Australia’s practice of sterilising women and girls with disabilities has drawn the ire of the United Nations, disability advocates and the Human Rights Commission for well over a decade. Yet it’s still not known how many of the procedures are actually performed.
A Senate inquiry into the issue is due to report back in April next year. Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, chairwoman of the Community Affairs Committee conducting the inquiry, says very little data exists on the number of procedures being carried out each year.
“We really don’t have a good handle on how many people are affected by these coercive, involuntary practices because the data just isn’t there,” she told Crikey. Siewert’s concerns reflect what many disability advocates have been saying about the official data for years: the numbers just don’t stack up.
Currently, all applications to sterilise a child with a disability must be made by parents or guardians, then approved by the Family Court or a guardianship tribunal (there is no suggestion that authorities are sterilising women and girls without their parents’ consent). Carolyn Frohmader, CEO of Women With Disabilities Australia, says it has long been suspected those laws are easily circumvented; that formal approval by court or tribunal is not being obtained in some cases.
“Our concerns are and have been for many years that there is no guarantee [that all sterilisation procedures have been legally authorised] and that this could be happening under the radar … there’s even instances where parents are taking their children out of the country to have this done,” she said.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has echoed these concerns. Disability Discrimination Commissioner Graeme Innes raised the issue as recently as last week, as he also did last year with S-x Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick.
A 1997 report by the commission compared the number of sterilisation procedures approved by the courts to the number of sterilisation procedures performed by hospitals (contained in Health Insurance Commission data). The comparison showed that while courts had approved a total of 17 sterilisation procedures, 1045 girls had been sterilised in the 1992-1997 period. The health minister at the time, Michael Woolridge, disputed the figures, putting them at no more than 200; a Senate report tabled in 2000 put the number at only 22. A subsequent report by the commission in 2001 cautioned “considerable care” was needed in interpreting data, as it involved collating different sets of data from states which were not consistent or comparable. Nevertheless, in 2001 anecdotal evidence pointing to figures higher than official data prompted then attorney-general Daryl Williams to write to doctors warning them not to perform sterilisation procedures upon disabled girls without authority from a court or guardianship tribunal.
Despite the policy attention on this issue over the years, it has amounted to little more than squabbling between various parties about the number of sterilisation procedures being performed. Frohmader says this is counterproductive. “We know that this happens … even if the number being performed is one, that’s one too many,” she said.
Determining how prevalent sterilisation procedures are is just one point in the broad terms of reference for the inquiry, but Siewert believes that won’t be an easy task. “I know that’s going to be difficult because there does appear to be a discrepancy in the official statistics and health commission figures … that’s going to be very tricky for us,” she said.
At issue isn’t just the number of sterilisation procedures being performed, legally or illegally. The inquiry will also look at law reform — the issue disability advocates, the Human Rights Commission and WWDA have been pushing for, lobbying governments to ban non-therapeutic sterilisation of women and girls with disabilities. Lobbying has also come from the UN, which has criticised Australia for continuing to turn a blind eye to the practice, and its failure to legislate to prevent such procedures being carried out.
As recently as August of this year a report (“CRC/C/AUS/CO4“) from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child singled out Australia for its continued practice of sterilising women and children with disabilities, saying the practice contravened Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The report went on to say the committee was:
“Seriously concerned that the absence of legislation preventing such sterilisation is discriminatory.”
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has also expressed concern about Australia’s approach to the issue, and in 2011 the UN Human Rights Council recommended Australia legislate to end non-therapeutic sterilisation in all children, regardless of disability. The rebukes have only resulted in sporadic bursts of media interest. Siewert believes politicians have shied away from addressing what is an extremely contentious issue.
“It has been addressed on and off at a federal level but then people have seemed to back away from it,” she said. “You can’t run away from the issue just because it is controversial and it’s time to look at this issue.”
