Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta

EDPS 635
John Mueller
Amanda Medland

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta

Throughout history, many countries have decided that eugenics was the way of the future,
and Canada was not above this. The Sexual Sterilization Act (1928-1979) was created in order to
improve the quality of the human race within Canada, specifically Alberta and British Columbia
(Park & Radford, 2010). The belief was that prohibiting those with disabilities to procreate
would rid the country of deviants and those who were not seen as productive members of society.
As terminology over the years has made vast changes, for the purpose of this paper, the
following terms may be used interchangeably; mentally defective, unfit, feebleminded, moron,
imbecile, and nit-wit. These terms fit into todays classification of a developmental disability, but
also included several other diagnoses that do not fit into the category of todays cognitive delay.
Of those sterilized, were many children and teenagers who may or may not have met standards
for cognitive delays, but were altered in order to preserve the future of the human race. It was
believed that many were wrongfully submitted to procedures that violated their rights, and many
sought legal action years after the procedures were completed.
What is Sterilization?
Sterilization is used commonly to eliminate the chances of pregnancy for an individual,
and even today it is a chosen form of contraceptive for adults. The difference today is the consent
that accompanies the sterilization as well as the underlying drive for the sterilization, either a
personal desire not to produce children at all or not wanting to have more children. Sterilization
looks different for males and females, although the end goal is the same. For males, particularly
during times of institutionalization, sterilization was completed by an orchiectomy or vasectomy,
where as females received an oophorectomy or salpingectomy (Marshall, 2011). It appears that
different procedures were carried out for different reasons. A vasectomy severely reduces the

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

release of sperm through the removal of the vas deferens, creating improbabilities of
impregnating a woman; where as the more intrusive procedure of orchiectomy involves
removing the testicles completely (Thompson, 2012). The removal of the testicles (but leaving
the scrotum intact) was not only used to limit reproduction but also to curb any sexual behaviour
that the individual may be experiencing, aggressive or otherwise (Park & Radford, 2010). With a
reduced level of testosterone in the males body, it would allow for easier controlling of
behaviours if institutionalized. For women, a salpingectomy requires only a small incision in the
abdomen to provide access to remove the fallopian tube (Marshall, 2011). The more severe
procedure, the oophorectomy can be compared to castration and involves the complete removal
of the ovaries, resulting in a decrease in female hormones in the body (Park & Radford, 2010).
Hormonal imbalances pose the potential for other complications within a sterilized woman,
increasing the likelihood for depression, early menopause, and leading to decreased bone density
(Marshall, 2011). Even though there are multiple options for sterilization in order to limit
viability for offspring, the least intrusive options are more than adequate, leaving little to no need
to remove entire sexual organs for the purpose of sterilization (Park & Radford, 2010).
Hope for the Future
The foundation of the Sexual Sterilization Act may have been born out of good intentions
for the human race, but much like other eugenic practices seen in history, resulted in a large
infringement of human rights. Sir Francis Galton first used the term eugenics in 1883 to describe
how intervention in human heredity could improve the human race (Grekul, Krahn, & Odynak,
2004). In Canada, articles were being released advocating for sterilization of the unfit due to the
fact that the prevalence of these individuals seemed to be on the rise and it was believed that the
mental quality of the human race would be gravely affected (Park & Radford, 2010). Secondly,

