LM & Others v Government of Namibia

Last updated
LM and Others v Government of the Republic of Namibia
Coat of arms of Namibia.svg
CourtHigh Court of Namibia
Full case nameLM, MI and NH v The Government of the Republic of Namibia
DecidedJuly 30, 2012 (2012-07-30)
Citation(s)LM and Others v Government of the Republic of Namibia, 211 (NAHCJuly 30, 2012 (2012-07-30)). Government of the Republic of Namibia v LM and Others, 19 (NASCNovember 3, 2014 (2014-11-03)).
Case history
Appealed to Supreme Court of Namibia
Subsequent action(s)Dismissed and High Court judgement upheld
Case opinions
  • Written consent does not automatically equate to informed consent
  • Women did not understand what they were signing
  • A consent form could not absolve the hospitals from responsibility
  • The women are entitled to damages

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.

Contents

In 2012, the Namibian High Court [1] held that the women had been coercively sterilised. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Namibia upheld the High Court decision on 3 November 2014. [2]

Background

The three women applicants, of whom only the initials LM, MI, and NH were given, had been sterilised at the public Oshakati State and Katutura State Hospitals when giving birth via caesarean section. [2] The women argued that any purported consent to the sterilisation had been coerced as they had either not been told the contents of the consent forms they were signing, did not understand the medical staff, or had been told by doctors that their caesarean surgeries would only be performed if they agreed to be sterilised. [3]

All the women are HIV-positive [4] and believe that they were stigmatised and targeted for sterilisation on the basis of their HIV status. [5]

Litigation

In 2009 the women, assisted by the Southern Africa Litigation Centre, the Namibia Women's Health Network and the Legal Assistance Centre, sued the government for damages, claiming that sterilisation without informed consent violates a number of rights. The women argued that the sterilisation infringed their constitutional rights to life, liberty, dignity and to found a family, as well as various common law and personality rights as it diminished their marriage prospects and ability to bear children, impacted on their bodily and psychological integrity and caused shock, pain and suffering and emotional anguish.

The women also argued that their rights to equality and freedom from discrimination were violated because the sterilisation was as a result of their HIV status.

The Namibian government denied that there was a policy to sterilise HIV positive women, and denied that the applicants’ consent to sterilisation had been coerced. The government accepted that coerced sterilisation would be a violation of the constitutional rights invoked by the women, but argued that the hospitals had obtained the women's consent correctly.

High Court judgment

On 30 July 2012, Judge Elton Hoff held that the evidence presented by the women demonstrated that they had not given informed consent to the sterilisations. The High Court found that obtaining consent from the women when they were in labour or in extreme pain could not constitute informed consent. [6] For it to be valid, consent must be clear and unequivocal and be given freely and voluntarily and not induced by fear, fraud or force. The Court held that written consent does not automatically equate to informed consent as the women did not understand what they were signing, [7] and so the fact that the women had signed a consent form could not absolve the hospitals from responsibility.

The Judge held that the women were entitled to damages which would be determined at a later date.

Supreme Court judgment

The Namibian government appealed the High Court decision to the Supreme Court. [8] On 3 November 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and referred the case back to the High Court for the amount of damages to be calculated. [9] [10] Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Peter Shivute distinguished written consent from informed consent that is given freely and voluntarily. The Court held that all three women had not given their informed consent to be sterilised due to the circumstances in which their consent had been obtained, including that they were all in varying degrees of labour at the time. [11] The Supreme Court ruled, however, that there was no evidence for the women's HIV status to be the underlying reason for the sterilisation, and that no rule or policy existed that discriminated against HIV-positive patients. [2]

Related Research Articles

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

Criminal transmission of HIV is the intentional or reckless infection of a person with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This is often conflated, in laws and in discussion, with criminal exposure to HIV, which does not require the transmission of the virus and often, as in the cases of spitting and biting, does not include a realistic means of transmission. Some countries or jurisdictions, including some areas of the U.S., have enacted laws expressly to criminalize HIV transmission or exposure, charging those accused with criminal transmission of HIV. Other countries charge the accused under existing laws with such crimes as murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, assault or fraud.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Symphysiotomy</span> Surgical procedure assisting childbirth

Symphysiotomy is an outdated surgical procedure in which the cartilage of the pubic symphysis is divided to widen the pelvis allowing childbirth when there is a mechanical problem. It is also known as pelviotomy, synchondrotomy.

Reproductive justice is a critical feminist framework that was invented as a response to United States reproductive politics. The three core values of reproductive justice are the right to have a child, the right to not have a child, and the right to parent a child or children in safe and healthy environments. The framework moves women's reproductive rights past a legal and political debate to incorporate the economic, social, and health factors that impact women's reproductive choices and decision-making ability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Rights Law Network</span>

The Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) is an Indian non-profit organisation founded in 1989 to protect the fundamental human rights and civil liberties of the most marginalised and vulnerable members of society. Working on the intersection of law, advocacy, policy, and education, HRLN is organised as a collective of lawyers and social activists dedicated to providing legal assistance to vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals, advocating for the implementation of structures to safeguard human rights and fight systemic oppression, and educating the public on their rights and remedies. HRLN provides pro bono legal services to marginalised groups, conducts investigations into human rights violations, and undertakes high-stakes impact litigation in service of the public interest. The organisation operates across the spectrum of public interest law, focusing specifically on children’s rights, rights of disabled persons, rights of people living with HIV/AIDS, prisoners' rights, refugee rights, rights of indigenous people, workers' rights, rights of minorities, and the protection of victims of sexual violence or trafficking.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Namibia</span>

The Supreme Court of Namibia is the highest court in the judicial system of Namibia. It is the court of last resort and the highest appellate court in the country. It is located in the city centre of Namibia's capital city, Windhoek. A Supreme Court decision is supreme in that it can only be reversed by an Act of Parliament that contradicts it, or by another ruling of the Supreme Court itself.

