Everything about Forced Sterilization totally explained
Compulsory sterilization programs are government policies which attempt to force people to undergo surgical
sterilization. In the first half of the twentieth century, many such programs were instituted in many countries around the world, usually as part of
eugenics programs intended to prevent the reproduction and multiplication of members of the population considered to be carriers of defective
genetic traits.
Overview
United States
The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics. The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. They were devastated when it was shut down due to ethical problems. The principal targets of the American program were the
mentally retarded and the
mentally ill, but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with
epilepsy, and the physically deformed.
Native Americans, as well as
Afro-American women, were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge, while they were in a hospital for other reasons (for example childbirth). Some sterilizations also took place in prisons and other penal institutions, targeting
criminality, but they were in the relative minority. In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States.
The first state to introduce compulsory sterilization legislation was
Michigan, in 1897 but the law failed to garner enough votes by legislators to be adopted. Eight years later
Pennsylvania's state legislators passed a sterilization bill that was vetoed by the governor.
Indiana became the first state to enact sterilization legislation in 1907, followed closely by
Washington and
California in 1909. Sterilization rates across the country were relatively low (California being the sole exception) until the 1927
Supreme Court case
Buck v. Bell which legitimized the forced sterilization of patients at a
Virginia home for the
mentally retarded. The number of sterilizations performed per year increased until another Supreme Court case,
Skinner v. Oklahoma,
1942, complicated the legal situation by ruling against sterilization of criminals if the equal protection clause of the constitution was violated. That is, if sterilization was to be performed, then it couldn't exempt white-collar criminals.
Most sterilization laws could be divided into three main categories of motivations:
eugenic (concerned with heredity),
therapeutic (part of an even-then obscure medical theory that sterilization would lead to vitality), or
punitive (as a punishment for criminals), though of course these motivations could be combined in practice and theory (sterilization of criminals could be both punitive and eugenic, for example).
Buck v. Bell asserted only that eugenic sterilization was constitutional, whereas
Skinner v. Oklahoma ruled specifically against punitive sterilization. Most operations only worked to prevent reproduction (such as severing the
vas deferens in males), though some states (
Oregon and
North Dakota in particular) had laws which called for the use of
castration. In general, most sterilizations were performed under
eugenic statutes, in state-run psychiatric hospitals and homes for the mentally disabled. There was never a federal sterilization statute, though eugenicist
Harry H. Laughlin, whose state-level "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" was the basis of the statute affirmed in
Buck v. Bell, proposed the structure of one in 1922.
After
World War II, public opinion towards eugenics and sterilization programs became more negative in the light of the connection with the
genocidal policies of
Nazi Germany, though a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s. The
Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981. The U.S.
commonwealth Puerto Rico had a sterilization program as well. Some states continued to have sterilization laws on the books for much longer after that, though they were rarely if ever used. California sterilized more than any other state by a wide margin, and was responsible for over a third of all sterilization operations. Information about the California sterilization program was produced into book form and widely disseminated by eugenicists
E.S. Gosney and
Paul B. Popenoe, which was said by the government of
Adolf Hitler to be of key importance in proving that large-scale compulsory sterilization programs were feasible.
In recent years, the governors of many states have made public apologies for their past programs beginning with Virginia and followed by Oregon and California. None have offered to compensate those sterilized, however, citing that few are likely still living (and would of course have no affected offspring) and that inadequate records remain by which to verify them. At least one compensation case,
Poe v. Lynchburg Training School & Hospital (1981), was filed in the courts on the grounds that the sterilization law was unconstitutional. It was rejected because the law was no longer in effect at the time of the filing. However, the petitioners were granted some compensation as the stipulations of the law itself, which required informing the patients about their operations, hadn't been carried out in many cases.
States (27) that had sterilization laws still on the books (though not all were still in use) in 1956 were:
Arizona,
California,
Connecticut,
Delaware,
Georgia,
Idaho,
Indiana,
Iowa,
Kansas,
Maine,
Michigan,
Minnesota,
Mississippi,
Montana,
Nebraska,
New Hampshire,
North Carolina,
North Dakota,
Oklahoma,
Oregon,
South Carolina,
South Dakota,
Utah,
Vermont,
Virginia,
West Virginia,
Wisconsin.
