The Rwandan Parliament is currently discussing a draft law which would "require the sterilization of all individuals with intellectual disabilities."
Human Rights Watch said the proposed law was a gross violation of human rights.
This bill "undermines reproductive health goals and undo decades of work to ensure respect for reproductive rights," said Joe Amon, the health and human rights director at Human Rights Watch.
The Human Rights Watch has urged the Rwandan government to remove this provision from the bill.
In May 2008, Rwanda ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The convention upholds the rights of persons with disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, to equal rights.
This new law under discussion in the Rwandan Parliament would go against the above mentioned convention.
Furthermore, forced sterilization is considered a crime against humanity by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 19
On this I do agree.
You agree to sterilize mentally disabled or you agree with Human Rights Watch?
Good question, Savo. I wondered the same thing.
This has been discussed on and off in the United States for about 40 years that I remember. It is technically against the Constitution (cruel and unusual), which is the only reason it's never been imposed here.
It's been done in the US. The Nazis came here to study how we did it while introducing it to their system.
There was a time when every baby born with Down Sydndrome was sterilized at birth.
When did this happen? I would be interested in knowing. How did they do it?
I give you some 5 for nature not nurture.
Werner, what are you talking about???
Excerpt from online PDF file, Eugenic Sterilization and a Qualified Nazi Analogy: The United States and Germany, 1930–1945
Andre´ N. Sofair, MD, MPH, and Lauris C. Kaldjian, MD:
"The history of state-sponsored sterilization in the
United States began with legislation in Indiana in
1907. By 1926, 23 states had enacted sterilization
laws, which were motivated mainly by eugenic and
therapeutic concerns. Eighteen of these states mandated
involuntary sterilization of certain mentally
defective persons or certain kinds of criminals. In
Oregon, Montana, and Idaho, laws provided for
both voluntary and involuntary sterilization, and in
Iowa, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and
Maine, laws provided for voluntary sterilization
alone. In all but one of these eight states with
voluntary laws (Idaho), consent was not required
from a patient if he or she was incapable of giving
it; written consent from a relative or guardian was
sufficient (58). Such “voluntary” laws would therefore
be more aptly described as nonvoluntary. Most
states confined compulsory sterilization to inmates
of public mental institutions (58), in which the proportion
of poor and minority residents was greater
than that in the general population; for instance,
inmates sterilized in Virginia and California were
disproportionately black or foreign-born, respectively
(59)."
and where does the idea of Eugenics (involuntary sterilization) lead?
From the same article:
"In 1920, Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding (a retired
jurist and widely published legal scholar) published
Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life as
a solution to the economic burden of institutionalized
mentally handicapped patients. “Unworthy life”
referred to “those irretrievably lost through illness
or injury” and the “incurably insane.” They dismissed
the Hippocratic oath as a vestige of “ancient
times,” insisting instead on the “standpoint of a
higher civil morality” that considered the health of
the state and abandoned the unconditional preservation
of valueless lives (44)."
Long before they began focusing on race, the Nazis would have first sterilized, then later killed, a rather large portion of my family and friends (if we'd gone for mental health help.)
Hannah, thanks for posting the link! I didn't know this...
Sterilizing the disabled is nothing new. It is 18th century mentality, not 2009 way of thinking.
Hope for all of humanity this does not become law or excepted in our society as "normal" again..... If so, or it does pass it is a step backwards.
Up until the end of the 18 th century, medicine across Europe routinely included ingredients like human flesh and blood. Not any more.
Definately a gross violation of human rights, I hope it doesn't pass.
Who decides? We aren't far from this. Remember that poor lady, I forget her name, whose husband decided she wasn't viable, so he let her starve and die of dehydration. Not much different in my book.
Her name was Terri Shiavo (pronounced SHY-voh). She was murdered via neglect, and despite her situation, not a single women's organization stood up for her because doing so would have interfered with an agenda of the left wing to which they belong.
There is some interesting information about her case HERE
There is also a website for the Terri Schindler Shiavo foundation.
Who has the right to decide? Are you familliar with Asperger's Syndrome? This, along with some physical challenges would have put me in grave danger, were I to have been born in a country that had such inhumane laws.
This has been practiced the world over. Shameful.