article

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 of members of the population considered to be carriers of undesirable genetic traits.

Overview

Usually such programs advocated sterilization by means of vasectomy in males and salpingectomy or tubal ligation in females, as they were not operations which significantly affected sexual drive or the personality of the individuals operated upon (unlike, for example, castration). It has been argued that this increased the seemingly innocuous nature of the operations, adding a veneer of scientific objectivity and detachment. Some of these operations were carried out not only against the will of the patient, but without their knowledge, at the same time as other operations.

Today compulsory sterilization programs are usually seen as overly coercive and blunt attempts at genetic engineering which focused disproportionately on poor and disenfranchized groups. The most well-known compulsory sterilization programs were those of Nazi Germany (which sterilized over 400,000 individuals in the 1930s and 1940s), the United States (which sterilized over 64,000 individuals from 1900s through the 1970s), and many Scandinavian countries (Sweden, for example, sterilized around 62,000 individuals from the 1930s through the 1970s).

Plans for forced sterilization for the purposes of avoiding overpopulation are sometimes, but not usually, directly related to a eugenic intent. (See population control for more information on this type of sterilization.)

United States

The first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics was the United States. 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, the epileptic and the physically deformed. Native Americans were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge, while they were in a hospital for some other reason (e.g. after giving birth). 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.An overview of U.S. eugenics and sterilization is in Daniel Kevles, In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity (New York: Knopf, 1985).

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 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, complicated the legal situation by ruling against punitive sterilization in 1942.On the legal history of eugenic sterilization in the U.S., see Paul Lombardo, "Eugenic Sterilization Laws," essay in the Eugenics Archive, available online at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html.

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, for example. 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.Philip Reilly, The surgical solution: a history of involuntary sterilization in the United States (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991). 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.A copy of Harry Laughlin's "Model Eugenical Sterilization Law" (including the federal proposal) is available online at: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~wellerst/laughlin/.

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.Julie Sullivan, "State will admit sterilization past", Portland Oregonian (November 15, 2002). Available online at http://www.open.org/~people1/eugenics/eugenics_article_6.htm. 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.On California sterilizations and their connection to the Nazi program, see: Stefan Kühl, The Nazi connection: Eugenics, American racism, and German National Socialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Alexandra Stern, Eugenic nation : faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005); and Wendy Kline, Building a better race: gender, sexuality, and eugenics from the turn of the century to the baby boom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001).

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, had not been carried out in many cases.

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.Robert Proctor, Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), and Gisela Bock, "Nazi sterilization and reproductive policies" in Dieter Kuntz, ed., Deadly medicine: creating the master race (Washington, D.C.: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2004).

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 had taken inspiration. The Nazis had many other eugenics-inspired racial policies, including their "euthanasia" program in which around 200,000 people institutionalized or suffering from birth defects were put to death.

Canada

Although far less well-known than the Nazi eugenics and American eugenic sterilization programs, two Canadian provinces performed involuntary 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 notorious 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 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?

The eugenic programs of Nazi Germany and the United States are strongly suggestive of racial, religious, and cultural targeting in their victims. Not surprisingly, a statistical study done on sterilization victims in Alberta has yielded data supporting the theory that its sterilization program was biased as well. 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 to sterilization without consent. Women were another disproportionately represented group. Those women who were young, poor, and unmarried were thought to be at high risk for prostitution or at the very least promiscuity, activities suspected of breeding further immorality. If sterilized, it was conceded that although the behavior of the woman sterilized would not change, she would not be able to bear 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 had 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 had not 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 $750,000CDN and $230,000CDN for legal fees 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 inviduals who may have actual mental disabilities. It is unlikely they will 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

The view concerning children in British Columbia at the turn of the century was highly polarized. Healthy children became increasingly elevated in status and made sacred, while at the same time, disabled children suffered the virtual abolition of their statuses as human: they were curses capable of nothing, and a drain on parental resources and sanity. As a result, medical professionals considered the death of a physically or mentally disabled child a joyous event, not because of the cessation of the child's suffering, but because of the relief of the parental burden of raising it, and the eventual societal burden of caring for it when it reached adulthood. 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 Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, educated elite of British Columbia. Slavic immigrants in particular were accused of having very high incidence of undesired characteristics, all of which can be 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. Indeed, the prospect of improving Canada's genetic stock by breeding out unwanted elements was looked upon with enthusiasm.

