Sterilization, the mentally incompetent and the courts.

D Ogbourne, R Ward
{"title":"Sterilization, the mentally incompetent and the courts.","authors":"D Ogbourne, R Ward","doi":"10.1177/147377958901800303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Concerns relating to the bases and justifications for judicial intervention in decisions concerning the irreversible sterilization of those who lack mental capacity have been much aired in recent years. In F v. Berkshire HealthAuthority) the House of Lords has attempted to set a firm conceptual basis for the intervention of the Courts. This latest attempt at clarification of the law in scope goes beyond the rulings in Re B,2 and to a large extent amplifies the approach taken by the High Court in Tv. T.3 However desirable the factual conclusion in Re F may be, the criticisms levelled at earlier authorltiess may well be equally valid in respect of Re F. The judgments in Re F are, it is suggested, categorized by vagueness, breadth, and by the failure to establish an adequate regulatory regime providing safeguards for those who are being irreversibly deprived of child bearing capacity. F was an informal mental patient aged 35 but with a mental capacity of a four or five year old person. She was an in-patient at a mental hospital and had formed a sexual relationship with another patient. There was medical evidence that it would be a disaster, from a pyschiatric point of view, for her to become pregnant, in that she could not cope with pregnancy, labour or delivery, nor could she care for a baby. Further medical evidence showed ordinary methods of contraception would not be satisfactory. In those circumstances the medical staff in charge of F decided that the best course was for F to be sterilized, and accordingly F's mother, acting as F's next friend, sought a declaration that it would not be unlawful to sterilze F. In the High Court> Scott Baker J granted the declaration sought. An appeal by the Official Solicitor was dismissed by the Court of Appeale which held that the court would permit such an operation if it was necessary in the public interest. The Court discussed extensively the jurisdiction to make a declaration concerning the legality of the operation,","PeriodicalId":82933,"journal":{"name":"The Anglo-American law review","volume":"18 3","pages":"230-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/147377958901800303","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Anglo-American law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/147377958901800303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Concerns relating to the bases and justifications for judicial intervention in decisions concerning the irreversible sterilization of those who lack mental capacity have been much aired in recent years. In F v. Berkshire HealthAuthority) the House of Lords has attempted to set a firm conceptual basis for the intervention of the Courts. This latest attempt at clarification of the law in scope goes beyond the rulings in Re B,2 and to a large extent amplifies the approach taken by the High Court in Tv. T.3 However desirable the factual conclusion in Re F may be, the criticisms levelled at earlier authorltiess may well be equally valid in respect of Re F. The judgments in Re F are, it is suggested, categorized by vagueness, breadth, and by the failure to establish an adequate regulatory regime providing safeguards for those who are being irreversibly deprived of child bearing capacity. F was an informal mental patient aged 35 but with a mental capacity of a four or five year old person. She was an in-patient at a mental hospital and had formed a sexual relationship with another patient. There was medical evidence that it would be a disaster, from a pyschiatric point of view, for her to become pregnant, in that she could not cope with pregnancy, labour or delivery, nor could she care for a baby. Further medical evidence showed ordinary methods of contraception would not be satisfactory. In those circumstances the medical staff in charge of F decided that the best course was for F to be sterilized, and accordingly F's mother, acting as F's next friend, sought a declaration that it would not be unlawful to sterilze F. In the High Court> Scott Baker J granted the declaration sought. An appeal by the Official Solicitor was dismissed by the Court of Appeale which held that the court would permit such an operation if it was necessary in the public interest. The Court discussed extensively the jurisdiction to make a declaration concerning the legality of the operation,
绝育,精神不健全和法庭。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信