Sterilization of men with intellectual disabilities: whose best interest is it anyway?

This article examines the ethical and legal issues raised by the involuntary sterilization of men with intellectual disability. It traces how, after the demise of eugenic reasoning, social policies of normalization and care in the community provided new justifications for sterilizations. It also examines how, ironically, modern arguments about promoting male sexual freedom have come to be used as a justification to sterilize. Through examination of recent cases on the sterilization of men with intellectual disabilities, this article explores the legal framework of the ‘best interests’ test and the ‘least restrictive alternative’ provisions in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and argues that sterilization is usually unnecessary, disproportionate and not the least restrictive option. It also argues that the least restrictive alternative provisions contained in the 2005 Act need to be more rigorously applied