Government Funding For Involuntary Sterilization Procedures Research Papers Example
Sterilization includes the administration of the surgical contraception methods like vasectomy, hysterectomy, and tubal litigation to limit a person’s capacity to have children. There are several forms of sterilization namely voluntary, involuntary, and compulsory. Compulsory sterilization is required by the law while voluntary sterilization occurs when a person intentionally agrees to undergo the process. Involuntary sterilization occurs when a person lacks the capacity to consent to the sterilization procedure. However, this paper will identify whether involuntary sterilization should be used to reduce child abuse cases in the U.S and whether the government should fund the procedures as opposed to funding a child’s medical and psychological care. I will also provide my beliefs on whether enactment of a policy by the government would reduce short-term and long-term child abuse. Pro and con arguments by citizens and politicians regarding the policy will also be presented. Lastly, the paper will provide other recommendations of involuntary sterilization in addressing child abuse and its impacts on victims and the community.
Involuntary Sterilization to Reduce Child Abuse
Involuntary sterilization of adjudicated abusers (both male and female) should be considered as a viable option to reduce the incidence of child abuse in the United States. I consider sterilization of abusers a remedy for child abuse rather than a punishment. There are several studies regarding the recurring temperament of child abuse. Stawecka (2012) deduces that individuals abused as children have a high propensity of abusing their children. Some studies attribute the intergenerational child abuse cycle to environmental dynamics. Abused children grow up thinking that it is the appropriate way of child nurturing, and they may invoke similar techniques in the future. Stawecka (2012) adds that violent and criminal performances imply that genetically conveyed personality disorders may cause such behaviors. Scientists believe that environmental and genetic factors cause deviant conducts. Therefore, sterilizing adjudicated abusers involuntarily would entail preventing them from abusing children.
Secondly, involuntary sterilization of adjudicated abusers (both male and female) remains a viable option of reducing the incidence of child abuse in the United States because it protects children. Newspapers expose detailed information of children victims of premeditated starvation, atrocious beatings, including sexual and psychological abuses that remain offensive to any human frequently. Bruinus (2007) argues that local, state, and federal government officials failed to tackle the issues of child abuse citing the law on privacy before the 1960s. They argued that they could not interfere with the private lives of families that abused the children. After the 1960s, the state dynamically intruded on family lives by ordering reports of suspected child abuse cases from professionals. Current statutes necessitate social, medical, educational, and police service experts to account for every suspected child abuse case. In this case, abuse refers to mental, sexual, and bodily mistreatment as well as physical disregard. Studies indicate that professionals report 1.727 million cases annually. This shows that the public have become aware of child mistreatment. Therefore, involuntary sterilization prevents these numbers from increasing
Thirdly, some cases have viewed involuntary sterilization as a punishment. For instance, the Nevada District Court restrained a vasectomy procedure to be performed on the adjudicated rapist in Mickle v. Henrichs case (Stawecka, 2012). The court argued that the process was humiliating and degrading in spite of the fact that the defendant could feel less discomfort during the procedure. Alternatively, I disagree with all cases that identify involuntary sterilization as a punishment. The main reason for my deduction is because most people select the processes as birth control methods because they are painless, medically harmless, and seldom entail any unfavorable psychological impacts.
The United States government should not fund procedures, such as involuntary sterilization just because they may ultimately prove more economically and morally responsible than paying for a child’s medical and psychological care. However, the government should only fund such procedures in case the person undergoing the procedure has a high likelihood of abusing his/her children. Bruinus (2007) recommends the government to involve doctors and psychiatrists in determining such tendencies. Secondly, funding the process is not the only financial and morally viable option that the government can use as will be indicated in the recommendation part of this paper.
Government Enactment of the Policy
I believe that government enactment of such a policy would lead to a reduction in child defilement to the long term basis. Different media sources have displayed cases of abusers who have starved children to death, sexually molested them, or exposed them intentionally to other forms of torture. Before, psychologists approached the issue of child abuse as a mental of social quandary that requires non-punitive and therapeutic responses (Bruinus, 2007). Nonetheless, the responses have become insufficient and ineffectively as the social ill have increased. Therefore, enacting a policy with a more severe punishment would scare abusers and reduce the number of child abuse cases in the United States.
Pro and Con Arguments of Enacting the Involuntary Sterilization Policy
Politicians and citizens would argue that enacting an involuntary sterilization policy would prevent child abuse cases. Adopting the policy would also protect victims. Therefore, children would not experience any suffering inflicted upon them by their abusers. The policy would only allow competent parents to nurture children.
Secondly, enactment of the policy would scare abusers from assaulting children or other people in order to avoid involuntary sterilization procedures or incarceration. Modern courts would not hesitate to perform the procedures on any person (either male or female) believed to have molested a child or any other person. The courts would cite that the person endangered him/herself and others in the community.
Unfortunately, some citizens and politicians would present several cons of amending the policy. First, the rule would infringe the rights of the abuser. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution safeguards all citizens from any injustices (Wellman, 2005). Therefore, the defendants may challenge their sentences using the rights presented in the amendment. For example, the defendant in the People v. Gauntlett case challenged the ruling of the court that has ordered a surgical process on him (Stawecka, 2012). The defendant had molested his daughter, but he argued that castration would be a cruel and an unusual penalty for him.
The second con of the policy amendment would include infringement of the right to privacy. Some politicians and citizens would deduce that amending the policy would mean infringing the abusers rights to marry or rear children. They would argue that everyone has a right to choose whether undertake the involuntary sterilization procedures or not.
There are several alternatives to be adopted in place of involuntary sterilization that would adequately address the issue of child abuse and its impact on its victims and our communities. First, the government should improve its child adoption programs to ensure that adopted children receive proper care. A study by Stawecka (2012) indicates that most adopted children undergo several forms of abuses in their adoptive homes. These children then grow thinking that it is normal for children to grow with abusive parents, thus invoking the tendency in the future. Government officials should perform frequent, unexpected visits to adoptive families in order to check on the lives of these adopted children.
Secondly, the government should create harsher laws that guarantee severe punishment for child molesters. According to Wellman (2005), the current laws protect children from any harm, but media sources report incidents of child abuse almost daily. However, harsher laws would discourage abusers from harming children.
Thirdly, expectant parents should ensure that their children are safe from abuse. They should avoid leaving their children alone in spite of their health conditions. Wellman (2005) stipulates that most parents of retarded children leave them at home alone thinking that nobody would sexually abuse them. The negligence exposed these children or individuals to mistreatment. Therefore, parents and the society, in general, have a role to play in ensuring that alternative methods are used to prevent child abuse.
In conclusion, involuntary sterilization entails vasectomy, hysterectomy, and tubal litigation that happen when the law forces a person to undergo the sterilization procedure. The procedure is a feasible alternative for preventing child abuse. However, the U.S government should not fund the procedures just because they are viable compared to taking care of the child’s mental and medical needs. The administration should enact a policy that reduces child abuse in the short and long term basis. Additionally, the issue of involuntary sterilization is currently debatable in the United States.
Bruinus, H. (2007). Better for All the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America's Quest for Racial Purity. United States: Vintage Books.
Stawecka, M. (2012). Involuntary Sterilization Threatens Rights of Disabled Women. Paper presented by Inter Press Services. Retrieved from http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/09/involuntary-sterilisation-threatens-rights-of- disabled-women/
Wellman, C. (2005). Medical Law and Moral Rights. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.