64 comments

[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 45.8 ms ] thread
Link to original report https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/OIG-ICDC...

Some testimonies from said report:

"Everybody he sees has a hysterectomy—just about everybody. He’s even taken out the wrong ovary on a young lady [detained immigrant woman]. She was supposed to get her left ovary removed because it had a cyst on the left ovary; he took out the right one. She was upset. She had to go back to take out the left and she wound up with a total hysterectomy. She still wanted children—so she has to go back home now and tell her husband that she can’t bear kids… she said she was not all the way out under anesthesia and heard him [doctor] tell the nurse that he took the wrong ovary."

"She was locked up in lockdown cells in E4 where the treatment was absolutely terrible. She was locked up with no right to commissary, no right to communicate with her family for many days, she had no right to use the microwave to prepare her food for two days. The rest of the time she was there, she was only allowed to go out for 15 minutes in the morning and 15 minutes in the afternoon, depending on the guard who was there because there were days where she was not permitted to leave at all. During the day, she asked the guards for water and was denied many times, during her isolation in the cell she never had cleaning products to keep the space clean, the shower water was extremely hot and this prevented her from correctly completing her personal cleaning. She only received personal hygiene products once (four small bar soaps, four tubes of toothpastes, four bottles of body wash, and two toothbrushes) that were not enough for the whole period of time that she was isolated. The treatment by the guards is humiliating and since she doesn’t speak English they make fun of her. She came out after 22 days of psychological, physical, and emotional torture."

Before anyone flags this for being "political": don't. This is about human rights, not politics. Don't conflate the two.
I think the people who flag things like this tend to be doing it (ostensibly for being political) but really because it doesn't hurt their bottom line i.e. I'm alright jack.

Have a contrarian reason to praise trump? Have some free upvotes

I didn't realize this was a "human rights" social club
Human rights are a subset of politics. (It's fashionable to label as “nonpolitical” any matter of politics that the speaker thinks is important, as if “politics” as a label only applied to trivialities, but that's not what it means and, more relevantly, not why HN often prefers to avoid things that are in that domain but not particularly intellectual novelties.)
Technically, politics is just "what shoud we do". Almost every discussion is political if you want to work by a strict standard.
No. Absolutely not. Politics often impinges on human rights, yes. But human rights are not a subset of politics, and absolutely should not be couched in political terms. Issues that are rightly called political are those over which reasonable people may disagree. This highlights that "politics" doesn't only apply to trivialities --myriad real political issues come to mind. My point here is that to argue that this particular issue is political would be beyond the pale, as support of the alleged actions is not a humanly just or reasonable position: one could certainly make it into a political issue, if one were heartless enough, but such evil isn't worth discussion. This is not a political issue. Deciding that it is one would be despicable.
It's the other way around.

Politics is that which fills the space when violence and scarcity do not dominate psychic considerations.

Political discussions can only occur in a context where there are human rights, where human beings in authoritative positions adhere to laws and rules related to their jobs.

Public talk that defends the systemic, ungoverned practice of violence is not political, it's propaganda (and worse).

Human rights comes first. Then politics.

Cheers.

Corporate laws are a subset of politics. Labor practices are a subset of politics. Internet governance is a subset of politics. Systemd vs others is a subset of politics. Compensation packages are a subset of politics. Stock ownership is a subset of politics. Available food is a subset of politics. Water purity is a subset of politics. Air quality is a subset of politics. Power generation is a subset of politics.
> ‘Like an Experimental Concentration Camp’

Not political at all? Do we really think the USA is running something close to a Experimental Concentration Camp? Exactly what are they experimenting on, what don't we know about hysterectomies?

Or do we think the USA is making women infertile as a form of population control? Seriously?

I suspect it follows your politics which is why it's "not political". We aren't conflating anything.

It's an important story nonetheless.

Why do you think that people are being sterilized in a camp at the border at which people are not allowed the right for a trial, did not commit any crimes, and are not allowed to leave? Seriously, I'm hoping there is an explanation that is less horrific.
I honestly don't know what to say to someone who thinks the USA is systematically sterilising people.

I don't know how that mind would work.

Do you say it because of true stories we know about the past and are are taught history repeats itself. Do you think it's true on rote?

Who would be doing this? Why? How?

Is it Illuminati, or Republicans, or a systematic breakdown of processes? I don't know what level you are on.

