment.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,318
11,403
113
Low Earth Orbit
Want to hear a screwed up story? I knew guy years ago, and he was an underground miner. There was an accident, and his lungs filled up with dust.

One was pretty bad, and the other one was 90% dead. The bad bad one was causing him all kinds of grief, and the decision was made to medically remove the lung that was operating at less than 10% capacity.

Surgeon removed the wrong lung. Turns out the x-ray was on the screen backwards or something crazy like that. That left this guy with one lung operating at less than 10%, and the good (better, anyway) one removed.

He tries to sue the doctors, but because he was injured on the job… the doctors are able to hide behind shielding, tying into the Worker’s Compensation act.

He fights hard to get around that. He haunts the local legislative buildings. Politicians would see him and turn around and run. Seriously. Eventually he’s able to pursue his lawsuit and serves both doctors involved.

The doctors disappear within days. First one, and then the other both turn up practising law in Texas. He tries to fight for years to no avail, and then he and I lose touch of each other, and I don’t know how the story ends, but probably not well.

There was no consent signed to remove the wrong lung for this guy, but unlike a fallopian tube, they couldn’t just take out the other lung also. True story. Messy.
Show her the CBC article I posted where consent was signed and risks explained.

Whites whoop whoop Church whoop whoop whoop forced whoop whoop.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,640
6,981
113
B.C.
I like how people think "It's the 21st century" is an argument all in of itself. Yep, it's the 21st century and countries still militarily invade their neighbours. It's the 21st century and people still take religion wayyyy too seriously. It's the 21st century and slavery is still a part of the human condition for many. It's the 21st century and violent crime is skyrocketing.
As if the 21st century is supposed to be some automatic human race coming of age for pure enlightenment and total civility. This isn't Star Trek.
It
You're right. Reproductive decisions shouldn't be with the individual, They should be with the government! True Dope's government!

Because it's so wise and benevolent.

Canadian freedom.
no they should be made by a bunch of old white guys , like in the shit hole you abide .
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,607
5,250
113
Olympus Mons
You're right. Reproductive decisions shouldn't be with the individual, They should be with the government! True Dope's government!

Because it's so wise and benevolent.

Canadian freedom.
This is his idea of Reconciliation. I mean one would think Canada would want MORE population way up north, not less, to maintain some claim to sovereignty in our part of the Arctic. But then I'm not a geopolitical jeenyus like the Prime Shithead clearly is.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,973
2,073
113
New Brunswick
This is his idea of Reconciliation. I mean one would think Canada would want MORE population way up north, not less, to maintain some claim to sovereignty in our part of the Arctic. But then I'm not a geopolitical jeenyus like the Prime Shithead clearly is.

Well, look at it this way, with things getting warmer in the north, more people will want to move up there, cause why not, right?