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

because it was believed that the unfit were reproducing faster than those considered mentally fit,
it was necessary to ensure that the defective were not having children and to in turn to bred out
the unfit from the population (Grekul, Krahn, & Odynak, 2004). The hope was to eventually
eradicate the diagnosis of hereditary disorders, which at the time consisted of 75% of the causes
of feeble-mindedness, creating a stronger population free from mental deficiencies. The other
25% of the unfit population was as a result of alcoholism, drug addiction, mental overstrain, use
of cigarettes or training children as mediums (Grekul, 2008). Elimination of the feeble-minded
would then eventually eradicate the need for institutions, talks of inclusion, and the need for
school psychology as in time the students left would all be mentally fit. As a result, the Alberta
Sexual Sterilization Act was created in order to combat this problem of the increase in unfit
population (Park & Radford, 2010). The hope was to eliminate the reproduction of those deemed
defective as so (or not so) eloquently stated by the Vegreville Observer it is an established fact,
we believe, that nitwits, both male and female, are uncannily gifted with reproductive power and
the sum total of this reproduction is more nit-wits (Vegreville Observer 28 March, 1928 as cited
in Grekul, Krahn, & Odynak, 2004)
The Sexual Sterilization Act: Development, Criteria, and Decision Making Process
To expand on the concept that undesirable aspects of humans can be eliminated through
the prohibition of reproduction, Dr. Clarence Hincks, a professor of Psychiatry at the University
of Toronto and Director of the Canadian National Committee on Mental Hygiene (CNCMH)
began to research in Alberta (Grekul, 2011, Grekul, Krahn & Odynak, 2004). At a similar time,
feminists Nellie McClung and Emily Murphy were pitching the idea that sterilization of the unfit
was the only way to produce human thoroughbreds. They believed that the intelligent individuals
would use birth control and the unintelligent would not, so preventing them from reproducing

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

was the only way to preserve the species from succumbing to insanity, venereal disease,
tuberculosis and epilepsy (Western Report, 1995). In a similar set of beliefs, the CNCMH
believed it was their goal to prevent crime, unemployment and prostitution, all of which believed
to be related to feeble-mindedness (Grekul, Krahn, & Odynak, 2004). Despite the overall
opinion that we as a human race needed to take power into our own hands in order to maintain
the quality of our future generations, there were others who did not agree. The British Medical
Journal released an article outlining their beliefs that people considered defective may have the
potential to be integrated into the community with limited supervision. They also believed that if
Alberta decided to pass the act to sterilize mentally defective individuals, that the experiment
was unnecessary and to be considered a mistake (The British Medical Journal, 1928).
Regardless, in March 1928 the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta was passed, allowing
sterilization of patients in mental health institutes who were eligible for discharge (Grekul,
2008). The Sexual Sterilization Act initially required consent for individuals to be sterilized if
they met criteria for discharge and had an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) less than 70 (Torrence,
1997). Despite the IQ criterion being set at 70, this was often open to wide interpretations and it
was found that almost 10% of individuals considered mentally defective tested with an IQ score
of 70 or above (Grekul, 2008). It was also believed that past cognitive measures were less
reliable for individuals with developmental delays and would produce a range of 10-19 IQ points
for an individual, making the results unreliable as a deciding factor for sterilization (Grekul,
2011). In addition to having a low IQ the Board would consider if a) their mental disease would
be passed onto any possible children, or b) involved risk of mental injury to the patient or
offspring (McWhirter & Weijer, 1969). This meant that individuals who were psychotic or
mentally defective were added into the list of applicable criteria.

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

One year after the Act was passed, The Eugenics Board of Alberta developed with four
members responsible for making the decision of eligibility and suitability for sterilization, one of
which was John MacEachran who was chairman for almost 40 years (Grekul, 2008; Torrance,
1997). Within the first decade in action, the Board would spend approximately 15 minutes per
case to decide if the patient should be sterilized or not (Grekul, 2008). These meetings would
occur between six to eight times per year, during which they would review 80-120 cases and
would recommend sterilization for 60-80 individuals (Western Report, 1995). In order to receive
the sterilization recommendation, a brief interview would occur and then the four members
would unanimously decide if they were either passed clear patient consent required or did
not pass (Grekul, 2008). It was within the right of the institutions to refer any individual who
had been receiving treatment or observation at their clinic to refer them to the Board, and many
of those approved for sterilization were for the usual reasons, i.e. mental defectiveness (Park &
Radford, 2010).
By 1937, the board acknowledged that a new set of rules were needed in order to pass
individuals for sterilization, as consent was not being received for many who were considered
mentally defective (Grekul, Krahn, & Odynak, 2004). At this time consent was not required as
long as the patient was classified as mentally defective (Park & Radford, 2010). Additionally, the
requirement of potential discharge and integration into the community was lifted, and cases were
approved even with no likelihood of discharge in the foreseeable future (MacLean &
Kibblewhite, 1937).
By 1942 additional cases were added on to expand the list of qualifying disabilities or
qualities in which sterilization was approved for. One of which was Huntingtons Chorea. Even
before consent was not needed to sterilize, Alberta deemed that it was not needed for those

