• STERILIZATION AND SOCIETY [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—One aspect of sterilization which has not so far been discussed arises in connexion with entailed property. Supposing that the beneficiaries under an entail who are all sui juris wish to break the entail and to divide up the property, there is only one obstacle, namely, the unborn issue of the tenant for life. Supposing .that the tenant for life wishes to cut the knot by being sterilized, can the trustees of the estate safely rely, on an indemnity , given to them by an insurance company in consideration of a premium paid in order to cover the risk of unborn issue ?
Many an insurance company would insure against this risk on being satisfied that the operation had been efficiently performed if the tenant for life had been sterilized before the bargain had been made. It appears, however, almost impossible to arrange any transaction of this kind because of the doubt whether sterilization might or might not be an offence either under the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, or as constituting a public mischief at Coinmon Law. Even now any act which in the opinion of the Court may be a public mischief is a conuilon law misdemetinnur. More- over it seems doubtful whether the trustees could safely enforce the indemnity given by the insurance policy.
It is clear that problems of this kind will arise from time to time now that Sterilization has become a-safe and common operation.. It would therefore be well to haire some sort of rule laid down in regard to the question whether sterilization is or is not a public miSchieff aim', Sir, &c., 9 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C. 2. E. S. P. HAYNES.
Previous page
