The Sterilisation of Girls and Young Women in Australia: issues and progress (2001)

Date: 
Monday 1 January 2001 to Monday 31 December 2001

The Sterilisation of Girls and Young Women in Australia: issues and progress (2001)

by Susan Brady, John Britton & Sonia Grover

A Report jointly commissioned by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Disability Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission


Contents

Introduction

Chapter one - the legal framework

a) the High Court's decision in Marion
b) the decision-makers
c) disability legislation & medical treatment decisions

Chapter two - the debate about numbers

a) the most recent 'official data' on sterilisation of young women
b) the anecdotal information

Chapter three - a national profile of lawful sterilisation

a) the Family Court & Guardianship Tribunals
b) the numbers of applications by State
c) characteristics of girls & young women subject to sterilisation applications
d) characteristics of applicant families
e) profile of services provided to the child and family
f) primary carers & type of decision
g) other factors

Chapter four - rules, guidelines & protocols

a) family law rules
b) family law protocols & practice guidelines
c) the effectiveness of protocols
d) guardianship rules & guidelines

Chapter five - developments since 1997

a) responses to the 1997 Report
b) ongoing medical & community education

Chapter six- where to from here?

a) the current situation, in review
b) key areas for reform

Read the Media Release

See also 1997 sterilisation report

Download the report

'The Sterilisation of Girls and Young Women in Australia: issues and progress' is available for download in both PDF(174 K) and Word Formats (212 K).


Author's note:

This report was commissioned jointly by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the Disability Discrimination Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission. The views and opinions expressed in this report are the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Australian Human Rights Commission. The data referred to in this report is the property of SM Brady and forms part of data collected for PhD research. The interpretation and conclusions drawn from this data are hers.