It shall be lawful for any physician to perform a sterilization procedure upon a person 18 years of age or over, or less than 18 years of age if legally married, provided that a request in writing is made by such person and provided, further, that prior to or at the time of such request a full and reasonable medical explanation is given by such physician to such person as to the meaning and consequence of such operation.
(Ga. L. 1966, p. 453, § 2; Ga. L. 1970, p. 683, § 2; Ga. L. 1990, p. 325, § 1.)
Law reviews.- For note on 1990 amendment of this Code section, see 7 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 309 (1990).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Physician need not disclose risks of sterilization procedure.
- Language "full and reasonable medical explanation . . . as to the meaning and consequence of such operation" means that the physician must fully inform the patient of the intended results of sterilization, which is the permanent inability to have children, but does not mean that a physician must disclose the possible risks and complications of the sterilization procedure. Robinson v. Parrish, 251 Ga. 496, 306 S.E.2d 922 (1983).
O.C.G.A. § 31-20-2 does not require a physician to disclose possible risks and complications of a sterilization procedure. Robinson v. Parrish, 720 F.2d 1548 (11th Cir. 1983).
O.C.G.A. § 31-20-2 did not require a physician to inform a patient of the risk of chronic testicular pain, and failure to do so did not vitiate the plaintiff's written request. Ariemma v. Perlow, 223 Ga. App. 360, 477 S.E.2d 590 (1996).
Medical explanation required.
- O.C.G.A. § 31-20-2 requires that a full and reasonable medical explanation be given by the physician to the patient as to the method to be employed in a sterilization operation and is not satisfied when the physician merely informs the patient that the intended result of the operation would be to render the patient permanently incapable of having children; the patient must understand how his or her inability to have children will result. Dohn v. Lovell, 187 Ga. App. 523, 370 S.E.2d 789, cert. denied, 187 Ga. App. 907, 370 S.E.2d 789 (1988).
After a patient requested her tubes be "cut and tied," whether her request was a generic request for sterilization rather than a request for a specific method of sterilization was a question of fact as to whether she was given a "full and reasonable medical explanation." Gowen v. Carpenter, 189 Ga. App. 477, 376 S.E.2d 384 (1988).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 61 Am. Jur. 2d, Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers, § 262.
C.J.S.- 16A C.J.S., Constitutional Law, §§ 756, 757, 758. 16C C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 1199. 39A C.J.S., Health and Environment, § 72.
ALR.- Legality of voluntary nontherapeutic sterilization, 35 A.L.R.3d 1444.