I said this in another comment, but if this was a betting market, 50% didn't happen, 30% rogue doctor, 20% something simple I can't think of.

For instance I don't think it's true, but I did look to see if you get special compensations if you get a hysterectomy, it could be driven by the women. There's a few other things to look at.

The US has been systematically sterilizing indigenous populations up until the 70s. Why do you think we did that? If we're willing to get sordid, there are definitely reasons to do so; maiming people at the border sends a strong message to would-be asylum seekers, for one. For another, there are people in ICE with strong white supremacist tendencies. We have camps right now where people are not allowed a fair trial, and are not allowed to leave. This is very, very, very fucked.

And no, they don't get any compensation for anything. They don't have a US bank account. They are detainees in a weird legal limbo, without any legal status in the US. Why not read the document in the article?

In any case, if you have a better explanation, I'm all ears. But it really doesn't compute here.

I think a better explanation is that this is a doctor who specializes in hysterectomies and who recommends hysterectomies whenever that isn't outright malpractice, because it's a routine procedure and it pays relatively well.

This isn't uncommon practice. Hysterectomies often aren't strictly necessary, just like tonsillectomies, back surgeries or hip replacements.

There is no evidence for this really being "masses" of women, or that any of these procedures were entirely unjustified, or that any of this is happening systematically.

> I honestly don't know what to say to someone who thinks the USA is systematically sterilising people.

Unfortunately, there appears to be evidence of it. :(

eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Unite...

That's just a starting point, as it contains both historical info through to the last few years. It gives plenty of references to investigate further though, in case that's of interest.

You can't just pull out Wikipedia on forced sterilisations we all learned at high school.

You have to take that and logically apply that to this situation.

Why is there one doctor, the uterus collector, who's known for the supposed sterilisations?

If this is at the government level why are there not multiple doctors and hospitals involved?

Why are they doing hysterectomies over blocking or cutting the Fallopian tubes?

HN should be better than 4chan, it's not, but it should try.

You need a holistic theory. Indifference and a rogue doctor doing it for money for instance, would make sense.

we have a limited set of evidence and hysterectomies are one recent example. we just might know facts about other hospitals at this point. do you honestly expect the government to be an stellar example of transparency when it comes to forced sterilization??

you seem to think there are other explanations. care to share?

Hang on. You made out that you don't believe the US has done forced sterilisations. But then respond that it's something you learned about in high school?

eg you've literally learned this stuff has happened in the US before, but you can't believe there are people around doing it now?

> Do you say it because of true stories we know about the past and are are taught history repeats itself. Do you think it's true on rote?

I asked why from true stories from the past you would apply it to the current day to this situation.

With stating factoids, you still have to think how it applies.

When have hysterectomies been used for sterilisation?

> Who would be doing this? Why? How?

Maybe for the same expressed reason they separated children from their parents? Deterrence (which does not work), and sadism (unstated, but obvious).

>I honestly don't know what to say to someone who thinks the USA is systematically sterilising people.

You should consider that it's possible, rather than accusing that person of essentially being insane. If they were claiming that the US population was being sterilized by something the federal government puts in the water, then sure. But surgical sterilization in these conditions does not require an Illuminati level of conspiracy, and it's over simplistic and dismissive to imply that it does.

> Not political at all? Do we really think the USA is running something close to a Experimental Concentration Camp? Exactly what are they experimenting on, what don't we know about hysterectomies?

I think is 1) this story is probably true, 2) it is not the result of any kind of explicit national policy. My guess is the real problem here is malpractice by the gynecologist coupled with a criminal lack of competent oversight by the prison officials. My understanding is prisons scrape the bottom of the barrel of the medical profession (i.e. hiring doctors with bad records that no one else wants), and the actual complaint focuses on one doctor:

> According to Wooten, ICDC consistently used a particular gynecologist – outside the facility – who almost always opted to remove all or part of the uterus of his female detainee patients.

> “Everybody he sees has a hysterectomy—just about everybody,” Wooten said, adding that, “everybody’s uterus cannot be that bad.”

> “We’ve questioned among ourselves like goodness he’s taking everybody’s stuff out…That’s his specialty, he’s the uterus collector. I know that’s ugly…is he collecting these things or something…Everybody he sees, he’s taking all their uteruses out or he’s taken their tubes out. What in the world.”

IMHO, people who are saying (at this point) that this is the result of a systematic policy are jumping to conclusions. If that's true, it'll probably take a least a few weeks for the investigations to confirm it.

Back when the news broke originally about these camps disappearing thousands of children at a time, separating families, and the rampant sexual abuse, we got to have the fun conversation of, "is it really a concentration camp?" I'm terrified at what deflection will be made in this instance, but we can unfortunately expect the deflection.
Damn, this is Uighur level bad for the US...
The US has had a lot of history and practice with forced sterilizations over the centuries. This is nothing "new". It's despicable. It has nothing to do with what party it is. The Democrats and Republicans have both participated and signed off on these.

This is a problem with the state in general, and with unchecked and unmonitored authority. This is why people say ACAB. It's the unchecked authority you give someone (e.g. a cop, border agent, DA, Judges, etc) that create issues like this. It's a matter of removing and reducing authority as much as possible in these systems.

Until we realize that authority is the cause, we are not going to find a proper fix. Everything else is a reactionary bandaid on a systemic issue.

> unchecked and unmonitored authority ... and I'd add: unaccountable

So many disturbing examples e.g. ordering blood be taken from an unconscious person under arrest [i], administering ketamine drugs to arrested people [ii], confiscating property without a warrant [iii]... the list goes on and on.

[i] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/utah-police-nurse-1.4348819

[ii] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/ketamine-injected-ar...

[iii] https://buffalonews.com/news/local/cheektowaga-man-suing-she...

When did the democrats do this?
A lot of it was done by Democrats. Admittedly, largely during the late Third and early Fourth Party Systems, when the dedicated core of the Democratic Party was the ideological antecedent of the present dedicated core of the Republican Party (the names of the major parties have been the same from the Third through the present Sixth party system, but the ideological and geographical alignment of the parties has shifted radically.)
(comment deleted)
While not exactly "the democrats", Planned Parenthood has a pretty dark history with eugenics and coerced/forced sterilization of members of marginalized communities. It seems to try and reconcile with its past though to improve itself.
Obama is directly responsible for the structure of ICE and the various authorities they use to indefinitely imprison people.

He's also responsible for tons of civilians deaths in the middle east.

They were asking about forced sterilization though
Me: Why is the sky blue?

You: My belly button smells funny.

Had to vouch for this because this is the kind of uncomfortable truths people would rather not hear about, yet it's important that Americans are made aware of patent and flagrant humans rights violations made in their own soil.
What do you mean by 'you had to vouch for this'?
They mean that it was flagged a d they used the “vouch” option available to endorse it despite the flagging.
Why the hell is this off the front page?
“anonymous, unproven allegations, made without any fact-checkable specifics” should be treated with skepticism.

I completely agree. There seems to be a spate of anonymous blockbusters lately.

Good thing this isn't an anonymous whistleblower, then. Did you read the article past the ICE denial? The whistleblower put their name on the allegations.
This is terrible, and I feel powerless to prevent this type of injustice.

The people involved should be hung.

I wouldn't rule out a form of Magical Penis Theft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koro_(medicine)

Mass hysteria induced by bad conditions and language difficulties. You see a little of this in the report. The medical error making the woman infertile setting it off.

The alternative is medical fraud by a doctor who knows complaints are hard given their conditions.

But records will have to have been kept. What would the profit to risk be?

Why not do un-needed procedures that are not so permanent.

I’m skeptical, people leave this facility and have been for years. The population is social media active and have friends and family who are in a position to speak out because we aren’t China. It’s difficult to fathom that this issue would surface precisely once by a lone whistleblower
Of course you are not China. You are the United States which has been systematically sterilizing indigenous populations up until the 70s.
Why did this get flagged? Is there something wrong with the facts?
The comment contents (and back and forth) is why, devolved conversations
I've seen much worse conversations on posts that remain unflagged, and the news itself seems important for people to hear about.
I'm reading the report, it's mostly about Covid, general lack of care, and possibly denial of care.

The hysterectomy part (a short section of the document) has twice removed testimony of an immigrant woman there / the nurses perception of a high rate, no numbers presented.

Flagging can be user induced, depends on how people feel about it and dang's choice on the matter I believe too

Maybe because it's about bad things happened in the United States?
Another example of the American taxpayer's largesse. They should be grateful they're receiving medical care at no expense to them.

If the reports of substandard cleanliness are true, that should be addressed but resources are finite.

(comment deleted)
dang: should this really be flagged, while human rights violations from other countries aren't?