View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

Re M appears to be the only case in which sterilisation is motivated by any eugenic
considerations. Certainly, the cases indicate a significant effort to prevent the
pregnancy of women with intellectual disabilities. Although it is not explicitly
reference, there is no way of telling whether eugenics was a motivating factor in any of
the other decisions.
Alternatives to sterilisation
A number of the cases did consider less permanent alternatives, such as the use of the
contraceptive pill and depot injections such as Depo-Provera 29 . However, several
different objections were raised against these methods, for instance, women having to
take the pill everyday for the rest of their lives, contra-indications with other
medications and potential side effects of the pill or depot injections. In just one case the
depot injection was the preferred option 30 .
Education programmes have been promoted and used for a number of years now to
help and support the sexual lives of people with intellectual disabilities (Bell &
Cameron, 2003, p. 124; Health and Disability Commissioner, 1998, p. 7; Keywood,
1995, p. 137; Mirfin-Veitch, 2003, p. 58). This option was considered in only two of
the sterilisation cases. In one case sex education had been given, but was deemed
unsuccessful by a doctor involved in the care of the woman named C.
She has had sex education lessons at school… She knew that women
have babies but she couldn’t say how. She told me it was not necessary
to have sex to have a child… she could not give me a convincing
account of what the act of sexual intercourse entailed.
NHS Trust v C [2000] (England), p. 7
The judge approved the sterilisation of C. The other case had been brought to court by
the anxious mother of a man with Down’s syndrome. She was concerned that A might
have a sexual relationship once he had moved into local authority care, and disapproved
29 Re S [1998], Re X [1998], Re H [1993], Re HG [1993], Re W [1993], Re GF [1992], Re X [1991], Re F
[1990], Re B [1988], Re M [1988].
30 Re S [2001].
163