N. B. vs. Slovakia

Last updated

N.B. vs Slovakia is the second case concerning forced sterilization of Romani people or Gypsy women from Slovakia decided by the European Court of Human Rights. The decision came only few months after the release of the judgment in the similar case V. C. vs. Slovakia . Once again, the Court unanimously found that the Romani woman had been sterilized without informed consent in contravention of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

N.B. was forcibly sterilized in the Gelnica Hospital, in Eastern Slovakia, during the caesarean section delivery of her second child v on 25 April 2001. At the time of sterilization, she was only 17 years old, and was a legal minor under the Slovak law. Informed consent of her legal guardians (parents) was legally required. However, the guardians did not give any consent to sterilization and no record on this was entered in the release report from the hospital. N.B. found about the sterilization only several months later, after her lawyers inspected her medical records in the Hospital.

Afterwards, in 2004, N.B. sued the Hospital for damages and she also started criminal proceedings against the doctors. In 2008, the District Court in Spišska Nova Ves found sterilization illegal and granted her compensations in amount of app. 1,590 EUR. N.B. found this inadequate in the view of the seriousness of the forced intervention. The police and the Constitutional Court of Slovakia rejected her complaints, so she brought the case to the European Court. The Court ruled in her favour on 12 June 2012.

N.B. was represented by lawyers from the Slovak feminist group Center for Civil and Human Rights from Košice who represent many other similar cases. After the decision, they called on the Slovak Government to compensate all the victims in pending cases instead of repeatedly "facing an international humiliation and condemnation". [1]

Related Research Articles

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite the changing attitudes in the coming decades regarding sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It is widely believed to have been weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which involved compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals. Legal scholar and Holmes biographer G. Edward White, in fact, wrote, "the Supreme Court has distinguished the case [Buck v. Bell] out of existence". In addition, federal statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, provide protections for people with disabilities, defined as both physical and mental impairments.

Reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health that vary amongst countries around the world. The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as follows:

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Compulsory sterilization</span> Government policies which force people to undergo sterilization

Compulsory sterilization, also known as forced or coerced sterilization, is a government-mandated program to involuntarily sterilize a specific group of people. Sterilization removes a person's capacity to reproduce, and is usually done through surgical procedures. Several countries implemented sterilization programs in the early 20th century. Although such programs have been made illegal in most countries of the world, instances of forced or coerced sterilizations persist.

Loizidou v. Turkey is a landmark legal case regarding the rights of refugees wishing to return to their former homes and properties.

Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without the consent of the person being treated. Involuntary treatment is permitted by law in some countries when overseen by the judiciary through court orders; other countries defer directly to the medical opinions of doctors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-Romani sentiment</span> Racism against Romani people

Anti-Romani sentiment is a form of bigotry which consists of hostility, prejudice, discrimination, racism and xenophobia which is specifically directed at Romani people. Non-Romani itinerant groups in Europe such as the Yenish, Irish and Highland Travellers are frequently given the name "gypsy" and as a result, they are frequently confused with the Romani people. As a result, sentiments which were originally directed at the Romani people are also directed at other traveler groups and they are frequently referred to as "antigypsy" sentiments.

Barbora Bukovská is a Czech-Slovak human rights attorney and activist, known originally for her work on racial discrimination of Romani people in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and later for free speech advocacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Romani people in Slovakia</span> Ethnic group

According to the last census from 2021, there were 67,179 persons counted as Romani people in Slovakia, or 1.23% of the population. However, the number of Roma is usually underreported, with estimates placing the Roma population at 7-11% of the population. Thus the actual number of Roma may be over half a million.

Compulsory sterilization in Canada has a documented history in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia. It is still ongoing as in 2017, sixty Indigenous women in Saskatchewan sued the provincial government, claiming they had been forced to accept sterilization before seeing their newborn babies. In June 2021, the Standing Committee on Human Rights in Canada found that compulsory sterilization is ongoing in Canada and its extent has been underestimated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental Disability Advocacy Center</span> Non-governmental organization

The Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) is an international human rights organisation founded in Hungary in 2002. It is headquartered in Budapest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics in the United States</span>

Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population, played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States from the late 19th century into the mid-20th century. The cause became increasingly promoted by intellectuals of the Progressive Era.

