Compulsory Sterilization: Is It Humane?

Compulsory Sterilization: Is it Humane?

Biologically speaking, it is a primary goal to pick out reproductive partners with favorable characteristics and having those characteristics inherited in future offspring. Both animals and humans work the same way using favorable traits as physical representations good genes. During the nineteenth century, Gregory Mendel, a monk with a passion for nature, conducted experiments with pea plant reproduction to observe physical traits to offsprings, thus concluding to prove the laws of inheritance from genes, based on the laws of heredity (Rhee). Mendel had displayed the physical traits that each plant gains from the parents that are dominating and would be past down. It took over three decades after his

research to be known as modern genetics (Rhee). Mendel’s research on genetics would then lead on to what is called eugenics, the desire for high quality genes or origin to a population (“Eugenics Movement Reaches Its Height 1923”). In human society, there are certain standards for an individual to be considered as a favorable specimen in different regions. What is considered favorable? Certain genetic/transmittable and mental disorders, like human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Downs Syndrome, and hemophilia are some of the issues that interfere with the human population in various ways, by health or by society. Of course there are treatments, cures, and programs that would control these issues. One procedure that is performed is compulsory sterilization. This procedure prevents an individual from reproducing due to a surgery, though it is forced or performed without the individual’s consent (“Sterilization”). The surgery on women would close the fallopian tubes so that the egg would not go down the tube, out of reach from sperm, and the surgery on men would close the Vas Deferens tubes that would have the sperm leave the body (“Sterilization for Men and Women”). There are many reasons for this action to happen whether biologically speaking for the general health, certain standards from a region on genetics, or for society’s benefit. Compulsory sterilization is not new to the world as it has been around since the early twentieth century. At the time, the United States performed this in a eugenics program with the effort to rid society of “crime, mental illness, and homelessness” (Woolf). By preventing those relating to those factors from having children, it would no longer be of society’s problems and have favorable genes around (Woolf). Later on, compulsory sterilization even took part during World War II with almost 350,000 people sterilized by the Nazi sterilization program between 1934 and 1945, which lead to the Holocaust (Kaelber). Compulsory sterilization has many variations to why it is performed, ranging all across the world from population control to prevention of genetic diseases to having an ideal society of people in good health. The controversy of compulsory sterilization is hotly debated by those who view it as humane, seeing it as a way to prevent crime within society, to perfect the gene pool by removing the mentally disabled, and for the greater economic good of society, and by those who view it as inhumane, arguing that the procedure is against reproductive rights and causes patients to be in emotional trauma.
Society makes up a number of people in certain classifications or social classes that reflect regular behavior, the tranquility, and well-being. One of compulsory sterilization’s purposes is to prevent problems from arising within society by taking those relating to such problems and making sure they would not procreate that could eventually become the problem. High criminal activity is one disorder in society that can downgrade it. Influence, surroundings, and genetic features could support later offsprings to be involved in crime. In the case of Buck v. Bell in 1927, though specifically regarding on mentally disabled individuals, Justice Oliver Holmes Jr. permitted the decision of sterilization the “unfit”, seeing it as an easier way to rid of the offspring that may subject to future crime (Stern 1130). Similarly in 1948, Japan had established the “Eugenic Protection Law (EPL)” on sterilizing to prevent unfit offsprings (Tsuchiya). This law has many specifications and listings on who can be forcibly sterilized, even classifying a high performance of criminal activity as a hereditary disease (Tsuchiya). The reduction of crime is not heavily based on the reproduction of individuals who performs the acts of crime, however, there are many variables that can influence the individual in succumbing to this such as genetics, mental illnesses, influence, environment, and pressure.
With sterilization greatly influenced by the eugenics belief, perfecting the gene pool has been a great reason for compulsory sterilization. Mental illnesses and genetic disorders are considered the disorders within the gene pool and under the belief of eugenics; preventing the spread of these disorders within a population would be a main concern. Referring back to the case of Buck v. Bell of 1927, it was regarding to Carrie Buck with a mental disability, along with her own mother and child, on the decision of sterilizing the mentally disabled, in institutions or facilities (“Buck V. Bell”). Justice Oliver Holmes Jr. approved the decision with the reasons of the offsprings possibly being involved with crime in the future and prevent the offsprings from succumbing to their disability so that society can be perfected without the mentally disabled making it up (Stern 1130). With a wide range of mental illnesses, it can go out of hand in the future if it has fatal results. As for the “Eugenic Protection Law (EPL)”, it allows compulsory sterilization, provided that a patient would be suffering a mental illness or genetic disorder (Tsuchiya). A list of illnesses and disorders that would be hereditary was given if said patient has one, prompting a physician to perform the sterilization procedure. The list had included in both mental illnesses and genetic disorders such as schizophrenia, albinism, and hemophilia. These and many other mental illnesses and genetic disorders can be considered both a concern or not in the gene pool depending on the extent of perfecting the gene pool in society, but with the eugenics belief of wanting a society without health or mental problems, as though with no worries or of high quality.
Forced sterilization also has its involvement in effecting the economy, either because of the health or simply the lifestyle of the individual. Mental illnesses on individuals can impact the economy. When an individual is subjected to a mental illness, benefits are given in order to support the individual, like Social Security and government aided health care. In general, it takes costs and support for the mentally disabled to go through life. Back to Justice Oliver Holmes Jr., in the Buck v. Bell case, he makes his opinion that sterilizing individuals with a mental disability, though he referred to it as “imbecility”, that it should not be waited upon for those individuals to yield with their disability for so long and impact society or the economy as though it was a main concern (Stern 1130). It’s not just about the costs spent on supporting mentally disabled individuals, but also those who may unknowingly take in the money for support. Tessa Savicki, a mother of nine, was subjected to compulsory sterilization after a going into the hospital, expecting just a Caesarean section for her baby, and attempted to get her story out about her doctors’ actions (Diaz-Duran). Unexpectedly, the public took the doctors’ side because Savicki “collects welfare from the state” (Diaz-Duran). Although all of her children come from a different past, not necessarily each from a different father, it is the fact the Savicki has been doing so. Disregarding personal feelings and the past of Savicki, comments about Savicki’s story were made such as: “Those doctors were true heroes. I knew she was a state-check-collecting waste of space”, “How long before we are paying for all her babies’ kids?”, and “We should sterilize all the people on public assistance for more than two years” (Diaz-Duran). Of course Savicki would not be the only individual who collects welfare for her children, whether intentionally or not. Forced sterilization on these variety of individuals helps a downed economy that has so much put towards those individuals to support them almost unnecessarily whether it would actually help or not.
As obvious of the name compulsory sterilization, this procedure is performed without consent of the patient and so is argued to be violating the reproductive rights. Of course the patient is the one to decide whether to be sterilized or not, not the physician (Diaz-Duran). With women being the ones to have the ability to give birth, they are considered a symbol to a family and so should be considered highly upon their rights (Lawrence 36). It is also argued on not just about women’s consent, but the classification of the individual as imbeciles that the belief of eugenics has made, the mentally disabled. Many cases made in the past were over the parental care of a mentally disabled child in Illinois, the first state to pass the law of compulsory sterilization in 1907 (Alward 177). In 1980, another law in Illinois was passed for the children of the mentally disabled to be adopted from other families because of the consideration of the parents being unable to raise the child due to their disability (Alward 191). Many expressed repulsion on the laws regarding the mentally disabled as inferior because of the idea that they are a burden to society. Later on, the law was readjusted for the adoption of the children of the mentally disabled to be qualified when the parent is truly unable to support them, rather than be based on classification of being mentally disabled (Alward 194). A large variety of people, ranging from patients to concerned people with ethical values, heavily goes against compulsory sterilization for causing political problems and debate on approved sterilization, whether it makes any benefit or that all individuals having the right to be able to procreate and have a family, regardless of disabilities.
Those who are subjected to compulsory sterilization, the patients, are the ones strongly influenced by this procedure and oppose it because of the eventual emotional trauma.

