Comparative approaches to the nonconsensual sterilization of the mentally retarded.
Laws governing the sterilization of persons so mentally retarded as to be unable themselves to consent to the procedure have left a trail of manifest abuses right around the globe, and no less in North America than elsewhere. Ostensibly, as a kind of rebound effect, courts in North America, and most obviously in Canada, have erected substantial legal obstacles in the path of those seeking the sterilization of such a retarded individual. Historically, such abuses have been of a lesser scale, or at least have been much less manifest, in Great Britain. In the absence of any significant negative legacy, courts in Britain would seem to have developed a more balanced and equitable, although not necessarily more reasoned, approach to the determination of such cases to the seeming benefit of many seriously retarded persons. Ironically, these same courts hinder their own efforts in relation to retarded adults by denying jurisdiction in such cases and refusing to seek an adequate remedy for the lacuna.
Price
D P
DP
Leicester Polytechnic School of Law, England.
D000293:Adolescent; D002170:Canada; D002651:Child Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D008607:Intellectual Disability; D038622:Internationality; D033222:Judicial Role; D033242:Minors; D018570:Risk Assessment; D013244:Sterilization, Involuntary; D006113:United Kingdom; D014481:United States