sterilisation extra reading

?
Introduction to feminist jurisprudence
under the common law courts have the power to authorise the sterilisation of mentally incompetent adults and minors
1 of 59
Introduction to feminist jurisprudence
sterilisation as a means of therapeutic medical treatment is an accepted use as well as for contraceptive purposes or as a means to end menstruation
2 of 59
Introduction to feminist jurisprudence
the latter remains more controversial reasoning along with sterilisation of incompetent adults and minors
3 of 59
Introduction to feminist jurisprudence
Re D- refused sterilisation as it would remove her basic human right to reproduce consequences so final she might as a later age come to understand and regret
4 of 59
Introduction to feminist jurisprudence
Re Eve- determining factor was the best interest of the patients court ruled that non therapeutic sterilisation is unlawful
5 of 59
Introduction to feminist jurisprudence
Re F- risk of pregnancy she would be unable to cope
6 of 59
Introduction to feminist jurisprudence
Sterilisation without permission of the court in the uk where it is for therapeutic reasons and is the only available alternative
7 of 59
Introduction to feminist jurisprudence
department of health and community service v JWB and SMB- despite acknowledging difference between therapeutic and non therapeutic sterilisation the latter could be judicially authorised if in the patient's best interest
8 of 59
Modern Psychiatric ethics
eugenic policy in the selective sterilisation carried out by the USA
9 of 59
Modern Psychiatric ethics
respect of principles such as autonomy forms the basis of guidance
10 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
best interests in Re B no connection understood between sexual intercourse and pregnancy
11 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
interests of mentally handicapped young women are best protected by the courts exercising wardship jurisdiction
12 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
supreme court of canada declined use of parens patriae to authorise non therapeutic sterilisation
13 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
justice holmes opined of the drain which the handicapped could have on the economy
14 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
too close to eugenic sterilisation programmes of the past with 30 US states once adopted sterilisation legislation
15 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
infringes mentally handicapped freedoms to choose an appropriate contraceptive regime
16 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
basic human right to reproduce is infringed
17 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
was the decision in Re B allowing a gateway to a slippery slope
18 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
the wardship jurisdiction is a formal exercise of judicial logic often with publically declared outcomes
19 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
Re B was not a one off case but part of a much larger circle of mentally handicapped females for whom sterilisation was to become routinr
20 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
why so willing to sterilise women- male parliament and judiciary
21 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
why are other contraceptive methods not sufficient
22 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
lord hallisham first and paramount consideration is the well being welfare and interests of the human being concerned
23 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
was best interests really the main consideration cost effective and easier
24 of 59
A lesser sacrifice
re eve la forest j it can never safely be determined that such a procedure is in the patient's benefit
25 of 59
expanding eugenics or improving health care in china
prohibition of reproduction by intellecutally impaired persons- improve the quality of the population and reduce the burden in socoety
26 of 59
expanding eugenics or improving health care in china
USA eugenic movement in the early 20th centruy compulsory sterilisation laws to control those considered to be diseased or degenerate
27 of 59
expanding eugenics or improving health care in china
social convenience to sterilise mentally handicapped women
28 of 59
expanding eugenics or improving health care in china
clearly eugenic purposes in china rarely consider best interest
29 of 59
expanding eugenics or improving health care in china
other jurisdictions do not view this as sufficient reasoning for depriving the right to reproduce
30 of 59
expanding eugenics or improving health care in china
the phrase best interests has no determinate objective meaning
31 of 59
expanding eugenics or improving health care in china
House of lords has not forumlated a definition nor produced cohesive guidelines for determining best interests
32 of 59
Herring
ideas of eugenics to sterilise the undesirables
33 of 59
Herring`
Buck v Bell- better for the world instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or let them starve for their imbecelity society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit for continuing their kind
34 of 59
Herring
is it ever appropriate to sterilise someone without their consent
35 of 59
Herring
can sterilisation ever be in pateints best interest
36 of 59
Herring
nazi regime sterilised 3.5 million people
37 of 59
Herring
if a doctor wishes to sterilise a patient usual rules of consent apply competent adults must consent
38 of 59
Herring
if a person is incompetent and a doctor believes sterilisation to be in their best interests and least intrusive method the courts must agree first
39 of 59
Herring
governed by the mental capacity act 2005
40 of 59
Herring
courts should follow case law when ascertaining whether the sterilisation is in the best interests of the patient
41 of 59
Herring
no need for court order if for therapeutic reasons so long as it is least intrusive way of dealing with medical problem
42 of 59
Herring
Re B 17 year old mental age 5. Held best interests compared to her dealing with pregnancy
43 of 59
Herring
should not consider interests of care giver no account taken of eugenic considerations
44 of 59
Herring
Re F emphasised that best interest test is not the same as the bolam test not enough to show that a respectable body of medical opinion supports it
45 of 59
Herring
in determining best interests there must be consideration of mental and medical conditions as well as other ethical social and welfare considerations
46 of 59
Herring
court will rarely decline if all medical professionals approve
47 of 59
Herring
only approved if it is the last resort infringes article 3 and 7 ECHR
48 of 59
Herring
many criticise courts approach as too willing and find incompetence
49 of 59
Herring
must not be fanciful reasoning= interest in opposite sex must be shown or examples of the person being in intimate relationship
50 of 59
Herring
care to the child is a factor as is the distress of the mother should child be taken away
51 of 59
Herring
Not always easy to distinguish therapeutic and non therapeutic
52 of 59
Herring
Best interest rhetoric is too vague
53 of 59
Herring
eugenic arguments introduced via back door easy means of covering up abuse
54 of 59
Kennedy and Grubb
can an individual give valid consent to a surgical operation for sterilisation. Denning injurious to public interest unless for just cause
55 of 59
Kennedy and Grubb
no doubt that such operations are lawful today sterilisation for contraceptive purposes are just cause
56 of 59
Kennedy and Grubb
are there circumstances where consent is needed not only of the patient but the partents- role of parents and doctors in the consent of children
57 of 59
Kennedy and Grubb
without consent lawfulness of sterilising an incompetent person- look to best interests
58 of 59
Kennedy and Grubb
down a slippery slope will eugenic reasoning come into consideration
59 of 59

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

sterilisation as a means of therapeutic medical treatment is an accepted use as well as for contraceptive purposes or as a means to end menstruation

Back

Introduction to feminist jurisprudence

Card 3

Front

the latter remains more controversial reasoning along with sterilisation of incompetent adults and minors

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Re D- refused sterilisation as it would remove her basic human right to reproduce consequences so final she might as a later age come to understand and regret

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

Re Eve- determining factor was the best interest of the patients court ruled that non therapeutic sterilisation is unlawful

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

CA
See all Law resources »See all biomedical resources »