It is no surprise that in July 1933, 5 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, in one way or another. Although the records concerning BC's Sexual Sterilization Act were lost or destroyed, it is thought that only a few hundred individuals were operated upon before the law was silently repealed in 1973.

That sterilization laws were only enacted in Alberta and B.C., and that they endured so long is strange, but not outright perplexing. The religious makeup of the Western provinces was primarily Protestant, in contrast with the strong Catholic presence in Eastern Canada. Pope Pius XI of the Catholic Church denounced surgical intervention in reproductive matters, making any Catholic stronghold (such as Ontario or Quebec) 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. Additionally, it has been suggested that a Westernist attitude of self reliance resulted in the provinces hanging on to these policies in order to "stick to their guns" and appear strong and defiant in the face of the East.

Aftermath

After seeing a precendent set by Leilani Muir in her successful legal action agasint 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 of 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 to 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 consierable 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 is not 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 was not 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 cits 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 daughted "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 methof of contraception, nor caring for a child should she become pregnant. Since the sterilization was not explicitly therapeutic and carried grave physical harm and an intrusion on Eve's rights, Mrs. E. could not 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 juristiction, since a surgical sterilization is an irreversible procedure.

Other countries

Even years and decades after the large-scale forced sterilization programs had ceased to exist in the US, many countries maintained post-WWII sterilization campaigns lasting well into the 70s, most notoriously Sweden and Canada. Dozens of countries around the world, especially in Europe, also had similar programs, and in 1997 it was disclosed that Sweden in particular had a strong sterilization program, sterilizing around 62,000 individuals over a period of 40 years until 1976. Other countries that had notably active sterilization programs include Australia, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Iceland, and some countries in Latin America (including Panama).Gunnar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen, eds., Eugenics And the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Demark, Sweden, Norway, and Findland (Michigan State University Press, 2005). 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 to 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).A link to the testimony of such a deportee * (in Romanian). 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.

Other Articles

Footnotes

Further reading

1. Clarke, Nic. "Sacred Daemons: Exploring British Columbian Society's Perceptions of 'Mentally Deficient' Children, 1870-1930." BC Studies 144(2004/2005): 61-89.
2. Dowbiggin, Ian Robert. Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada 1880-1940. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.
3. Grekul, Jana., Krahn, H., Odynak, D.. "Sterilizing the 'Feeble-minded': Eugenics in Alberta, Canada, 1929-1972." J. Hist. Sociol. 17:4 (2004): 358-384.
4. Manitoba Law Reform Commission. Discussion Paper on Sterilization of Minors and Mentally Incompetent Adults. Winnipeg: 1990.
5. Manitoba Law Reform Commission. Report on Sterilization and Legal Incompetence. Winnipeg: 1993.
6. McLaren, Angus. Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885-1945. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1990.
7. Wahlsten, Douglas. "Leilani Muir versus the Philosopher Kings: Eugenics on trial in Alberta." Genetica 99 (1997): 195-198.
8. "B.C. faces forced sterilization lawsuit". CBC News. Feb 07 2003. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Accessed April 13, 2006.
9. "Nine women sterilized in B.C. have lawsuits settled for $450,000". The Vancouver Sun. December 21 2005.

External links

Eugenics | Disability legislation | Birth control | Reproductive rights | Disability rights

Sterilisationsgesetze | עיקור כפוי | Przymusowa sterylizacja | Tvångssterilisering

 

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "Compulsory sterilization".

Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world