Washington Law Review
Part I of this comment examines the historical development of nonconsensual sterilization and contrasts the earlier statutory schemes with modem equitable principles. Part II examines both sides of the question whether authority to order nonconsensual sterilizations should be inferred from a general jurisdictional grant. Part III concludes that courts of general jurisdiction should have such authority, but that its assertion is proper only if it is based on as narrow a rationale as possible, if its exercise furthers the rights of the retarded person, and if its application is strictly circumscribed by standards consistent with its equitable nature.
Craig L. McIvor,
Equitable Jurisdiction to Order Sterilizations,
57 Wash. L. Rev.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol57/iss2/7