K.H. and Others vs. Slovakia is the first in a series of cases before the European Court for Human Rights dealing with the subject of forced sterilisation of Romani people or Gypsy women from Slovakia. The case did not deal with sterilization directly but it concerned access to medical records of forcibly sterilized Romani women for the purpose of litigation of their rights.

<i>Madrigal v. Quilligan</i>

Madrigal v. Quilligan was a federal class action lawsuit from Los Angeles County, California, involving sterilization of Latina women that occurred either without informed consent, or through coercion. Although the judge ruled in favor of the doctors, the case led to better informed consent for patients, especially those who are not native English speakers.

Forced abortion is a form of reproductive coercion that refers to the act of compelling a woman to undergo termination of a pregnancy against her will or without explicit consent. Forced abortion may also be defined as coerced abortion, and may occur due to a variety of outside forces such as societal pressure, or due to intervention by perpetrators such as an intimate partner, parental guardian, medical practitioners, or others who may cause abortion by force, threat or coercion. It may also occur by taking advantage of a situation where a pregnant individual is unable to give consent, or when valid consent is in question due to duress. This may also include the instances when the conduct was neither justified by medical or hospital treatment, which does not include instances in which the pregnant individual is at risk of life threatening injury due to unsustainable pregnancy. Similar to other forms of reproductive coercion such as forced sterilization, forced abortion may include a physical invasion of female reproductive organs, therefore creating the possibly of causing long term threat or injury preventing viable future pregnancies. Forced abortion is considered a human rights violation by the United Nations due to its failure to comply with the human right to reproductive choice and control without coercion, discrimination, and violence.

V.C. vs Slovakia was the first case in which the European Court for Human Rights ruled in favor of a Romani woman who was a victim of forced sterilization in the state hospital in Slovakia. It is one of many cases of forced sterilization of Roma women brought to the Court by the Slovak feminist group Center for Civil and Human Rights from Košice.

<i>LM & Others v Government of Namibia</i> Legal case regarding coerced sterilisation

LM & Others v Government of Namibia is a legal case regarding coerced sterilisation of three women in Namibia in 2005 and 2007. The women argued they had not properly consented to sterilisation due to not being informed of the contents of the consent form, not understanding the medical staff, or coercion by being told their caesareans would not be performed unless they consented to the sterilisation. All the women were HIV-positive and believe they were targeted for sterilization based on this.

I.G. and Others vs. Slovakia is the third case decided by the European Court of Human Rights against Slovakia concerning forced sterilization of Romani people or Gypsy women. Although the case was the third decision on the practice, it was actually the first case brought to the European Court by the Slovak feminist organization Center for Civil and Human Rights already in 2004.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Indian Health Service (IHS) and collaborating physicians sustained a practice of performing sterilizations on Native American women, in many cases without the free and informed consent of their patients. In some cases, women were misled into believing that the sterilization procedure was reversible. In other cases, sterilization was performed without the adequate understanding and consent of the patient, including cases in which the procedure was performed on minors as young as 11 years old. A compounding factor was the tendency of doctors to recommend sterilization to poor and minority women in cases where they would not have done so to a wealthier white patient. Other cases of abuse have been documented as well, including when health providers did not tell women they were going to be sterilized, or other forms of coercion including threatening to take away their welfare or healthcare.

Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

<i>No más bebés</i> 2015 American film

No Más Bebés is an American documentary film that tells the story of immigrant women who were sterilized upon going into labor. Having been sterilized without knowing at the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center, the mothers sued county doctors, the State of California, and the United States government. Having collected hospital records from a whistleblower, Chicana lawyer Antonia Hernandez led the lawsuit against powerful institutions.

References

  1. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-03-16. Retrieved 2014-11-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)