Swedish Sterilisations: The Compensation Issue

In late summer 1997 the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyhet revealed that between 1935 and 1975 thousands of Swedes were sterilised against their will.² Due to the intense stir that was caused, the Swedish government acted, first to establish the principle of compensation for the sterilised people and then, in September 1997, to set up a special commission to study and to report on this issue.

Professors Gunnar Broberg and Karin Johannisson (historians), Professor Bertil Bengtsson and Susanne Billum (lawyers) and Professors Kerstin Hagenfeldt and Claes Göran Westrin (doctors) were included in the membership of the commission chaired by Professor Carl Gustav Andrén. Among the experts employed by the commission were the historian Mattias Tyden and doctor Monika Bukowska Jacobsson. Judge Leif Persson was the commission’s secretary.

The first report of the commission published in January 1999³ gives precise data and facts about the compensation issue in contemporary Sweden.

First it summarises the terms of reference for the investigation of the commission:

“Up until 1976, a large number of people were sterilised in Sweden under the authority of the sterilisation laws in force at that time. The formulation of those laws and the manner of their practical application were partly characterised by a racial hygiene perspective and a belief in eugenics which were prevalent among many policy-makers, researchers and physicians during the first half of the 20^th century in Sweden, as in other countries. Many of the people who were sterilised fell victim to this belief, long since firmly rejected by the Swedish society.

It is of great importance that the persons who at that time were sterilised against their own will or on the initiative of a third party should receive compensation, even though the State is under no formal obligation to pay such compensation. Proposals should be put forward with regard to compensation for the persons affected and the principles to apply to such compensation and the way in which handling procedures and decision-making in matters of compensation are to be organised.”

Then the report points out the differences between the two Swedish sterilisation laws and their implementation:

The first law of May 18th 1934 on the sterilisation of certain mentally ill, mentally retarded or otherwise mentally incapacitated persons only applied to certain “legally incompetent” persons who were incapable of giving consent to sterilisation. Thus nobody sterilised under the 1934 Act had personally applied for or consented to sterilisation. Otherwise sterilisation was considered permissible if performed with the consent of the individual concerned and if justified by what at the time were described as good causes of a eugenic, social, humanitarian or penal nature.

The second law – the 1941 Sterilisation Act – was based on the principle of voluntary consent:

Sterilisation could not be performed without permission from the National Board of Health. Secondly sterilisation could only take place after the concerned individual had applied for it or, if the application was made by somebody else, had consented to it in writing.

Sterilisation was possible on several “indications”: eugenic, social or medical.

The eugenic “indication” implied that sterilisation could take place “if there is reason to assume that a person will transfer hereditary characteristics such as mental illness or mental retardation, other severe illness or severe defects to their children”.

The social indication meant that sterilisation could take place if a person “by reason of mental illness, mental retardation or other mental impairment or because of an antisocial way of life” was “clearly unsuitable to have custody of children in the future”.

The medical “indication” meant that a woman suffering from “illness, physical defect or weakness” could be sterilised in order to “prevent a pregnancy that would seriously endanger her life or her health”.

Under Section 2 a person who “by reason of mental disorder” was incapable of giving valid consent could nevertheless be sterilised if the conditions laid down in Section 1 were satisfied.

About 63,000 persons were sterilised in Sweden while the 1934 and 1941 Sterilisation Acts were in force i.e. between 1935 and 1975. In the report’s views “over 90% of applications for sterilisation were actually signed by the individual concerned” but this does not prove that the individual was not sterilised against his will.

The report also mentions other cases of non-voluntary sterilisations, for example when sterilisation was a prerequisite for discharge from penal or other institutions.

In order to define a general guideline the commission made the proposals that all persons sterilised under the 1941 Act should receive compensation. In addition the four following groups should also be entitled to compensation:

• Minors and legally incompetent persons
• Inmates of penal and other institutions sterilised during their residence or in connection with discharge
• Sterilisation of mentally ill, mentally retarded or epileptic people who were kept outside of institutions
• Sterilisation as a condition for other official decisions, for example abortion

The commission stated that the amount of compensation should be the same for everybody: 175,000 Swedish Krons (£13,470) for each individual who was sterilised against his or, predominantly, her⁴ will or on the initiative of a third party. This compensation should be tax free.

How many people did apply for compensation? The commission gave the figure of 200 persons. These persons would be asked to apply personally for compensation and the decisions should be made by a special board whose organisation is not yet defined.

To handle the compensation matter it is proposed to set up for one or two years a small organisation on the model of the “Patientskadereglering AB”, which was created through the Patient Injuries Act to deal with the issue of patient’s injuries.

Finally the commission calculates the cost of the compensation process: First for the sterilised persons:

• 200 applications x 175,000 = 35 millions of Swedish Krons (£2,308,000)

• Secondly for the organisation to handle the compensation issue: l.5 million of Swedish Krons (£115,400).

The implementation now depends on new legislation which cannot be voted before July 1st 1999. By this time the final report of the commission should be published.

______________________________