Georgetown Law Journal
November, 2003
Westlaw ©2003 cite as 92 GEO L.J. 129 reprinted with permission of the author

Note

*129 WHO DECIDES? GENITAL-NORMALIZING SURGERY ON INTERSEXED INFANTS
Alyssa Connell Lareau [FNa1]

page 19

S.W.2d 145, 146 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969) (kidney donation from incompetent adult sibling); Little v. Little, 576 S.W.2d 493, 494 (Tex. Ct. App. 1979) (kidney transplant)).

[FN96]. See id. at 58.

[FN97]. See Jennifer K. Robbennolt et al., Advancing the Rights of Children and Adolescents To Be Altruistic: Bone Marrow Donation by Minors, 9 J.L. & HEALTH 213, 222-23 (1994-95) (stating that "courts look to evidence of the psychological impact on the minor of donating versus not donating" and assess "whether the psychological outcome of the donation will be positive and, if so, whether such a beneficial psychological result outweighs any physical risks").

[FN98]. Compare Little, 576 S.W.2d at 498 (holding that donation allowed because "testimony in this case conclusively establishes the existence of a close relationship between [siblings], a genuine concern by each for the welfare of the other and, at the very least, an awareness by [potential donor] of the nature of [potential donee's] plight and an awareness of the fact that she is in a position to ameliorate [his] burden"), with Curran, 566 N.E.2d at 1345 (holding that procedure not allowed in part because "it is not in the best interests of either [potential donors] to undergo the proposed bone marrow harvesting procedure in the absence of an existing, close relationship with the recipient [half-sibling]").

[FN99]. See supra note 52 and accompanying text.

[FN100]. See supra Part I.B.

[FN101]. See supra notes 60-62 and accompanying text.

[FN102]. See Little, 576 S.W.2d at 498 (distinguishing cases where permission for organ donation was refused based on a "lack of evidence" or "no mention of" any benefit to the potential donor).

[FN103]. See id.

[FN104]. In Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, the Supreme Court noted that:
Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty.
316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

[FN105]. See Richard A. Estacio, Comment, Sterilization of the Mentally Disabled in Pennsylvania: Three Generations Without Legislative Guidance Are Enough, 92 DICK. L. REV. 409, 429 & n.115 (1988) (citing Hathaway v. Worchester City Hosp., 475 F.2d 701 (1st Cir. 1973); Ruby v. Massey, 452 F. Supp. 361 (D. Conn. 1978); North Carolina Ass'n for Retarded Children v. North Carolina, 420 F. Supp. 451 (M.D.N.C. 1976); Relf v. Weinberger, 372 F. Supp. 1196 (D.D.C. 1974); In re Tulley, 146 Cal. Rptr. 266 (Ct. App. 1978); In re M.K.R., 515 S.W.2d 467 (Mo. 1974); In re Grady, 426 A.2d 467 (N.J. 1981); Ponter v. Ponter, 342 A.2d 574 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1975); In re Hayes, 608 P.2d 635 (Wash. 1980)).

<<     previous 19/22 next     >>