In re Main
| Decision Date | 14 February 1933 |
| Docket Number | 23995. |
| Citation | 19 P.2d 153,162 Okla. 65,1933 OK 91 |
| Parties | In re MAIN. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Article 3, ch. 26, Sess. Laws 1931 (St. 1931, §§ 5039-5044) providing for sexual sterilization by vasectomy and salpingectomy of certain patients of state institutions who are afflicted with hereditary insanity that is recurrent is (a) not violative of section 1, art. 4, Constitution of Oklahoma, but comes within the provisions of section 1, art 7, Constitution of Oklahoma, relative to the vesting of judicial power in boards. (b) The act is not violative of section 7, art. 2, Constitution, in that it does not deprive any person of life nor a part thereof without due process of law. (c) Nor is it violative of section 2, art. 2 Constitution. (d) The act makes provision for due process of law, and compliance was had with those provisions in the case at bar.
Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; George W. Clark, Judge.
Proceeding for an order authorizing the sterilization of Samuel W. Main. From a judgment affirming an order of the State Board of Public Affairs authorizing sterilization, Samuel W. Main, by his guardian, Richard H. Cloyd, appeals.
Affirmed.
Richard H. Cloyd, of Norman, for appellant.
J Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Jesse L. Ballard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Samuel W. Main, by his guardian, Richard H. Cloyd, appeals from a judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county, affirming an order of the State Board of Public Affairs, made and entered May 27, 1932, authorizing and directing Dr. D. W. Griffin, superintendent of the Central Oklahoma State Hospital of Norman, Okl. (a state hospital for insane) to have performed an operation of vasectomy upon Samuel W. Main, so as to render the said Samuel W. Main sexually sterile.
These proceedings were pursuant to the provisions of article 3, ch. 26, Sess. Laws 1931, sections 5039-5044, Okl. Stats. 1931.
This act provides for sexual sterilization by vasectomy and salpingectomy of certain patients in state institutions for the insane.
Its application is limited to inmates of state institutions who are afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that are recurrent, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness, or epilepsy, and to males under the age of 65 and females under the age of 47 years, and who are about to be discharged from such institutions. A condition precedent to the sterilization provided by the act is an affirmative finding, by the State Board of Public Affairs, based upon a hearing, that the inmate sought to be sexually sterilized is afflicted with an hereditary form of insanity that is recurrent, or that he is an idiot, imbecile, feeble-minded or epileptic, "and by the laws of heredity is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate off-spring likewise afflicted," and that the inmate may be sexually sterilized without detriment to his or her general health, and "that the welfare of the patient and of society will be promoted by such sterilization."
The procedure provided by the act permits the superintendent of such a state institution to petition the State Board of Public Affairs, "stating the facts of the case and the grounds of his opinion, verified by his affidavit to the best of his knowledge and belief, and praying that an order may be entered by said board requiring him to perform, or have performed by some competent physician to be designated by him in his said petition or by said board in its order, upon the inmate of his institution named in such petition, the operation of vasectomy, if upon a male, and of salpingectomy if upon a female." St. 1931,§ 5040.
A copy of the petition is required to be served upon the inmate therein named; likewise written ten days' notice designating the time and place of hearing in the institution named in the petition is required to be served upon the inmate. A copy of the said petition and notice is required to be served upon the legal guardian of the inmate, and "if, there be no such guardian or none such be known to the said superintendent, then the said superintendent shall apply to the county court of the county where the domicile of said patient is, for the appointment of a guardian for said patient, which judge, by a proper order, shall appoint some suitable person to act as said guardian for said patient during and for the purposes of the proceedings under this Act, to defend the rights and interests of said patient."
Provision is made, in event the patient is not an adult, but has known living parent or parents, for service of a copy of the petition and notice upon them.
The State Board of Public Affairs is required by the act to see to it that the inmate has the privilege of attending the hearings "if desired by him or if requested by his guardian or parent. * * *"
The duty of preservation of all records and evidence offered at such hearings is enjoined upon the State Board of Public Affairs, and any party to the proceedings "shall have the right to be represented by counsel at such hearings."
After the State Board of Public Affairs has made its order for or against such sterilization, the superintendent, or the inmate, or his or her guardian, parent, or next friend, may appeal "to the district court of the county where the domicile of said patient is." St. 1931, § 5041.
The district court in determining the appeal may "consider the record of said proceedings before the Board of Affairs, including the evidence, together with such other legal evidence as the court may consider pertinent and proper," and upon such appeal the said district court "may affirm, revise, or reverse the orders of said board appealed from, and may enter such order as it deems just and right and which it shall certify to the Board of Affairs."
An appeal is provided to the Supreme Court, and pending appeals the proceedings are stayed by the act.
This act (1931) is substantially the same as the Virginia Act (Acts 1924, c. 394) which preceded it. The Virginia Act was sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States (May 2, 1927) in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584, 585, 71 L.Ed. 1000; with reference to the Virginia Act, the Supreme Court of the United States said: "There can be no doubt that so far as procedure is concerned the rights of the patient are most carefully considered, and as every step in this case was taken in scrupulous compliance with the statute and after months of observation, there is no doubt that in that respect the plaintiff in error has had due process at law."
In the case at bar it is established beyond dispute that Samuel W. Main was received at the Central Oklahoma State Hospital, located at Norman, on January 4, 1932, upon commitment issued after a sanity hearing held on that date in the county court of Oklahoma county; that he is approximately thirty-nine years of age and has a wife and four children; that his wife at the time of hearing was pregnant; that prior to his commitment to the named state institution, he had been committed to state institutions of like character located at Osawatomie, Kan., and Patton, Cal. He was afflicted with an hereditary form of insanity that is recurrent. He was about to be discharged from the Central Oklahoma State Hospital.
The procedure provided by the act liberally afforded the patient consideration and protection of his rights, and in the case at bar there has been a scrupulous compliance with the provisions of the act, so that appellee has been accorded due process of law.
The appellant contends on this appeal that the lower court erred in finding that an operation of vasectomy and the resultant sterilization of Main would be without detriment to his general health.
The objection goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of the evidence. It is in effect that the doctors who testified that such an operation on Main would be beneficial rather than detrimental to his general health had not performed such an operation, but learned and scientific men can virtually know things without having experienced them.
In the case of Buck v. Bell, 143 Va. 310, 130 S.E. 516 517, 51 A. L. R. 855, affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, it was said, with regard to evidence therein presented: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial