Leicester Mal, Cooke Pam
School of Continuing Education, The University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK.
J Moral Educ. 2002 Jun;31(2):181-7. doi: 10.1080/03057240220143287.
What follows is a response to an article by Spiecker and Steutel in which they pose the question of whether sex between people with "mental retardation" (sic) is morally permissible and in which they argue that since many such people cannot give "valid consent", the additional consent of caretakers may be required. However, we argue that the term "mental retard" is offensive and that either the UK terminology ("the learning disabled") or the internationally accepted term ("intellectually disabled") are more acceptable. Moreover, we point out that Spiecker and Steutel are mistaken. Many "learning disabled" people can and do give "valid consent". In any case, their question is itself dubious. Why should two learning disabled people who want to have sex together need anyone else's consent? In addition, we briefly address the rights of the learning disabled to the same sexual freedom as others, on the one hand, and to freedom from sexual exploitation on the other hand. Finally, we consider the implications of these issues for moral education. We suggest that carers need to develop empathy and, where necessary, advocacy skills. We point to the existence of training programmes on sexuality and protection issues.
以下是对斯皮克克和斯图特尔一篇文章的回应。在文章中，他们提出了“智力迟钝”者之间的性行为在道德上是否可允许的问题，并认为由于许多这类人无法给出“有效同意”，可能需要照顾者的额外同意。然而，我们认为“智力迟钝”这个词具有冒犯性，英国的术语（“学习障碍者”）或国际通用术语（“智力残疾者”）更易被接受。此外，我们指出斯皮克克和斯图特尔是错误的。许多“学习障碍者”能够且确实给出了“有效同意”。无论如何，他们的问题本身就值得怀疑。为什么两个想要一起发生性行为的学习障碍者需要其他人的同意呢？此外，我们简要讨论了学习障碍者一方面享有与其他人相同的性自由权利，另一方面免受性剥削的权利。最后，我们思考了这些问题对道德教育的影响。我们建议照顾者需要培养同理心，并在必要时提升维权技能。我们指出存在关于性与保护问题的培训项目。