Germany
The most infamous sterilization program of the 20th century took place under the most infamous regime of the 20th century: the
Third Reich. One of the first acts by
Adolf Hitler after achieving total control over the
German state was to pass the
Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (
Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses) in July 1933. The law was signed in by Hitler himself, and over 200 eugenic courts were created specifically as a result of the law. Under the German law, any doctor in the Reich was required to report patients of theirs who were
mentally retarded,
mentally ill (including
schizophrenia and
manic depression),
epileptic, blind, deaf, or physically deformed, and a steep monetary penalty was imposed for any patients who were not properly reported. Individuals suffering from
alcoholism or
Huntington's Chorea could also be sterilized. The individual's case was then presented in front of a court of
Nazi officials and public health officers who would review their medical records, take testimony from friends and colleagues, and eventually decide whether or not to order a sterilization operation performed on the individual, using force if necessary. Though not explicitly covered by the law, 400 mixed-race "
Rhineland Bastards" were also sterilized beginning in 1937.
By the end of
World War II, over 400,000 individuals were sterilized under the German law and its revisions, most within its first four years of being enacted. When the issue of compulsory sterilization was brought up at the
Nuremberg trials after the war, many Nazis defended their actions on the matter by indicating that it was the United States itself from whom they'd taken inspiration. The Nazis had many other eugenics-inspired
racial policies, including their
"euthanasia" program in which around 70,000 people institutionalized or suffering from birth defects were put to death.
Japan
In the first part of the
Showa era, Japanese governments promoted increasing the number of healthy Japanese, while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation, disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to them being viewed as "inferior" contributions to the Japanese gene pool.
The
Leprosy Prevention laws of 1907, 1931 and 1953, the last one only repealed in 1996, permitted the segregation of patients in sanitarium where forced abortions and sterilization were common and authorized punishment of patients "disturbing peace". Under the colonial Korean
Leprosy prevention ordinance, Korean patients were also subjected to hard labor.
The
Race Eugenic Protection Law was submitted from 1934 to 1938 to the Diet. After four amendments, this draft was promulgated as a
National Eugenic Law in 1940 by the
Konoe government. According to Matsubara Yoko, from 1940 to 1945, sterilization was done to 454 Japanese persons under this law.
According to the
Eugenic Protection Law (1948), sterilization could be enforced on criminals "with genetic predisposition to commit crime", patients with genetic diseases such as total color-blindness,
hemophilia,
albinism and
ichthyosis, and mental affections such as
schizophrenia,
manic-depression and
epilepsy. The mental sicknesses were added in 1952.
Canada
Although far less well-known than the
Nazi eugenics and
American eugenic sterilization programs, two Canadian provinces performed compulsory sterilization programs with eugenic aims. Canadian compulsory sterilization operated via the same overall mechanisms of
institutionalization,
judgement, and
surgery as the American system. One notable difference is in the treatment of non-insane criminals. Canadian legislation never allowed for punitive sterilization of inmates.
Alberta
The most successful sterilization program in Canadian history was afforded via the passing of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928. From the years 1928 to 1972, sterilizations, both compulsory and optional, were performed on nearly 3000 "unfit" individuals of varying ages and ethnicities. In total, over 2800 procedures were performed. Initially, the act only provisioned sterilizations where consent was given by the subject or legal guardian of the subject, depending on the competency of the individual scheduled to undergo the operation. The 1937 amendment to the act allowed for sterilizations to be carried out without consent in the case of those deemed mentally defective. Sterilization of individuals deemed
mentally ill still required consent. At the end of World War II, while other eugenic sterilization programs were being phased out, Alberta continued on, even increasing the scope of eligibility for sterilizations. They continued until 1972, when approximately 50 persons were operated upon.
Targeted sterilization
Youths, minorities, and women were sterilized in disproportionately high numbers. Minors, because of their legal dependency on adults, were almost always assigned as "mental defectives", thus bypassing the parental consent requirement. Albertan aboriginals and
métis, regardless of age, were also targeted. Aboriginal people represented only 2.5% of the general population in Alberta, but made up 6% of the institutionalized population. Towards the end of Alberta's sterilization program, aboriginals and métis made up 25% of the sterilizations performed. Furthermore, those of aboriginal ancestry were disproportionately assigned the "mentally deficient" rating, which denied them their legal rights and made them eligible for sterilization without consent. Women, particularly women who were young, poor, and unmarried, were also disproportionately represented; they were thought to be at high risk for prostitution or at the very least promiscuity, activities suspected of breeding further immorality. While it was conceded that sterilization wouldn't change the behavior of these women, it would prevent them from bearing similarly defective progeny.
Aftermath
Despite the inaccuracy of IQ testing and tremendous grey area in classifying the mentally defective, nearly 3000 people were rendered sterile by the Sexual Sterilization Act. The true nature of the act was revealed when
Leilani Muir, a former inmate of the Michener Centre (also known as the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives, PTS), discovered in 1971 that she'd been sterilized. After being admitted to the PTS at age 10 as an unwanted and abused child, Leilani was given a substandard education. She was inaccurately designated a mentally defective
moron (an individual with an IQ between 51 and 70), effectively nullifying her
human rights. She was administered powerful antipsychotic agents without any due cause, as she hadn't manifested any symptoms of psychosis during her residency at the PTS. Eventually she was given an impromptu
IQ test, on which she scored a 64. Shortly thereafter, she was taken before the Eugenics Board, and sterilization was authorized pending her mother's consent (which was readily given).
