Wow, you actually opened my eyes to a subject in that I did not know exist, and now unto research am finding out massive complexities regarding this issue and about of sterilization came about in the first place. It's really interesting.
So from what I pulled is
The American Academy of Pediatrics in whom basically states the main article “Sterilization of Women Who Are Mentally Handicapped,” published in 1990, indicates the lines,
"3. When sterilization or pharmacological control of menses is chosen after the appropriate informed deliberations and attempts at obtaining consent, the pediatrician should always advocate the least permanent and intrusive methodology consistent with lowest risk for the patient. Present and future research and clinical trials may very well make newer forms of chemical contraception or pharmacologic amenorrhea preferable to surgical sterilization.
4. Even if satisfactory informed consent cannot be provided by the patient, all efforts must be made to communicate the procedure and intent of the planned intervention to the patient; estimations of the patient's ability to comprehend and participate in the decision-making process should be done by personnel who are familiar with the individual patient and who are experienced in communication with persons with diminished mental capacity."
to an updated version in 1999, in who's abstract reads,
"Sterilization of persons with developmental disabilities has often been performed without appropriate regard for their decision-making capacities, abilities to care for children, feelings, or interests. In addition, sterilization sometimes has been performed with the mistaken belief that it will prevent expressions of sexuality, diminish the chances of sexual exploitation, or reduce the likelihood of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases. A decision to pursue sterilization of someone with developmental disabilities requires a careful assessment of the individual's capacity to make decisions, the consequences of reproduction for the person and any child that might be born, the alternative means available to address the consequences of sexual maturation, and the applicable local, state, and federal laws. Pediatricians can facilitate good decision-making by raising these issues at the onset of puberty."
I skimmed over both articles and the main ideas and essentially what we have are facts that,
a) Sterilization does not apply to anyone over a minor-age, and such reproductive health, minus the idea of "human-rights", will be under in whom the parent can make decisions for the child base on the lack of capacity for the retard to make his or her own decisions. If it is the "decision" making that primarily interests you, the law dictates physicians need to make a sensible decision over a complex issue that the retard can't make decisions on his/her own, but too also make every effort possible to ensure the retard understands what is happening. This logic is flawless in the eyes of the recent case of
Brandon Raub in which extreme circumstances render the professional opinion someone was not able to make his or her own decisions.
It basically makes a context in which a mentally-retarded person is stripped of a decision based on cognition, the same as hospitalization of those under the influence of drugs in whom "can't make own decisions."
b) The 1999 article makes its acknowledgement of the previous rendition did not acknowledge the patients capacity for understanding the procedure, and such further additional lines were added under paragraph, "Interests of Those who May Produce."
The actual human-rights case was in 1942 in which
"US Supreme Court declared human procreation to be a fundamental right, prompting major changes in the legal landscape.6 Obtaining authorization to sterilize individuals, including those with developmental disabilities, became substantially more difficult, if not prohibited in some jurisdictions."
As I did more research, the case of
Skinner vs Oklahoma basically set itself as precedent as other states adopted similar laws based on
"eugenics: weeding out those unfit for life." and if I am to make a very general statement about those being forced against their will of sterilization, then I would be setting a precedent that I'm a doctor and should know best whether or not a patient may be sterilized. There's no way liberal standards are in practice for clinicians in deciding this, and even then the consent of the parents is always mandatory and multiple parties will have been held responsible for any wrong doing when the choice of sterilization is a medical decision, something which we are not trained to do.