Siewert is hopeful the inquiry will unearth fresh data, and lead to law reform. “I suspect that if we do manage to get hold of data it will shock some people and I suspect that there will be recommendations around the need to change some of our policy frameworks,” she said.
How can this be called “coercive and involuntary” when the legal guardian, backed up by a court, allows it? This only occurs when the subject cannot give their consent – therefore the consent is given (or not given) by the legal person that can. so it’s not involuntary.
I read Callum Denness’ article with interest. The one thing not addressed at all is the question of actual harm.
There seems to be a general treatment of disabled people as if they are all the same.
A blanket prohibition of sterilisation seems to ignore the risks suffered by a small number of women and girls who are not intellectually capable of understanding or dealing with the possible consequences of sexual intercourse or even menstruation.
It seems wise to enable this small population to be treated separately from the population who have purely physical disabilities, for whom involuntary sterilisation is clearly an injustice.
It’s hard to comprehend that such practices are still being carried out. There was an article in the Sun Herald only a week ago about parents having their child with disabilities held from them (stolen) and advised to ‘go home, forget him/her and have another baby straight away’? The mothers were given medication to dry up their milk. Just shocking and abusive practices. The view seemed to be for example, that all children with Down Syndrome were categorised as ‘severe’ prior to any assessments being made. All babies with perceived disabilities were treated in the same manner. The over riding view was that ‘the mothers/parents couldn’t make a decision’? How gross! Lots of parents fought the ‘advice’ and took their babies home, and shared a loving and positive relationship with them!
The accompanying photo showed a father in his 80’s who is now being cared for by his son, who was born with Down Syndrome, but has lived a productive life. His father said that his wife was denied the baby for several days until they collected him and left the hospital. He was their 5th child!
The behaviours now is just another patronising attitude to women and girls. That we are not capable of making our own decisions, or even having our voices heard. The attitude is, ‘we know what’s best for you – leave it to us’?
Another reason why Australia’s behaviour re human rights should have ruled us out of being on the General Assembly of the UN? Our behaviour re asylum seekers, particularly the proposed policy re children and pregnant women; aboriginal rights etc have meant many ‘bad’ reviews by the UN! This is just another example – and a disgraceful one at that!
I’d like to know why it is first assumed that sterilisation is coercive and involuntary, and secondly why this is ALWAYS ie in EVERY case a bad choice?
If a parent has a severely intellectually disabled girl…why is it consdiered a bad choice, a violation of human rights, for this person to be sterilised so they cannot have babies that they will not be able to care for and that run a very high risk of disability themselves? To remove the right of parents to make this choice on behalf of their disabled child seems more of the violation of human rights – in effect fprcing the parents into the prospect of raising a second generation of children, possibly intellectually disabled too.
Liz45 – I usually like your Crikey comments, can you tell me why this is such an outrage as I simply don’t get it.
I have a child with autism, and generally it is known that autism carries some family connection, possibly genetic. Do I encourage my son to make babies, knowling his children run a high risk of autism and knowing that his disability has many social intelligence failures in it which impair parenting abilities????
At my son’s special school their are children attending whose parents were also students of the special school. These parents cannot care for their children independently and their children are intellectually disabled too. Yes, I can see on one hand that as human beings we all have rights, including to have a family, but WHO is it good for, that MORE children with disabilities so bad to need intensive care, are brought into the world? This seems a cruel thing to do, ie to bring babies into the world who are almost guaranteed to have an intellectual disability that will impair their quality of life, autonomy, and independence in the world at large.
I’d like to highlight two points –
firstly, there is a high incidence of r*pe in women with disabilities, intellectual and in care/hospitals, therefore high risk of pregnancy and unwanted parenthood or grandparents raising more babies – I know this through previous employment in disabilities work
secondly, the state is a very poor carer of people with disabilities as primary concedrns in their lives or in the loves of a child or family member – I know this first hand through both myself and my son suffering under the lack of care, support, services etc for people, parents and families with autism.
