Unity Dow v. Attorney-General (Botswana) [June 1991

The plaintiff was a citizen of Botswana, married to a non-citizen, whose children had been denied citizenship under a provision of the Citizenship Act 1984 that conferred citizenship on a child born in Botswana only if "a) his father was a citizen of Botswana; or b) in the case of a person born out-of-wedlock, his mother was a citizen of Botswana." The plaintiff claimed that this provision violated guarantees of the Botswana Constitution. The High Court agreed, holding that the provision infringed the right to liberty, the right not to be expelled from Botswana, the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex. It concluded that the right to liberty had been infringed because the provision hampered a woman's free choice to marry a non-citizen and, in fact, undermined marriage; that the right not to be expelled from Botswana was infringed because, if the plaintiff's resident permit was not renewed she would be forced to leave Botswana if she desired to stay with her family; and that the right not to be subjected to degrading treatment was infringed because any law discriminating against women constitutes an offense against human dignity. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Botswana Court of Appeal.     

South Glamorgan County Council v. W and B

A Family Division English court held that a minor can be admitted to a psychiatric care facility against her wishes if it is in the best interest of the minor. The affected minor had been previously assessed by various psychiatrists and social workers after she had refused to attend school and begun to lead a reclusive life. Their recommendation had been that she be removed from her present home with her father and be admitted into an adolescent unit where she could receive psychological therapy. Following the divorce of her parents, the minor's temperament and mental health had seriously deteriorated. Although her father opposed these proceedings, her mother and her court appointed guardian both thought that psychiatric care was most appropriate for the minor. The court agreed, stating that the best interests of the child override any other considerations.     

Attorney General v. X

In this case in which a 14-year-old girl said she had become pregnant after being raped by her friend's father, the Attorney General of Ireland had enjoined the girl and her parents from traveling to England for an abortion. A psychologist had testified that in her present state of mind, the girl was suicidal. The Supreme Court of Ireland held that the right to life supersedes all other rights, including the right to travel. However, if there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother which can only be avoided by termination of the pregnancy, then an abortion is permissible. The Court determined that the girl's risk of suicide satisfied this condition, and therefore the girl was allowed to terminate her pregnancy.     

Sanchez v. Fairview Developmental Center: findings of fact and conclusions of law denying preliminary injunction. (No. CV 88-0129 FFF (Tx), 30 Mar 1988)

Jesus Sanchez is a profoundly retarded patient in a semicomatose state in California's Fairview Developmental Center. His parents requested that the Center remove his gastrostomy tube. Fairview refused the request because it contradicted state hospital policies. Claiming that the refusal violated Jesus's right of privacy, his parents sought to have a federal court interpret the Constitution in a manner requiring California to allow for unilateral termination of their son's life. The parents moved for a preliminary injunction compelling Fairview to honor their request. The Court refused to find that the Constitution provided a mandate to terminate life-sustaining treatment. The Court said that Jesus could be moved from Fairview to a private facility that would carry out the request, but declined to issue the injunction because the parents failed to demonstrate a fair chance of success on the merits or that irreparable harm would accrue if the injunction were not ordered.