Disability: the place of judgement in a world of fact.

Ways of viewing disability, of developing research questions, of interpreting research results, of justifying research methodology, and of putting policies and programmes in place are as much about ideology as they are about fact. It is important to recognize how significant this is to research generally and to the field of intellectual disability in particular. The roots of scientific and socio-economic justification for the allocation of research funding, and of political (or state) action based on research findings can be found in identifiable and shifting ideological frameworks. Therefore, to understand the field, it is useful to explore the social and scientific formulations of disability which underpin the research agenda, and the ways of knowing disability.

Sterilization.

PIP: The history of sterilization in North America has included enactment of laws in 37 U. S. states and 2 Canadian provinces allowing the procedure to be performed to eliminate undesirable, genetically-transmitted traits. These eugenic laws applied to any of the following categories of persons: mentally regarded, mentally ill, epileptic, criminal, alcoholic, or poor people. Pressure from geneticists, lawyers, and others concerned with the implications of such laws, led to their repeal in many places. Noneugenic and nontherapeutic sterilization is today a recognized medical practice. Legally, such procedures must meet the following criteria: 1) informed consent; 2) individual benefit; and 3) performance with reasonable care and skill. If these criteria are met, doctors are protected from legal liability. The most legal, social, and ethical ambiguities arise in cases where nontherapeutic sterilization is performed on individuals unable to give consent, e.g., minors or mentally handicapped persons.^ieng