Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:58:34.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sterilisation of the Apparently Incapable: Emergency or Epidemic?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Frank Bates
Frank Bates*
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle (N.S.W.)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In an earlier article in this journal (Bates, 1988a), I concluded that the decision of the House of Lords in Re B (a minor Wardship: Sterilisation (1987) 2 All E.R. 206, would not be the end of a judicial process dealing with the enforced sterilisation of apparently mentally incapable young women. This has proved to be totally correct and, unfortunately perhaps, has meant that the issues raised by Re B have come to be litigated in two recent cases in Australia. At the outset, it should be said that both of these cases, for various reasons, confirm the decision in Re B in that the sterilisation was ultimately authorised. At the same time, it must also be emphasised that the judgments in each case were detailed, canvassing many of the central policy issues which are bound to arise in such cases.

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , 1989 , pp. 12 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

References

Bates, F., “Sterilising the Apparently Incapable: Further Thoughts and Developments”, (1988a) 12(4), Australian Child and Family Welfare, 3.Google Scholar
Bates, F., “Custody Disputes Between Parents and Non-Parents: Recent Developments in Canada and Australia”, (1981a), 11, Manitoba Law Journal, 303.Google Scholar
Bates, F., “Parent and Child — State Intervention A New Development”, (1978), 56, Canadian Bar Review, 516.Google Scholar
Eekelaar, J.M., “The Emergence of Children's Rights”, (1986), 6, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cruz, S.P., “Parents, Doctors and Children: The Gillick Case and Beyond”, (1987), Journal of Social Welfare Law, 93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, F., “Children as Property: Hindsight and Foresight”, (1988b), 13(2), Australian Child and Family Welfare, 3.Google Scholar
Montgomery, J., ‘Children as Property”, (1988), 51, Modern Law Review, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, F., “The Developing Responsibility of Social Workers: Recent Hints from the U.S.”, (1983), 8, Legal Service Bulletin, 224.Google Scholar
Dingwall, R., Eekelaar, J., and Murray, T., The Protection of Children: State Intervention and Family Life, (Blackwell, 1983).Google Scholar
Goldstein, J., Freud, A., and Solnit, A.J., Before the Best Interests of the Child, (Free Press, 1979).Google Scholar
Dickey, A., “The Notion of ‘Family in Law’” (1982), 14, University of Western Australia Law Review.Google Scholar
Dix, A., Errington, M., and Powe, R., Law for the Medical Profession, (Butterworth, 1988).Google Scholar
Bates, F., “Principle and the Family Law Act: The Uses and Abuses of Section 43”, (1981b), 50, Australian Law Journal, 181.Google Scholar
Grubb, A., and Pearl, D., “Sterilisation and the Courts”, (1987), Cambridge Law Journal, 439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, F., “Strength or Intensity? Some Reflections on the Modern Standard of Proof in Civil Cases”, (1979), 27, Chitty's Law Journal, 335.Google Scholar
Bates, F., “The Role of the Law in the Resolution of Family Problems”, (1984), 58, Australian Law Journal, 448.Google Scholar
Campbell, B., Unofficial Secrets, (Virago, 1988).Google Scholar