IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v31y2023i2p205-225..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Voluntary Sterilisation Act: Best Interests, Caregivers, and Disability Rights

Author

Listed:
  • Hillary Chua

Abstract

How can caregivers’ interests be balanced with disability rights in decisions about whether to sterilise an intellectually disabled person? This question is considered in the context of Singapore, a commonwealth country that lacks a test case. Singapore has a lesser-known history of eugenics, and has struck an uneasy compromise between communitarian values and obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in recent years. This article provides an overview of Singaporean law under the Voluntary Sterilisation Act 1974 and the Mental Capacity Act 2008, and compares this with the law in Canada, England and Wales, and Australia. This article also situates the CRPD in the context of Singapore’s dualist view of international law and communitarian approach to disability policy. It argues that CRPD rights to bodily integrity can be presumptively upheld in best interests determinations on sterilisation, while caregivers’ interests can be accommodated in a relational understanding of best interests. A decisional framework along these lines is proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Hillary Chua, 2023. "The Voluntary Sterilisation Act: Best Interests, Caregivers, and Disability Rights," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 205-225.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:31:y:2023:i:2:p:205-225.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwac036
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:31:y:2023:i:2:p:205-225.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.