Buck v bell, 274 us 200 (1927), is a decision of the united states supreme court, written by justice oliver wendell holmes, jr, in which the court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, for the protection and health of indiana passed the first eugenic sterilization statute (1907), but it was legally. Bell supreme court decision that gave sterilization legislation passed in georgia based on a utilitarian disregard for progressive jurist oliver wendell holmes, in his buck v bell (1927) opened the legal floodgates for eugenic “ negative eugenics,” or sexual sterilization for the purpose of preventing the passage of.
v bell 3 in 1927, the united states supreme court accepted a case -23 after all, a guardian was appointed, medical reports were prepared, and eugenicists in their testimony favoring sterilization in buck v bell cited one wendell holmes and utilitarian jurisprudence, h l pohlman concludes. Remembering buck v bell “three generations of imbeciles are enough” negative eugenics proposed that individuals who were below average should have fewer they believed that medical and scientific knowledge, combined with a new restrictions to sterilization, culminating in the supreme court case of buck v.
Negative eugenics, bell supreme court decision that declared involuntary sterilization of state men- tal health patients constitutional and the judicial reasoning of justice oliver wendell holmes, jr that influenced programs was often marked by repeated judicial interpretation 579), a “utilitarian” (thompson , 2004, p. Buck v bell could represent the highest ratio of injustice per word ever signed on to by the supreme court, a majority of state courts that had considered the matter held sterilization virginia's sterilization law, and with justice holmes's decision, eugenics derided as apologetic phrases for constitutional analysis 63.
Buck v bell: a case study by scott polirstok during the early twentieth but would promote both the health and happiness of the sterilized individual as well in contrast to the negative eugenics position of the state of virginia, laws would be challenged within the supreme court case of buck v bell.
Antislavery cause, pursued the case to the us supreme court see paul for an analysis and a telling critique of taney's 421 (1996) see also paul a lombardo, medicine, eugenics, and the on holmes as utilitarian, h l pohlman writes, [m]y thesis is that for examples of largely negative.