I passionately belive in human rights, social justice, equality etc, but the other side of the coin in the above argument is that new laws will force some people into circumstances that they might not want to be living in and that the state provides very little services and support once you find yourfself in those circumstances.
@black dog As a general rule, it’s a violation of human rights to force someone to be sterilized against their will. That should be a basic premise! There are situations where the young woman is profoundly disabled, but there should be safeguards – for instance, having to go to Court, have expert opinion, input from her parents/guardian etc. It’s the arbitrary acts that I’m against. For instance there’s a body of people who do NOT believe that people with disabilities have a right to a sex life. I recall seeing a documentary years ago about this very issue.
I went to a conference in Sydney about 30 years ago – I represented my State Member of Parlt. It was about a Nuclear Free Pacific. There lots of people from different States, the Pacific etc. At a break we learned that young aboriginal women in WA were being sterilized when they gave birth to their first child – without their consent. Many didn’t find out until years later. My friend and I were appalled as indeed everyone should be. You can see by this example how this can be abused. There is a strong possibility that this sort of action is happening now!
If you read an article in the SMH Good Weekend called ‘Bitter Pills’ about how parents are being threatened by DOCs type organisations because they won’t submit their children to some medical treatments. You should read the article and it will show you how people can abuse their powers. I had no idea, and was shocked while reading it.
As for autism? I’m very sorry about your child, it’s a challenging situation, but I don’t think there’s been enough research about this condition. I DO know that people with this condition or similar have gone on to have productive lives as adults. However, I don’t think parents have the right to make arbitrary decisions on their child’s behalf!
The solution to the horrific incidents of all sorts of abuse re people with disabilities (including boys and men I must add) is not to sterilize them. Would you also assert that ALL women and girls be sterilized to prevent unwanted pregnancies via r**e? Of course not! The crime is the act of violence – there are ways of coping with this. Such as the morning after pill etc via a hospital.
The answer to these sorts of situations isn’t to sterilize young adults – it’s having a system with checks and balances that prohibit the likelihood of abuse taking place in the first place. The trauma of being abused in any way is not removed by sterilization, nor do we advocate it for people without disabilities.
A woman who lost her arm via the Bali Bombings has not long given birth to a baby girl – a sister for her son. She has modified her activities in order to care for her kids. Nobody suggested (as far as I know) that she be sterilized. I think you can see the basic points I’m making. Sometimes it’s too ‘convenient’ to have a daughter sterilized – no problems for anyone any more! It’s not the answer! In extreme cases perhaps, but not as a practice as a general rule.
In our society, there’s too much emphasis on looks? Ask people with facial damage how they cope with people who stare or make gross comments. Look at the women’s magazines etc and it’s easy to see what’s important – looks? I’ve listened to talk back on ABC radio for years, and I’m always appalled by the cruelty and rude people and the things they say?
The new body for caring for people with disabilities will hopefully see a change in attitudes, but more importantly, provide help for carers of people with disabilities. We don’t take a ‘one size fits all’ for able bodied people, so why do it with those with disabilities. It’s a horrific abuse of those peoples’ human rights.
Through education, the lives of people with mental illnesses is changing. While there’s still a lot of work to do, we have progressed a long way. The answer is education, tolerance and acceptance! Acceptance is the ultimate goal. I tolerate a cold, but I should accept people with disabilities as people with the same rights as myself.
We have the same or similar attitudes to older people and their right to a s*x life as we do to people with disabilities. We’re the ones with the problem – not them!
And – we could start with people with disabilities, but where could it end? People who are Jewish? Muslim? Black? We know from past history how peoples lives can be destroyed by ‘going too far’? Hitler? The Stolen Generations? Rwanda? etc! Who decides who’s perfect and have the right to reproduce? Do we decide to rid ourselves of all babies who are deemed ‘imperfect’?
Must go! Going with my friend for lunch. She has an acquired brain injury, caused by an assault! I’m her advocate/friend! My concern is about her future!