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

affected (Park & Radford, 2010). This is an interesting decision, since the age of onset for this
disease is often when the individual passes the age of reproduction (late 50s), so sterilization
would have to occur to offspring before they reproduce (McWhirter & Weijer, 1969). Individuals
who had neurosyphilis and epilepsy were also starting to be approved for sterilization (Park &
Radford, 2010). At this time, the board now spent only approximately 7 minutes per case
assessing whether sterilization was suitable (Grekul, 2011).
In 1955 a blanket statement was included in the intake for admission to the Provincial
Training Schools (PTS) stating I understand that in accordance with the Alberta statutes my
child will be presented to the provincial eugenics board and that if they deem it advisable he will
subsequently be sterilized (Grekul, 2011), removing any influence of parents whose children
were in need of care outside of their homes. This blanket consent and the lack of consent needed
for individuals deemed mentally defective influenced the large numbers of adolescents and
young adults who were sterilized (Grekul, 2008).
By the 1960s and 70s there was an increase in time spent reviewing each case
(averaging 16-17 minutes) as cognitive testing was being used more extensively, so review of
results required more time (Grekul, 2011). Dr. Blair, professor of psychology at the University of
Calgary, believed that sterilizations were being conducted hastily, with little information about
the individuals, and in past approved on patients who had potentially curable diseases (Nagel,
1972). This study aided in the movement to withdraw the Sexual Sterilization Act.
When the Conservative Government was elected the act reconsidered, and they made the
first order of business to repeal the Sexual Sterilization Act (Grekul, 2008). At the time of
termination of the act, the following reasons had been given for approval of sterilization: Danger
of transmission of a mental disability to children, being incapable of intelligible parenthood,

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

family history of deficiency, nervousness or insanity, epileptic hemiplegic imbecile who is a risk
to others, uncontrolled sexual interest or activities, physical handicap, or those who go to visit
family over holidays during which there is an increased possibility of procreation (McWhirter &
Weijer, 1969). In total, between the years of 1929 to 1972 over 2800 Albertans were sterilized
and many of these were unaware or did not give consent (Grekul, Krahn & Odynak, 2004). With
the repeal of this act, a new act was launched stating that sterilization would occur based only on
the decision of a patient and their doctor (Nagel, 1972). If the patient was not considered
competent to consent, the legal guardian could give consent, and other contraceptives were
readily offered prior to considering sterilization (Nagel, 1972).
Statistics
Throughout the 40 odd years that Alberta practiced sterilization, 4739 individuals were
presented to the eugenics board (Park & Radford, 2010). For those presented, it was indicated
that 99% of the cases were recommended for sterilization, and the additional 1% received a
deferred decision (Grekul, Krahn, & Odynak, 2004). This means the Alberta Eugenics Board
never gave a solid no answer when assessing an individuals for sterilization. In total, 2832
cases were actually sterilized by the end of the Sterilization Act in 1979 (Park & Radford, 2010).
The board also seemed more motivated to complete sterilization on those deemed mentally
defective rather than those seen as psychotic. Only 15-21% of individuals labeled psychotic
were subjected to the operation where as 81-85% of those labeled mentally defective were
successfully sterilized (Park & Radford, 2010). In addition, it was more common for children to
be deemed mentally defective, with 93% of children under 14 and 82% of teenagers (aged 15-18)
presented to the board, in comparison to 48% of young adults (Grekul, Krahn, & Odynak, 2004).
When other countries were putting a stop to (or at least starting to decline) their sterilizations and