In 1995, Leilani was awarded $750,000CAD and $230,000CAD in damages for her wrongful and humiliating labeling as a moron and her subsequent sterilization. Since the victory, another 1300 cases have been opened, several of them concerning individuals who may have actual mental disabilities. It is unlikely that'll be awarded any settlements based on stigmatization, but they may win suits based on involuntary sterilization, which is now considered
battery under Canadian law.
British Columbia
As in other jurisdictions in the early 20th century, prejudice against physical and mental disability, and concern over societal costs of caring for the disabled, existed in British Columbia. The devaluing and eventual enmity to disabled life popularized rapidly, and spread from disabled children to disabled adults.
Additionally, the substantial immigration rate of the 1910s and 1920s spurred a feeling of
xenophobia among the
Protestant, educated elite of British Columbia. Slavic immigrants in particular were accused of having very high incidence of undesired characteristics, which are now generally attributed to culture shock and language barriers. The aversion to "abnormal" or "strange" people coupled with the perceived societal drain caused by immigrants, the deformed, mentally ill, and mentally disabled created an environment conducive to the enactment of a sexual sterilization act.
Thus, in July 1933, five years after Alberta, British Columbia passed its own sexual sterilization act. A three member Eugenics Board comprised of a psychiatrist, a social worker, and a judge was given the duty of authorizing the sterilization of any institutionalized person who was deemed capable of propagating undesirable social characteristics. Since such social problems as criminality, prostitution, and addiction/alcoholism were believed to have a biological (and thus heritable) cause, almost any institutionalized individual could be found eligible. Although the records concerning BC's Sexual Sterilization Act have since been lost or destroyed, it's thought that 'only' a few hundred individuals were operated upon before the law was silently repealed in 1973.
Canadian sterilization laws were only enacted in Alberta and British Columbia, which could be attributed to their Protestant denominations.
Pope Pius XI of the
Roman Catholic Church denounced surgical intervention in reproductive matters, making the more Catholic regions (such as Ontario, Quebec, or the Maritime provinces) an inhospitable place to lobby for eugenic sterilization of the disabled. The introduction of progressive, left-leaning governments in Alberta and B.C. also had a hand in strengthening eugenic legislation. Left-leaning parties were eager to embrace new ideas, especially those that held a promise of economic turnaround.
Aftermath
After seeing a precedent set by Leilani Muir in her successful legal action against the government of Alberta, the British Columbia Public Guardian and Trustee filed similar lawsuits to protect the legal rights of the sterilized disabled. Thus far, 18 lawsuits have been filed against the government of British Columbia regarding the sterilization act. The suits allege that the sterilizations were involuntary, non-therapeutic, and that they were done for the convenience of the hospital. These lawsuits were filed in 2001, and since, several of the plaintiffs have died. In 2003, the cases were dismissed. Early in 2005, however, that judgement was overturned by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In December 2005, nine sterilized women were awarded compensation in an out-of-court settlement, totalling $450,000CDN ($50,000CDN per plaintiff).
Beyond Alberta and British Columbia
Although eugenic sterilization was never instituted in Ontario, the issue saw considerable debate concurrent with the enactment of sterilization laws in Alberta and British Columbia. The formation of the Eugenics Society of Canada (ESC) in 1930 sought to organize supporters of eugenics into a coherent group in order to make their lobbying of the government more effective. Founded in Ontario, the ESC boasted a large number of physicians in its ranks, including Clarence Hincks, one of the most devoted proponents of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act. Other notable members included the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, Dr. H. A. Bruce, and eminent psychiatrist Clarence B. Farrar, who had been head of the Toronto Psychiatric Hospital since 1925. As social traits like criminality and promiscuity began to edge off the list of heritable traits, the ESC found itself adapting its strategy to that of birth control, while maintaining a focus on economic benefit. It garnered considerable support, but was never able to table eugenic sterilization effectively in the political arena. The ESC met its end shortly after a public relations blunder in 1938, when a representative implied the ESC and the Nazi party sought to achieve similar goals through similar means. It isn't surprising then, that when World War II broke out in 1939, the ESC lost nearly all of its support.
Recent court discussions in
Manitoba have investigated the legality and ethical permissibility of involuntary sterilization of the mentally disabled. Focusing on those individuals found legally incompetent, the 1990 and 1992 reports outlined the scenarios where an involuntary sterilization could be warranted.
