BUCK v.
274
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a writ of error to review
a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia, affirming
a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst County, by which the defendant in
error, the superintendent of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded,
was ordered to perform the operation of salpingectomy
upon Carrie Buck, the plaintiff in error, for the purpose of making her
sterile. 143
Carrie Buck is a feeble minded
white woman who was committed to the State Colony above mentioned in due
form. She is the daughter of a feeble
minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble
minded child. She was eighteen years old
at the time of the trial of her case in the Circuit Court, in the latter part
of 1924. An Act of Virginia, approved
March 20, 1924, recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of
society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental
defectives, under careful safeguard, &c.; that the sterilization may be
effected in males by vasectomy and in females by salpingectomy,
without serious pain or substantial danger to life; that the Commonwealth is
supporting in various institutions many defective persons who if now discharged
would become [*206] a menace but if incapable of procreating
might be discharged with safety and become self-supporting with benefit to
themselves and to society; and that experience has shown that heredity plays
an important part in the transmission of
insanity, imbecility, &c. The
statute then enacts that whenever the superintendent of certain institutions
including the above named State Colony shall be of opinion that it is for the
best interests of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care
should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation performed upon any
patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility, &c., on
complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the
patients from possible abuse.
The superintendent first presents
a petition to the special board of directors of his hospital or colony, stating
the facts and the grounds for his opinion, verified by affidavit. Notice of the petition and of the time and
place of the hearing in the institution is to be served upon the inmate, and
also upon his guardian, and if there is no guardian the superintendent is to
apply to the Circuit Court of the County to appoint one. If the inmate is a minor notice also is to be
given to his parents if any with a copy of the petition. The board is to see to it that the inmate may
attend the hearings if desired by him or his guardian. The evidence is all to be reduced to writing, and
after the board has made its order for or against the operation, [***1002]
the superintendent, or the inmate, or his guardian, may appeal to the
Circuit Court of the County. The Circuit
Court may consider the record of the board and the evidence before it and such
other admissible evidence as may be offered, and may affirm, revise, or reverse
the order of the board and enter such order as it deems just. Finally any party may apply to the Supreme
Court of Appeals, which, if it grants the appeal, is to hear the case upon the
record of the trial [*207] in the Circuit Court and may enter such order
as it thinks the Circuit Court should have
[**585] entered. 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 of law.
The attack is not upon the
procedure but upon the substantive law.
It seems to be contended that in no circumstances could such an order be
justified. It certainly is contended
that the order
cannot be justified upon the existing grounds.
The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck
"is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring,
likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to
her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by
her sterilization," and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the
legislature and the specific findings of the Court, obviously we cannot say as
matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the
result. We have seen more than once that
the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon
those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices,
often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being
swamped with incompetence. It is better
for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute
degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility,
society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their
kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination
is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v.
[*208]
But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied
generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the
institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional
arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that
is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all
within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so
far and so fast as its means allow. Of
course so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept
confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the
equality aimed at will be more nearly reached.
Judgment affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER dissents.