Sterilisation cases

?
Davis v Berry 1914
The question of performing a vasectomy upon the plaintiff. Iowa statute allowed for operation to be performed on twice convicted felonies. The decree was reversed
1 of 24
Mickle v Henrichs 1918
Convicted felon of ****. Nevada law stated convicted felons of **** are to be sterilised. Felon contended this law contravened cruel and unusual punishment. The order was considered unconstitutional
2 of 24
Buck v Bell 1927
Decision by supreme court that ruled state statute permitting compulsory sterilisation on the unfit including intellectually disabled did not violate the 14th amendment of the constitution
3 of 24
State v Schaffer
Compulsory sterilisation was upheld for institutionalised inmates
4 of 24
Davis v Walton 1929
Upheld the constitutionality of laws providing the sterilisation of sexual criminals, idiots, epileptics, imbeciles and the insane. Inmates may be sterilised for eugenic or therapeutic reasons
5 of 24
State v Troutman 1931
Appellant afflicted with congenital feeble mindedness and recommended sterilisation, The law in question was followed on behalf of general welfare demands and applied in this case
6 of 24
Re Clayton 1931
An inmate of an institution for the feeble minded was directed to be sterilised before parole. Upheld that laws claiming the operation did not violate constitution on grounds of feeble mindedness
7 of 24
Brewer v Valk 1933
Statute providing for sterilisation of mental defectives at request of the legal guardian was overruled. Court said it was unconstitutional for failing to provide proper notice. Legality of state sterilisation was not questioned- inadequate safegaurd
8 of 24
Skinner v Oklahoma 1942
Held that laws permitting compulsory sterilisation of criminals are unconstitutional as they treat similar crimes differently
9 of 24
People v Tapia 1965
Couple involved with welfare fraud offered a sentence reduction contingent on sterilisation being voluntarily carried out- not appealed
10 of 24
In the matter of Hernandez 1966
21 year old girl offered choice between sterilisation and immediate probation or a 6 month jail term for drug offence. First offence and probation report suggested straight probation there was no reason for the condition of sterilisation
11 of 24
In re Cavitt 1968
US court granted quash in Nebraska case. Divided opinion allowed sterilisation as a condition for release or probation. Concerned the concept of mentally deficient
12 of 24
Re Eve 1986
Canadian court would not consent to sterilise mentally handicapped woman. 16 month sebatical to assess. 3 grounds- courts did not have inherent right to grant this, violation of human rights and statute required on the issue
13 of 24
Department of health and community service v JWB and SMB 1992
Was further consent than parental required for sterilisation of minor. Looks at childs' best interests. Parents do not have authority to consent
14 of 24
Re X 1975
Courts power as parens patraie- wardship jurisdiction
15 of 24
Re D 1976
court found that the proposed hysterectomy for nontherapeutic purposes was neither medically indicated nor necessary and refused to consent to her sterilisation
16 of 24
Re B 1987
Affirmed sterilisation of 17 year old girl for her welfare and deeming it to be in her best interests
17 of 24
Re F 1989
Declaration for sterilisation granted as lawful despite her being unable to consent
18 of 24
Re S 2000
Application for sterilization dismissed. Concept of best interest relating to mentally incapacitated not only for medical but for emotional and welfare issues
19 of 24
Re A 2000
Sought sterilization for best interests of down syndrome 18 year old however the chances of sexual relationship was low and advantages of a vasectomy was unclear and so dismissed
20 of 24
The Greek case 1969
Defined inhuman treatment as deliberately causing severe suffering that is mental or physical. Defined degrading as grossly humiliating the individual before others or drives them to act against their conscince
21 of 24
ROI v UK 1978
Held that for purposes of article 3 torture includes particularly intense and cruel forms of degrading treatment. Concerned with 5 types of interrogation used against irish terorist suspects
22 of 24
Saadi v Italy 2008
Regarded the absolute nature of article 3 of the ECHR
23 of 24
T v T 1988
A court has no power to grant a declaration that a doctor will not be liable of trespass if he operates without consent- no such right is known to law
24 of 24

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Convicted felon of ****. Nevada law stated convicted felons of **** are to be sterilised. Felon contended this law contravened cruel and unusual punishment. The order was considered unconstitutional

Back

Mickle v Henrichs 1918

Card 3

Front

Decision by supreme court that ruled state statute permitting compulsory sterilisation on the unfit including intellectually disabled did not violate the 14th amendment of the constitution

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Compulsory sterilisation was upheld for institutionalised inmates

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Upheld the constitutionality of laws providing the sterilisation of sexual criminals, idiots, epileptics, imbeciles and the insane. Inmates may be sterilised for eugenic or therapeutic reasons

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Biomedical resources »