<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.

African countries have been sites for clinical trials by large pharmaceutical companies, raising human rights concerns. Incidents of unethical experimentation, clinical trials lacking properly informed consent, and forced medical procedures have been claimed and prosecuted.

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.

After World War I, the Romani people in Czechoslovakia formed an ethnic community, living on the social periphery of the mainstream Czechoslovakian population.

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.

HIV in pregnancy is the presence of an HIV/AIDS infection in a woman while she is pregnant. There is a risk of HIV transmission from mother to child in three primary situations: pregnancy, childbirth, and while breastfeeding. This topic is important because the risk of viral transmission can be significantly reduced with appropriate medical intervention, and without treatment HIV/AIDS can cause significant illness and death in both the mother and child. This is exemplified by data from The Centers for Disease Control (CDC): In the United States and Puerto Rico between the years of 2014–2017, where prenatal care is generally accessible, there were 10,257 infants in the United States and Puerto Rico who were exposed to a maternal HIV infection in utero who did not become infected and 244 exposed infants who did become infected.

Unethical human experimentation is human experimentation that violates the principles of medical ethics. Such practices have included denying patients the right to informed consent, using pseudoscientific frameworks such as race science, and torturing people under the guise of research. Around World War II, Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany carried out brutal experiments on prisoners and civilians through groups like Unit 731 or individuals like Josef Mengele; the Nuremberg Code was developed after the war in response to the Nazi experiments. Countries have carried out brutal experiments on marginalized populations. Examples include American abuses during Project MKUltra and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, and the mistreatment of indigenous populations in Canada and Australia. The Declaration of Helsinki, developed by the World Medical Association (WMA), is widely regarded as the cornerstone document on human research ethics.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intersex human rights</span> Human rights for intersex people

Intersex people are born with sex characteristics, such as chromosomes, gonads, or genitals, that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intersex human rights reports</span>

Intersex people are born with sex characteristics, such as chromosomes, gonads, hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.

The Legal Assistance Centre is a human rights organization in Windhoek, the capital of Namibia. The organization was established in 1988 during the apartheid era to litigate on behalf of people who were oppressed by the government and continues to operate today.

Same-sex unions are currently not performed in Namibia. However, since a Supreme Court judgment in May 2023, same-sex marriages concluded outside Namibia are recognised equally.

Compulsory sterilization of disabled people in the U.S. prison system was permitted in the United States from 1907 to the 1960s, during which approximately 60,000 people were sterilized, two-thirds of these people being women. During this time, compulsory sterilization was motivated by eugenics. There is a lengthy history when it comes to compulsory sterilization in the United States and legislation allowing compulsory sterilization pertaining to developmentally disabled people, the U.S. prison system, and marginalized communities.

SethembisoPromise Mthembu is a South African human rights activist and researcher, best known for her work on HIV/AIDS and women's rights. One of the first women in South Africa to publicly share that she was living with HIV, Mthembu is a founder of the Gugu Dlamini Action Group, the Young Woman's Dialogue, and the Her Rights Initiative.

References

  1. "LM and Others v Government of the Republic of Namibia (I 1603/2008, I 3518/2008, I 3007/2008) [2012] NAHC 211 (30 July 2012)". Saflii.org. Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  2. 1 2 3 "Government of the Republic of Namibia v LM and Others (SA 49/2012) [2014] NASC 19". Namibia Legal Information Institute. 3 November 2014. Retrieved 7 November 2022.
  3. "BBC News - Namibia judge backs sterilised women". Bbc.co.uk. 2012-07-30. Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  4. Nkepile Mabuse (2012-07-30). "Namibian women were sterilized without consent, judge rules" . Retrieved 2014-12-04.
  5. Anissa Haddadi (2012-07-30). "Namibia Women Coerced into Being Sterilised". International Business Times. Retrieved 2014-12-04.
  6. Independent Newspapers Online (2012-07-31). "Namibian forced sterilisation ruling lauded - Africa | IOL News". IOL.co.za. Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  7. Alex Duval Smith in Windhoek, Namibia (2012-07-30). "Namibia court rules HIV-positive women sterilised without consent | Global development | guardian.co.uk". London: Guardian. Retrieved 2012-11-01.
  8. Namib Times (2014-03-18). "Coerced Sterilisation Case before Supreme Court". Archived from the original on 2014-12-09. Retrieved 2014-12-04.
  9. Al Jazeera (2014-11-04). "Namibia court upholds sterilisation verdict" . Retrieved 2014-12-04.
  10. SAPA (2014-11-04). "Namibia court rules on HIV forced sterilisation case" . Retrieved 2014-12-04.
  11. Faith Sankwasa (2014-11-04). "Govt to cough up for forced sterilisations" . Retrieved 2014-12-04.