自愿绝育法:最大利益、照顾者和残疾人权利。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q1 LAW Medical Law Review Pub Date : 2023-05-25 DOI:10.1093/medlaw/fwac036
Hillary Chua
{"title":"自愿绝育法:最大利益、照顾者和残疾人权利。","authors":"Hillary Chua","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwac036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":"31 2","pages":"205-225"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Voluntary Sterilisation Act: Best Interests, Caregivers, and Disability Rights.\",\"authors\":\"Hillary Chua\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/medlaw/fwac036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"volume\":\"31 2\",\"pages\":\"205-225\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwac036\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwac036","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在决定是否对智障人士进行绝育时,如何平衡照顾者的利益与残疾人的权利?这个问题是在新加坡的背景下考虑的,新加坡是一个缺乏测试案例的英联邦国家。新加坡的优生学历史不太为人所知,近年来,它在社群主义价值观和联合国残疾人权利公约(CRPD)规定的义务之间达成了一种令人不安的妥协。本文概述了1974年《自愿绝育法》和2008年《精神能力法》下的新加坡法律,并将其与加拿大、英格兰和威尔士以及澳大利亚的法律进行了比较。本文也将《残疾人权利公约》置于新加坡对国际法的二元论和对残疾人政策的社群主义态度的背景下。它认为CRPD对身体完整性的权利可以在绝育的最佳利益决定中推定地得到维护,而照顾者的利益可以在最佳利益的关系理解中得到适应。根据这些思路提出了一个决策框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Voluntary Sterilisation Act: Best Interests, Caregivers, and Disability Rights.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Law Review
Medical Law Review MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Law Review is established as an authoritative source of reference for academics, lawyers, legal and medical practitioners, law students, and anyone interested in healthcare and the law. The journal presents articles of international interest which provide thorough analyses and comment on the wide range of topical issues that are fundamental to this expanding area of law. In addition, commentary sections provide in depth explorations of topical aspects of the field.
期刊最新文献
Towards a rights-based approach for disabled women's access to abortion. Addressing the consequences of the corporatization of reproductive medicine. Guy's and St Thomas'-v-Knight [2021] EWHC 25: Dignity in English law. Donor conception, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, choices, and procedural justice: an argument for reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Anticipatory declarations in obstetric care: a relational and spatial examination of patient empowerment, institutional impacts and temporal challenges.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1