With sterilization being forced upon them, the patients would not expect this to happen and have a heavy, emotional response to it. Many sources show that patients that commonly experienced compulsory sterilization were women and those in prison or in a mental institution. For example, within the 1970s, patient Julie was sterilized without being informed, though signed a form for it, believing it to be for a painkiller, and her husband left her upon finding out about her sterilization because he “wanted a real woman” (Peal). As far as sterilization in prison goes, it has been both forced and informed, depending on how the situation has gone. In 1909, Californian “medical superintendents of asylums and prisons” could sterilize their patient, so long as it actually improves the person physically, mentally, or morally, though this sterilization law has changed over the years (Stern 1129). On December 18, 2006, Tessa Savicki went to Baystate Medical Center for a Caesarean section, only to later find out that the surgeons had tied her fallopian tubes after delivering her baby (Diaz-Duran). Savicki expresses her emotions as shocked, upset, and disgusted by the action that caused her to be sterile permanently, fearing that her husband would leave her because of that (Diaz-Duran). In the case of 2007, Crystal Nguyen of Valley State Prison for Women worked in the prison’s medical center and overheard the staff asking inmates, like herself, to be sterilized. Christina Cordero was an inmate for two years who agreed to be sterilized, pressured by a medical staff member into feeling like “a bad mother” of five, but as of 2008 she quotes, “Today I wish I would have never had it done.” (Johnson). These patients exhibit disapproval to this compulsory sterilization, even when agreeing or almost tricked into

it. Compulsory sterilization has always caused personal issues to patients, but has its own reasons by the physicians that perform, normally said to be good, but patients relent the situation as if it was a punishment and develop an emotional disturbance.
Compulsory sterilization has always been around for over a century and still exists today with so much controversy of it being humane or inhumane. While the procedure is beneficial to a macro-level group like the gene-pool, society, or the economy, critics clearly emphasize the procedure being forced, as a violation to reproductive rights and being unethical. With both sides of debating the procedure’s use in the world, it leads to changes into being able to perform it, though is still argued to be more beneficial than just waiting for problems to arise. The vision of the future, the rights, the health concern, and possibly more views would establish a perspective on compulsory sterilization, however it is not one-sided when there are many reasons for it. Compulsory sterilization will likely still be around in the future, but will political law change it for people to have their rights or will it be enforced for the better good of society?