Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:47:21.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sterilization and a Mentally Handicapped Minor: Providing Consent for One Who Cannot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Gabrielle M. Applebaum  and
John La Puma
Gabrielle M. Applebaum
Affiliation:
A graduate in philosophy from the University of Chicago and is presently pursuing a Master's degree in Divinity at Harvard University
John La Puma
Affiliation:
Clinical Professor Medicine at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine and a Consultant in Clinical Ethics at Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The moral standing of involuntary sterilization has long been subject to debate but has only recently been looked upon with disfavor. When sterilization of a mentally handicapped minor is entertained, issues of eugenics, medical ethics, and legal precedent specially arise. Ethics consultants and ethics committees have been asked to consider such cases.

Type
Special Section: Ethical Decision Making and Persons with Mental Retardation
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Spring 1994 , pp. 209 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Elkins, T, Hoyle, D, Darnton, T. The use of a societally based ethics/advisory committee to aid in decisions to sterilize mentally handicapped patients. Adolescent and Pediatric Gynecology 1988;1:190–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Cowan, B, Morrison, JC. Management of abnormal genital bleeding in girls and women. New England Journal of Medicine 1991;324:1710–4.Google ScholarPubMed

3. Howell, JD. The history of eugenics and the future of gene therapy. Journal of Clinical Ethics 1991;1(4):274–8.Google Scholar

4. See note 3. Howell, . 1991; 1(4):95–107.Google Scholar

5. Proctor, RN. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1988.Google Scholar

6. Reilly, PR. The Surgical Solution –A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991:95.Google Scholar

7. Neville, R. Sterilizing the mildly mentally retarded without their consent – sterilization and the rights of the mentally retarded. Reprinted in: Mappes, TA, Zembaty, JS, eds. Biomedical Ethics. 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986:306–12Google Scholar [previously published in Hastings Center Report 1981].Google Scholar

8. International League of Societies for the Mentally Handicapped. Declaration of general and special rights of the mentally retarded. Involuntary civil commitment, sterilization, and the rights of the mentally retarded. In: Mappes, TA, Zembaty, JS, eds. Biomedical Ethics. 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986:317–8.Google Scholar

9. Holder, A. Legal Issues in Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine–Minors, Contraception, Sterilization and Abortion. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1975:278–85.Google Scholar

10. Hayman, RL Jr. Presumptions of justice: law, politics and the mentally retarded parent. Harvard Law Review 1990;103:1202–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Rauh, JL, Dina, MS, Biro, FM. Sterilization for the mentally retarded adolescent-balancing the equities/the Cincinnati experience. Journal of Adolescent Health Care 1989;10:467–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Areen, J. Limiting procreation. In: Veatch, RM, ed. Medical Ethics. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1989:106-7.Google Scholar

13. Areen, JA. Cases and Materials on Family Law-Involuntary Limits on Reproduction. New York: Foundation Press, 1985:828–42.Google Scholar

14. Wentzel v. Montgomery General Hospital. 293 Md. 447 A. 2d 1244, certiorary denied, 103 S. Ct. 790 (1983).Google Scholar

15. See note 14. Wentzel v. Montgomery General Hospital. 1983:107.Google Scholar

16. See note 14. Wentzel v. Montgomery General Hospital. 1983:107.Google Scholar

17. See note 14. Wentzel v. Montgomery General Hospital. 1983:107.Google Scholar

18. See note 14. Wentzel v. Montgomery General Hospital. 1983:107.Google Scholar

19. See note 2. Cowan, . 1991;324:1710–4.Google Scholar

20. Pollack, Petchesky R. Reproductive freedom and the mentally retarded. Reprinted in: Mappes, TA, Zembaty, JS, eds. Biomedical Ethics. 2nd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986:312–31 [previously published in Hastings Center Report 1979].Google Scholar

21. See note 12.

22. Hardwig, J. What about the family? Hastings Center Report 1990;20(2):5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Loewy, EH. Families, communities and making medical decision. Journal of Clinical Ethics 1991;2(3):150–3.Google Scholar

24. Hoffmaster, B. Caring for retarded persons ethical ideals and practical choices. In: Responsibility for Devalued Persons. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas, 1982:28–41.Google Scholar