Acknowledgements endorsements Background methodology executive Summary 11 Recommendations 22 Article — general obligations 38

Non-Therapeutic Sterilisation

405. 
     Girls and women with disability are particularly subjected to the practice of non therapeutic sterilisation in Australia and breaches of their rights under Articles 6, 15, 16, 17 and 23 of the CRPD.
     
406. 
     The ongoing practice of non-therapeutic sterilisation has been identified as a form of torture by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,⁴¹⁹ and as a form of violence by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC Committee).⁴²⁰ Both the CRC Committee and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have made recommendations to Australia about prohibitions on non-therapeutic sterilisation.⁴²¹ This has been followed by similar recommendations from the Human Rights Council as an outcome of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Australia.⁴²²
     
407. 
     Australia has partly accepted the UPR recommendation and included the issue in its draft National Human Rights Action Plan. However, the action included in the draft Action Plan is under a section relating to ‘legal capacity’, and emphasises work with State and Territory Governments to improve laws and practices governing sterilisation. This raises concerns that the substance of the UPR recommendations and the comprehensive law reform required to protect against this human rights violation will not be addressed.
     

Case Study

In 2010, the Family Court of Australia gave permission for a hysterectomy to be performed on an 11 year old girl who has Retts syndrome and is unable to communicate. The girl started menstruating at the age of 9 and it was argued that her menstruation cycles induced epileptic fits. The decision of the Court grants the girl’s parents authority to proceed with the sterilisation procedure on their daughter.⁴²³ The Court did not provide for independent human rights or advocacy advice or evidence on this matter. Evidence provided to the Court included matters relating to the benefit the procedure would have for the caring role of the mother, and for the pain and heaviness of the girl’s menstrual period. The presiding justice in this case said the procedure was “urgent and necessary...A. is never going to have a normal teenage and adult life. A fundamental consideration is the risks to Angela’s life as well as her general health”.⁴²⁴