Buck v. Bell and Right to Bodily Integrity

Buck v. Bell is a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Justice Oliver Wendell Homles, Jr., upheld a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded, "for the protection and health of the state". The court said that it did not violate the Due Process Clause.

This was a mere five paragraph judgement in which Justice Holmes permitted sterlization on the ground that:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

This judgement has been criticized a lot as it was based on the premise that a offspring of a mentally retarded will also be mentally retarded. Today, it is known that the petitioner's child was not at all mentally retarded or a moron. Interestingly, this case is also seen as a victory of the eugenic thought at that time.

Justice Holmes, Jr., was very crafty in writing this judgement. Buck's counsel gestured towards "Right to bodily integrity" during the course of his arguments. But, Holmes did not mentioned the term "right" even once in his judgement and subtly dismissed the petitioner's claim.

Another interesting thing to note is that, at the time this judgement was given, it was very well received both by the public and the intellectuals of that era. It may be because that era was an era of "police power" and not an era of "rights" which exists now.

I am glad that the Supreme Court of India did not resort to such reasoning in cases like Suchita Srivastava and Another v. Chandigarh Administration. In Suchita Srivastava's case as well, a similar question arose. The Court held in favor of the victim and said that:

1. A woman's right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected.

2. The 'best interest' of the victim lies in the continuation of the pregnancy as it does not pose any grave risk to physical or mental health of the victim and that there is no indication that the prospective child is likely to suffer from a congenital disorder. 

However, concerns were expressed about the victim's mental capacity to cope with the demands of carrying the pregnancy to its full term, the act of delivering a child and subsequent childcare. In this regard, the court directed that the best medical facilities be made available so as to ensure proper care and supervision during the period of pregnancy as well as for post-natal care.

I am very surprised that Buck v. Bell judgement is coming from a man who once said:

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." 

Let us hope that such instances of Constitutional tragedy are not repeated in the future.

I am writing this post after reading an enlightening research paper on Buck v. Bell from Victoria F. Nourse and Professor Pryor's Blog.