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

eugenics movements, Alberta saw the 1950s and 1960s as the peak years of sterilization
(Grekul, 2008).
Despite the introduction of sterilization in Canada in 1928, many other countries had or
were engaging in their own eugenics prior to this. As early as 1907 states such as Indiana were
passing compulsory sterilization laws for individuals who were mentally disabled (Park &
Radford, 2010). Despite the prior utilization of sterilization within the United States of America
(USA), Albertas rates were continuously higher than those in USA. Grekul et al. (2004)
compiled comparisons and the following information was found between the Alberta Eugenics
movement and the sterilizations completed in USA. In the 1930s sterilization were completed at
a rate of 2.05 per 100,000 (increased from 0.74 in the 1920s) while Albertas rate was more than
four times as high at 9.05 per 100,000. Throughout the Albertas Eugenics Act, it maintained
higher rates of sterilization than USA consistently. In the 1940s Alberta and USA had rates of
6.21 and 1.68 per 100,000 respectively. In the 1950s Alberta maintained their rate at 6.43 per
100,000 and by the 1960s the USA had lost its momentum while Alberta continue to sterilize
individuals into the 1970s. The presentation of these individuals for consideration appears to
have come from several main sources, termed as feeder institutions, of which the staff appeared
to greatly buy into the idea of sexual sterilization for the individuals within their care.
Feeder institutions
In the beginning of the sterilization movement, institutions consisting of adults with
mental illnesses, such as those in Oliver, Ponoka, and Edmonton, were the primary contributors
to the presentation of individuals for sterilization (Grekul, 2008) Overall, these hospitals made
up approximately 75% of the cases presented before the board (Grekul, Krahn, & Odynak,
2004). However, as the sterilization efforts progressed, the PTS and Deerhome in Red Deer

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

10

started to refer their patients as well (Park & Radford, 2010). These schools supported and
housed children and teenagers who were considered mentally defective, but as can be seen below
in case reports of sterilized individuals there were often other things that contributed to their
enrollment in these homes other than their mental competence (Grekul, 2008). The remainder
25% of cases presented to the board was of children or teenagers (Grekul, Krahn, & Odynak,
2004) and the emphasis on sterilization was switched in the 1950s from adults to children.
Children and Teenagers
Several subgroups of the population were seen to be overrepresented in the cases of
sterilization over the years, with teenagers being one of them (Grekul, 2008). Despite consisting
of only 10% of the provincial population, increased rates of sterilization were seen (Grekul,
Krahn, & Odynak, 2004). Although stated above that 25% of cases presented for sterilization
were of children and teenagers (typically 15 and under), others believe this prevalence could be
as much as 38% (Grekul 2011). Up until 1937, consent was needed for sterilization, but with the
amendment that stated that consent was no longer needed for those deemed mentally defective,
there was an increase in diagnoses of children as such (Grekul, 2008). This made the shocking
jump between consent rates in teenagers and adults, with 1% of PTS referred sterilizations
receiving consent in comparison to 59% of the cases presented from the adult hospitals (Grekul,
Krahn, & Odynak, 2004).
Prior to 1955, The Alberta Eugenics Board believed that the PTS should wait until the
children reached adolescence before they were presented for consideration. Despite this, the
Board and PTS admittance panel forced consent from parents upon admittance to the schools for
sterilization, even though their child may not fall within the Sterilization criteria (Grekul, Krahn,
& Odynak, 2004). Once again, the intentions of the board to wait until adolescence fell short and

