Anastomosis of the Vas Deferens After Purposeful Division for Sterility 1, 2 1 Read at annual meeting, American Association of Genito-Urinary Surgeons, Absecon N.J., June 6, 1947 2 Sterilization: A short summary of its legality and history. Human sterilization for social good has been one of the most active and controversial legal problems of the last 40 years. Legislation regarding sterilization of human beings was first introduced and attempted in the United States in the form of a measure introduced in the Michigan Legislature in 1897. This bill was defeated by a slight margin. The first bill to secure legislative approval was voted by the Pennsylvania Legislature but this was vetoed by the Governor in 1905. The first statute to receive both legislative and executive approval was passed in 1907 by the Indiana Legislature. Later, in 1920, this act was held unconstitutional because of its violation of the due process clause. Indiana has since passed and has had sustained the present Indiana sterilization statute. It was not until 1927 that legislation of this type was tested in the Supreme Court of the United States. In the celebrated case of Buck v. Buck involving the Virginia sterilization statute, the Supreme Court through Mr. Justice Holmes upheld the constitutionality of a statute providing for the sterilization of the insane and feeble-minded. He announced the approval of the statute as a therapeutic measure by stating this to be “a means of coping with the socially undesirable in our midst.” Twenty-nine states have statutes providing for sterilization. Of these, 12 provide for the sterilization of criminals in addition to the insane and feeble-minded. Various types of criminals are made subject to sterilization, although legal requisites in the main call for definite establishment of the subject as habitual criminal guilty of felonious crimes involving moral turpitude. California requires that the person have been eommited to prison at least 2 times for rape, assault with intent to rape or seduction, or at least 3 times for any other crime and shall have given evidence that he is a moral or sexual degenerate or pervert. Delaware makes subject all habitual criminals who have been convicted of at least 3 felonies. Washington makes subject those convicted 3 times of felonies and who served time therefor. Four states, Idaho, Nebraska, Iowa, and Oregon, do not define habitual criminals, leaving it up to the courts. Connecticut and North Dakota provide for sterilization in the case of any inmate of any state institution likely to produce children with criminal tendencies. Kansas makes the additional provision that there be likelihood of defective or feeble-minded children with criminal tendencies. Wisconsin provides for sterilization if the Board feels that it is inadvisable that the criminal procreate; Utah also permits the same treatment of inmates with habitual degenerate sexual tendencies The following states do not permit sterilization of criminals but restrict its use to mental defectives, insane and feeble-minded: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. In all other states of the Union sterilization is illegal and prohibited except as incidental to medical therapy. A majority of the states have held sterilization of criminals to be unconstitutional, as a cruel and unusual punishment within the definition of the Constitution. Defectives are determined by Medical Boards appointed and functioning in pursuance of the various sterilization statutes. Although sterilization has been legal in the above named states for an average period of 20 years, the states have averaged less than 50 sterilizations per year. Although science has demonstrated the inheritability of socially undesirable characteristics and traits, the God-given right of man to procreate is still a most compelling conclusion, resulting in the use of sterilization only in the most hopeless cases.
Titel:
Anastomosis of the Vas Deferens After Purposeful Division for Sterility 1, 2 1 Read at annual meeting, American Association of Genito-Urinary Surgeons, Absecon N.J., June 6, 1947 2 Sterilization: A short summary of its legality and history. Human sterilization for social good has been one of the most active and controversial legal problems of the last 40 years. Legislation regarding sterilization of human beings was first introduced and attempted in the United States in the form of a measure introduced in the Michigan Legislature in 1897. This bill was defeated by a slight margin. The first bill to secure legislative approval was voted by the Pennsylvania Legislature but this was vetoed by the Governor in 1905. The first statute to receive both legislative and executive approval was passed in 1907 by the Indiana Legislature. Later, in 1920, this act was held unconstitutional because of its violation of the due process clause. Indiana has since passed and has had sustained the present Indiana sterilization statute. It was not until 1927 that legislation of this type was tested in the Supreme Court of the United States. In the celebrated case of Buck v. Buck involving the Virginia sterilization statute, the Supreme Court through Mr. Justice Holmes upheld the constitutionality of a statute providing for the sterilization of the insane and feeble-minded. He announced the approval of the statute as a therapeutic measure by stating this to be “a means of coping with the socially undesirable in our midst.” Twenty-nine states have statutes providing for sterilization. Of these, 12 provide for the sterilization of criminals in addition to the insane and feeble-minded. Various types of criminals are made subject to sterilization, although legal requisites in the main call for definite establishment of the subject as habitual criminal guilty of felonious crimes involving moral turpitude. California requires that the person have been eommited to prison at least 2 times for rape, assault with intent to rape or seduction, or at least 3 times for any other crime and shall have given evidence that he is a moral or sexual degenerate or pervert. Delaware makes subject all habitual criminals who have been convicted of at least 3 felonies. Washington makes subject those convicted 3 times of felonies and who served time therefor. Four states, Idaho, Nebraska, Iowa, and Oregon, do not define habitual criminals, leaving it up to the courts. Connecticut and North Dakota provide for sterilization in the case of any inmate of any state institution likely to produce children with criminal tendencies. Kansas makes the additional provision that there be likelihood of defective or feeble-minded children with criminal tendencies. Wisconsin provides for sterilization if the Board feels that it is inadvisable that the criminal procreate; Utah also permits the same treatment of inmates with habitual degenerate sexual tendencies The following states do not permit sterilization of criminals but restrict its use to mental defectives, insane and feeble-minded: Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. In all other states of the Union sterilization is illegal and prohibited except as incidental to medical therapy. A majority of the states have held sterilization of criminals to be unconstitutional, as a cruel and unusual punishment within the definition of the Constitution. Defectives are determined by Medical Boards appointed and functioning in pursuance of the various sterilization statutes. Although sterilization has been legal in the above named states for an average period of 20 years, the states have averaged less than 50 sterilizations per year. Although science has demonstrated the inheritability of socially undesirable characteristics and traits, the God-given right of man to procreate is still a most compelling conclusion, resulting in the use of sterilization only in the most hopeless cases.
Auteur:
O’Conor, Vincent J.
Verschenen in:
The journal of urology
Paginering:
Jaargang 59 (1948) nr. 2 pagina's 5 p.
Jaar:
1948
Inhoud:
Uitgever:
The American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.
Tijdschrift beschrijving