THE STERILIZATION BILL
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I think that medical practitioners will be wise, in spite of Mr. Binney's interesting letter, not too readily to assume that they may with legal impunity perform an operation for sterilization (for other than pathological reasons), even with the consent of the subject. The opinion expressed in your article is that which has been repeatedly given by responsible legalists as well as by other students of the question. Were Mr. Binney's view of the law correct, it would be difficult to see the point of the Bill recently rejected by Parliament. If doubt existed, surely that rejection would help to turn the balance. The problem was discussed at length before the Medico-Legal Society a few years ago ; and the evidence as to the illegality of sterilization other than for the preservation of the patient's health seemed convincing. Articles 227 and 228 of Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law (sixth edition) appear to confirm this. Even Mr. Binney admits that "the legal position is obscure."—! am, Sir, &c., Oalcshott Hanger, Hawkley, Hants. HARRY ROBERTS. [Owing to pressure on our space we have been compelled to hold over several letters on this subject.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
