The Eugenics Society’s Draft Sterilization Bill
The question of Sterilization has been discussed on more than one occasion by the Executive Committee of the Central Association for Mental Welfare and a pamphlet is available giving the considered opinion of the Medical Committee and Council of the Central Association on this subject (which opinion, it may be said, was arrived at after the matter had been most carefully considered in all its bearings). The Eugenics Society, however, has drafted a Sterilization Bill, which appears in the current number of the Eugenics Review and Dr A. F. Tredgold, as Chairman of the C.A.M.W. Medical Committee, has written the following note on this Bill for the benefit of our readers.
The Eugenics Society’s Draft Sterilization Bill, which is admittedly a mere ballon d’essai, is a short one of only a few clauses. It naturally divides itself into two parts, the first dealing with the sterilization of the mentally defective and insane, and the second with their marriage. We think it is unfortunate that the Society should have suggested legislation to deal with these measures in one and the same Bill. Although, it is true, their purpose may be the same, they are widely different methods of attaining that purpose, and we can well imagine that a good deal of support might be forthcoming with regard to the marriage proposals from persons who would be strongly opposed to those relating to sterilization. For the regulation or prohibition of marriage under certain circum- stances involves no new principle in English Law, whilst sterilization introduces a totally new principle, and one concerning which, we are convinced, public opinion is strongly opposed.
The preamble of the Bill states that it is “An Act to prevent the practice of sterilization when morally or socially objectionable, thus safeguarding its use for the preservation of the race.” The suggestion underlying this is decidedly naive, for of course the real object of the Bill is not to limit an existing practice, but to legalize a practice which is now definitely illegal. Clause I proposes that the Local M.D. Authority should be empowered to undertake the sterilization of a mentally defective person ordered to be sent to an institution or placed under guardianship, subject to (a) the treatment having been approved by the Minister of Health, (b) the consent of the Board of Control, and (c) the consent of the parent of the defective (this latter can be dispensed with under certain conditions).
In the accompanying memorandum issued by the Society, the statement is made that ” it is hoped that the policy of the Board of Control would be to continue to regard segregation as the normal method of dealing with defectives, and never to permit sterilization on the plea that it would be an economical way of dealing with them, sanction for the operation only being given when the defective was about to be given increased liberty involving risk of procreation.” Now in regard to this we may remark that whatever might be the hopes of the Eugenics Society, these could not in any way influence the policy of the Board of Control, and, if sterilization were once legalized as an alternative to segregation, we can readily conceive of a combination of parsimonious Local Authorities bringing such pressure to bear upon the Board as to render their position an extremely difficult one. In fact we have no doubt that very great influence would be exerted to secure that steriliza- tion should be used as an alternative to the provision of institutions. Quite apart from this, however, the whole argument in favour of sterilization is based upon an assumption which has been shown to be quite erroneous, namely, that any con- siderable proportion of defectives are the offspring of mentally defective persons. It also entirely ignores the fact that sterilization would not render mentally defective individuals any more socially capable and that it would not lessen their sexual proclivities. Indeed, we believe that it would actually tend to an increase of promiscuous sexual intercourse, with all its resulting ni?raJ an^ physical evl~! It is likely that many persons who are not opposed to sterilization in principle, and who would not object to its performance in certain specially selected cases, are opposed to its legalization because they see the greatest practical difficulty, once it were permitted, in restricting it to those cases. Ihey consider, in short, that on the whole it would do more harm than good.
Clause II of the Bill permits the visiting Committees of lunatic asylums to sterilize patients, at their request and without charge, who are about to be dis- charged from those institutions. To what extent this would be made use of, it is impossible to say, the prospect of getting something for nothing, even if that something is being sterilized, may quite likely appeal to a certain number of per- sons, especially to those just recovering from an attack of lunacy; but apart from this there would not appear to be anything in the clause, since there is no law to prevent a person being sterilized if he wishes it.
1 he remaining clauses of the Bill deal with the question of marriage, and the essential provision is that any person intermarrying or attempting to inter- marry with any person whom he knows is certified as mentally defective or insane, or who solemnizes or procures or connives at any such marriage, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, unless the consent of the Board of Control to the said marriage shall have been obtained. We feel that here the Bill is on much firmer ground, and we are inclined to think that such a proposal would meet with a considerable amount of support. It is certainly repugnant to common sense that a person who is defined by law as one incapable of managing himself or his affairs, or in need of care, supervision and control for the protection of himself or of others, should be allowed to undertake the responsibilities of marriage. But why bring in the Board of Control ? If the person is certified as mentally defective or insane, that should surely in itself be adequate ground for forbidding his or her marriage.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.