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

11

many of the PTS sterilizations were approved and were completed at ages before the onset of
puberty (McWhirter & Weijer, 1969). Despite the requirement of having a less than 70 IQ, the
label of mentally defective was seen to have been given unjustly to many as numerous requests
and appeals were made by articulate adults who had been sterilized in their youth (McWhirter &
Weijer, 1969). Many sterilizations occurred at such a young age that many other factors had the
potential to influence the students functioning level, resulting in sterilizations of individuals who
were not unfit in the cognitive sense, despite being labeled as such.
Case Reports of Individuals Sterilized
The most notorious case of wrongful sterilization to date is that of Leilani Muir, which
will be covered later on, although her story is not one that is uncommon among those sterilized.
Park & Radford (2010) took the care and time to analyze the case files of those who were
presented to the Alberta Eugenics Board, of which many of these examples were taken from.
Through the clinical reports, test results, diagnoses and history gained insight into many children
and adults who were subjected to sterilization and the basis for the decision to do so.
Questionable Sterilizations. Despite the criteria developed to determine eligibility for
sterilization, there seemed to be grey areas where the cases had to be decided on by applying a
loose definition of the criteria, which may have resulted in many questionable sterilization
approvals. When we look at how we treat individuals with developmental delays today, we strive
to give them a life as functional and typical as they are capable of, but in the past their struggles
were seen as a deficit and sterilization was approved solely due to four board members opinions
of how their lives should be carried out. One case of a teenaged girl shows that once the patient
was labeled, there was little else considered. With her parents consent, she was sterilized on the
basis that she was considered mentally defective and it was believed that her mental disability

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

12

would be inherited, yet she was able to pass her grade 12 exams (McWhirter & Weijer, 1969).
Once the term moron or imbecile was labeled to an individual, this seemed to be the only thing
needed for sterilization regardless if there was hope for release from the institutions. For those
who qualified for release into the community, it seems as if sterilization was the last criteria in
order to be released. A 16 year old male who was diagnosed as a high grade moron was to be
released as he showed promise of being able to self-support, yet it was still required that he be
sterilized before he was released (Park & Radford, 2010). A second teenager (15, female) was
reported as having a happy disposition, and with sterilization would be released from the facility.
It was not uncommon for individuals living in the hospitals and schools to have limited
parental involvement or to have been considered a ward of the state. The lack of parental
guardianship gave the board one more reason to support why sterilization was needed. In the
case of a 17-year-old girl living in the PTS, she was sterilized because she was considered easily
led, and had no parents to care for her. Another teenager, (16-female) was sterilized due to this
and to the fact that she showed interest in males and was not capable of motherhood. Another
girl, aged 12 was presented to the board due to the face that she was in need of care and custody.
This child had been neglected and was impulsive and emotionally unstable as a result, so all of
this paired with the fact that she had an interest in the opposite sex led her to be sterilized at age
13.
For those living in the institutions, it appeared that any interest in the opposite sex was
considered unacceptable and would provide support to the decision to sterilize. A 19-year-old
woman, labeled as a moron, showed a normal interest in males, so this paired with her
uncooperative mood and feelings of frustration guided the decision to sterilize. Another severe
case can be seen with a 17-year-old man who was diagnosed as a mongolian imbecile. He was

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

13

reported to have uncontrollable sexual tendencies, having other boys masturbate him and he had
sodomized several boys. The PTS refused him admission until an orchidectomy was completed
to reduce his sexual tendencies.
This was not the only case where behaviour seemed to drive the choice of sterilization. A
13-year-old female presented as loud and disobedient and was diagnosed as an imbecile. She was
often kicking, pinching, and biting others, as well as would frequently rock back and forth. The
files indicate that the rocking could be in order to masturbate, and she was sterilized in order to
reduce this behaviour. In the case of an imbecilic 16-year-old male, a orchidectomy was
recommended due to the fact that he had engaged in some form of sexual activity with another
mentally defective girl, and this was encouraged to curb his uncontrollable behaviour. If the
orchidectomy was denied, at minimum a vasectomy would be required.
Sterilization was also completed regardless of the patients interest in sexual activities.
Despite having little interesting in the opposite sex, an 18-year-old woman was sterilized due to
the fact that she was willing, obliging and pleasant within her job to the males as she worked
(Park & Radford, 2010). Another case can be seen with a 14-year-old girl who was sexually
assaulted by a soldier. Due to this and the fact that she would chat with anyone who was willing
resulted in a unanimous decision to sterilize at age 17 to prevent her passing on her mental
deficiencies.
Another child was physically handicapped, experienced epileptic seizures and was shown
to be intellectually deficient. This sterilization was completed because the child presented
incapable of parenthood. With a physical and mental handicap, it is a wonder if the child would
even be a concern for procreation. One final man, Ken Nelson who engaged in the lawsuit

