View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

Case
reference
Re H [1993]
NZFLR
LEXIS 76
New Zealand
P v P [1994]
120 ALR 545
(Aust H Ct)
Australia
Re Eve [1986]
31 DLR (4 th )1
(Can SC)
Canada
Appendix A: Table of sterilisation cases (arranged in order of jurisdiction and then chronologically).
Case
brought by
Facts of Case / age
of person
Mother Pregnant by unknown;
seeking abortion and
sterilisation.
38
Parents To cease menstruation
and permanently
prevented from
becoming pregnant.
16
Outcome Persuading factors in
outcome
Sterilisation
declined; not least
restrictive
alternative.
Abortion; mother
given authority to
decide under
PPPR Act.
Court allowed
parents to consent
to sterilisation on
child’s behalf.
Mother To prevent pregnancy. Sterilisation
declined;
24
described as nontherapeutic.
‘The present case presents
circumstances far less extreme.’
‘Sterilisation of an intellectually
disabled person should not be
permitted unless there is no other
reasonable alternative.’
Very little facts about the 16 year
old. Mainly discussion about law.
Persuading factors – precedent.
Only reasons given for sterilisation;
to preclude pregnancy and prevent
menstruation.
Court did not have authority to
allow sterilisation for solely
contraceptive purposes.
Used research to establish effects
of sterilisation.
Human Rights.
Special Features Precedent
Already pregnant from sexual
abuse – sought sterilisation
and abortion.
Close technical legal
examination of Australian
statute with regard to allowing
parents to consent to
sterilisation of adult child.
Firmly rejected best interests
test. Considered child bearing
rights. Rejected courts’ ability
to allow sterilisation for social
need.
In Re B [1988] Circumstances for allowing
sterilisation must be extreme.
In Re X [1991] Case with extreme
circumstances and sterilisation necessary
by product of surgery for a different
purpose.
Re Eve [1986] All arguments against
sterilisation accepted.
Re Marion [1990] examined jurisdiction of
the court.
Re Marion [1990] re: scope of the law to
allow parents to consent to sterilisation on
behalf of 16 year old daughter.
Re D [1976] sterilisation amounts to
deprivation of the basic human right to
reproduce.
Re P [1981] authorised abortion in P’s BI.
Re K [1985] (Can) allowed therapeutic
hysterectomy.
Buck v Bell [1927] eugenics.
225