As stated by the 1990 discussion, three conditions are necessary for an individual to undergo any medical procedure.
- The individual must be informed of both the nature, and risks/benefits of the procedure.
- The consent must be voluntary, not the product of coercion, threat, or fraud.
- The individual must be competent enough to give the above consent.
Individuals who are legally incompetent include minors and sufficiently-disabled adults.
The discussion reached a consensus that involuntary sterilization (or sterilization with substituted consent) is only permissible if it has an explicit positive effect on the physical or mental health of the individual: this is called therapeutic sterilization. One such case involved was a seriously disabled girl with an aversive phobia to blood, who was scheduled to undergo a hysterectomy. The rationale of the surgery wasn't eugenic, but rather to protect the girl from the direct mental trauma that would likely arise upon initiation of menses. This judgement was seen to be on the very threshold between therapeutic and nontherapeutic surgical intervention.
This discussion also cites a landmark case in substituted consent known as the Mrs. E. vs. Eve case. In it, a mother, "Mrs. E.", wished to have her moderately intellectually disabled daughter "Eve" sterilized to save her the emotional distress potentially caused by pregnancy and childbirth. Additionally, it was argued that Eve would neither be capable of using any other method of contraception, nor caring for a child should she become pregnant. Since the sterilization wasn't explicitly therapeutic and carried grave physical harm and an intrusion on Eve's rights, Mrs. E. couldn't be given the authority to have her daughter sterilized. It was then explored whether or not the government itself could make the decision, using
parens patriae jurisdiction.
Parens patriae allows the government to make authorizations in the "best interests" where no other source of consent can be attained; this includes children and mentally disabled persons. In the Eve case, the risks were deemed too high and the benefits too obscure to authorize a nontherapeutic sterilization via
parens patriae jurisdiction, since a surgical sterilization is an irreversible procedure.
India & China
While India and China have not engaged in eugenic programs of sterilization, they've engaged in forcible or coercive family planning regimes in order to control their expanding populations.
India's state of emergency between 1975 and 1977 included an infamous family planning initiative beginning April 1976, which involved the vasectomy of thousands of men and tubal ligation of women, either for payment or under coercive conditions. The son of then-Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi,
Sanjay Gandhi, was largely blamed for what turned out to be a failed program. A strong backlash against any initiative associated with family planning followed the highly controversial program, which continues into the 21st century.
Sweden
In 1997, following the publication of articles by
Maciej Zaremba in the
Dagens Nyheter daily, widespread attention was given to the fact that
Sweden once operated a strong sterilization program, which was active primarily from the late 1930s until the mid 1950s. A governmental commission was set up, and finished its inquiry in 2000. The Swedish state subsequently paid out damages to the victims.
The program was meant primarily to prevent mental illness and disease. In 1922 a state Institute of Racial Biology was founded in Uppsala and in 1927 Parliament began to deal with the first legal provisions on sterilisation. A new draft was produced in 1932, already taking into account sterilisation for general socio-prophylactic reasons, and even without the consent of the person concerned. In the
United Kingdom,
Home Secretary Winston Churchill introduced a bill that included forced sterilization. Writer
G. K. Chesterton led a successful effort to defeat that clause of the 1913 Mental Deficiency Act. The
Roman Catholic Church has been a notable opponent of eugenics and sterilization programs. In
Peru, former president
Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) pressured 200,000 indigenous people in rural areas (mainly
Quechuas and
Aymaras) into being sterilized.
The
Soviet Union imposed forced sterilization on female workers deported from
Romania to Soviet labor camps. This occurred after
World War II, when
Romania was supposed to supply reconstruction workforce (according to the armistice convention).
India and
China have also at various times implemented sterilization campaigns as a
population control policy, though only the latter has made any previous overtures towards any potential eugenic motivations.
Czechoslovakia carried out a policy of sterilization of
Roma women, at least starting in 1973. The dissidents of the
Charter 77 denounced it in 1977-78 as a "
genocide", but the practice continued through the
Velvet Revolution of 1989. A 2005 report by the Czech government's independent ombudsman, Otakar Motejl, identified dozens of cases of coercive sterilization between 1979 and 2001, and called for criminal investigations and possible prosecution against several health care workers and administrators.
In October 1999,
Margrith von Felten suggested to the
National Council of Switzerland in the form of a general proposal to adopt legal regulations that would enable reparation for persons sterilised against their will. According to the proposal, reparation was to be provided to persons who had undergone the intervention without their consent or who had consented to sterilisation under coercion. According to Margrith von Felten:
Switzerland refused, however, to vote a reparations Act.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Forced Sterilization'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://compulsory_sterilization.totallyexplained.com">Compulsory sterilization Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