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

14

initiated by Leilani Muir, was sterilized at the age of 13 due to the fact that he had mild cerebral
palsy (Woodard, 1998). From what we know today, CP is not heredity, so has no risk of being
passed onto children, and in this mans case was not coupled with any other disabilities, so he
would have rated with normal intelligence.
Diagnosis Based on Criminality. Even though criminality is an action that is not desirable, the
eugenics board seemed to pass individuals based on minor acts or being incarcerated unjustly. A
13-year-old female was sterilized due the fact that she experienced staring spells and when she
was not at school, she would steal from home and shops. Most of her stolen items would be food.
The reports identified that she showed a definite interest in the opposite sex. Another female
aged 18, worked fulltime as a domestic as well as in a hospital. She was apparently a sensitive
shy woman but was put in jail for assault with a knife. Yet when questioned it came out that the
boy who was stabbed was trying to do things with her. It was obvious to the Eugenics board
that the danger for her mental deficiencies or delinquencies to be passed on was too high, so
sterilization was in order. Whether to feed a basic desire or to protect ones selves from sexual
advances, neither of these women could be considered criminals by todays terms but their
criminality influenced the sterilization decision made.
Diagnosis Based on Family History. Some of the children were passed for sterilization due to
no fault of their own, but as a result of their families or their situation. One such girl, aged 14,
was admitted to the PTS due to the fact that her father would go on drinking and sex benders
upon release from the army. It took less than a year for the board to pass her for sterilization.
Another girl was sterilized at age 15 simply due to the fact that her family was dependent and
relied on mothers allowance and relief for income. Another 14-year-old girl was also diagnosed
as mentally deficient and due to the fact that her family was hard up, her mental capacity and

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

15

family background, sterilization to prevent pregnancy was completed. A third 14-year-old girl
was sterilized because she was of Indian blood, experienced severe neglect and was sexually
assaulted six times by her stepfather. The main focus in the decisions made surrounding these
girls appears to have little to do with their mental capacity, and more so to reduce the likelihood
that other factors would poison the population, such as low income, or the promiscuity that was
interpreted by allowing sexual acts to be forced on her at a young age.
Muir Lawsuit. Possibly the most commonly heard of case was that of Leilani Muir, who fought
against the Alberta government for wrongful sterilization as a young teenager in the 1950s. Her
case won based on the fact that the law in place at that time was violated and the standards
outlined in the Sterilization Act was not followed correctly (Woodard, 1998). When admitted to
the PTS, Leilani was a victim of abuse and neglect and her mother embellished stories in order to
make her seem disabled to gain access to the school (Western Report, 1996). Leilanis mother
abandoned her at the PTS and the 11-year-old pre-teen was left to grow up in the institute. Soon
after admission she was administered an IQ test, which Leilani scored a 64 (Woodard, 1998). By
todays standards would rank her in the Extremely Low range, supporting severe mental
deficiency (Woodard, 1998). This IQ would stay with her and guide the decision to sterilize her
at age 14 in order to prohibit her genetics to continue through procreation. Despite the
recommendation for her to be tested at a later date before sterilization, Dr. L.I. le Vann, the
director of the institution decided she was a moron and her fallopian tubes were removed
(Western Report, 1995). As an adult, Leilani provided evidence that her IQ was actually in the
Average range, and launched actions for wrongful sterilization (Torrance, 1997). The decision to
sterilize was based on a careless IQ that was gathered by a child who was abused, scared and
malnourished, not a mentally deficient child (Western Report, 1995). As a woman in her

