Abstract
In an earlier article in this journal (Bates, 1988a), I concluded that the decision of the House of Lords in Re B (a minor Wardship: Sterilisation (1987) 2 All E.R. 206, would not be the end of a judicial process dealing with the enforced sterilisation of apparently mentally incapable young women. This has proved to be totally correct and, unfortunately perhaps, has meant that the issues raised by Re B have come to be litigated in two recent cases in Australia. At the outset, it should be said that both of these cases, for various reasons, confirm the decision in Re B in that the sterilisation was ultimately authorised. At the same time, it must also be emphasised that the judgments in each case were detailed, canvassing many of the central policy issues which are bound to arise in such cases.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Developmental and Educational Psychology,Health(social science)
Reference17 articles.
1. The Notion of ‘Family in Law’;Dickey;University of Western Australia Law Review,1982
2. Parents, Doctors and Children: The Gillick Case and Beyond
3. Custody Disputes Between Parents and Non-Parents: Recent Developments in Canada and Australia;Bates;Manitoba Law Journal,1981