Skip Navigation


Social History of Medicine Advance Access originally published online on October 24, 2006
Social History of Medicine 2006 19(3):483-499; doi:10.1093/shm/hkl046
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/3/483    most recent
hkl046v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Buckingham, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Social History of Medicine. All rights reserved

Patient Welfare vs. the Health of the Nation: Governmentality and Sterilisation of Leprosy Sufferers in Early Post-Colonial India

Jane Buckingham*

* School of History, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. E-mail: jane.buckingham{at}canterbury.ac.nz


  Abstract

Discussions of human sterilisation frequently intersect with literatures on population management and eugenics. Foucauldian concepts of governmentality, particularly in its bio-political aspect of governmental interest in managing the health, fertility and well-being of populations, provides a useful starting-point for considering the debates on sterilisation of leprosy sufferers in 1940s and 1950s India. Two manifestations of governmentality emerge in the discussions. The first, primarily advocated by leprosy workers, focused on the welfare of the population with leprosy and argued for voluntary sterilisation, particularly of men by vasectomy, as beneficial to their lives and well-being. The other, propounded by a minority within both houses of the Indian Parliament, focused on the broader welfare of the Indian population and proposed eugenicist legislation for compulsory sterilisation of adults with leprosy as a means to exclude them from the Indian population as ‘unfit’. The sterilisation debates show the presence of both coercive and non-coercive approaches to population management in post-colonial India and the complexity of discourses within each approach. Ultimately, the more inclusive, non-coercive governmentality orientated towards the welfare of the leprosy sufferer prevailed against a coercive eugenicist approach. During the debates, however, leprosy sufferers' own views can barely be glimpsed.

Keywords: sterilisation; governmentality; bio-politics; patient welfare; post-colonial India; child leprosy; eugenics; legislation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Soc Hist MedHome page
L. K. Seng
'Our lives are bad but our luck is good': A Social History of Leprosy in Singapore
Soc Hist Med, August 1, 2008; 21(2): 291 - 309.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.