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

16

adulthood with average mental abilities, a human right is to be able to have children if desired.
As a result of the sterilization, Leilani was not only unable to have children, but due to her life
living in a mental institute she was not be eligible to adopt, eliminating any hope for her to be a
mother (Western Report, 1995). Muirs case was one of improper sterilization, but was not the
only instance. At the same time as Muir, 23 other claimants were also involved in the lawsuit for
sexual abuse as well as some for harvesting organs for research (Woodard, 1998).
Conclusion
Many individuals believed that sterilization of the mentally unfit was the only way to
ensure that the quality of the human race was maintained. With the Sexual Sterilization Act, the
institutions presented many cases of individuals who they felt were not fit to parent or who
would pass on their deficiencies to their children. Despite releasing a set of criteria in order to
determine who would be approved for sterilization, there was a number of alterations to this and
at times the criteria was used as a rough guideline. Individuals who had curable diseases,
Average IQs or illnesses that posed no threat genetically were sterilized based on the decision of
only four men. Years after the repeal of the Sexual Sterilization Act, we see individuals fighting
for retribution for their losses, as those wrongfully sterilized have felt lifelong affects based on a
decision that they were not given a chance to consent to. Going forward we can only learn from
this mistake and instead of trying to eliminate those who function differently, find a way for
inclusion within our society.

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

17

References
The British Medical Journal (1928). Sterilization of the feeble-minded in Alberta. The British
Medical Journal, 1 (3511), 680.
Grekul, J. (2008). Sterilization in Alberta, 1928 to 1072: gender matters. Canadian Sociological
Association, 45(3), 247-266
Grekul, J. (2011). A well-oiled machine: Albertas eugenics program, 1928-1972. Alberta
History, 16-23.
Grekul, J., Krahn, H., & Odynak, D. (2004). Sterilizing the feeble-minded: eugenics in Alberta
Aanada, 1929-1972. Journal of Historical Sociology, 17 (4), 358-384.
MacLean, R.R., & Kibblewhite, E.J. (1937). Sexual sterilization in Alberta: eight years
experience, 1929 to May 41, 1937. Canadian Public Health Association, 28(12) 587-590.
Marshall, S. (2011). Fallopian tube procedures for infertility. In Wed MD. Retrieved from
http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/fallopian-tube-procedures-forinfertility
McWhirter, K.G., & Weijer, J. (1969). The Alberta sterilization act: a genetic critique. University
of Toronto Law Journal, 19, 424-436.
Nagel, W. (1972). Alberta writes new act to cover sterilization of mentally deficient. C.M.A.
Journal, 106, 930-931.
Park, D.C. & Radford, J.P. (1998). From the case files: reconstructing a history of involuntary
sterilization. Disability & Society, 13(3), 317-342.
Thompson, E. G. (2012). Orchiectomy for prostate cancer. In Web MD. Retrieved from
http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/orchiectomy-surgery

Running head: SEXUAL STERILIZATION

18

Torrance, K. (1997). The sterilization of history: psychology profs at the university of Alberta
expunge the memory, though not the money, of the founder of their department. Alberta
Report, 24(47), 32-33.
Western Report (1995). No end to doing good: a eugenics lawsuit highlights seven sinister
decades of medically selecting who should live and who wont (Leilani Muir case).
Western Report 10 (24), 38-41.
Western Report (1996). One mental defective proves she isnt (Leilani Muir case, Alberta.
Western Report, 11(4), 34.
Woodard, J., (1998). The first batch of wrongful sterilization lawsuits is set for trial. Alberta
Report, 25(7), 43-44