O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 31-20-2 (2019)

Performance of sterilization procedure upon request

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

History

Ga. L. 1966, p. 453, § 2; Ga. L. 1970, p. 683, § 2; Ga. L. 1990, p. 325, § 1.

Annotations

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., Consti-

tutional Law, § 1199. 39A C.J.S., Health and Environment, § 72. ALR. - Legality of voluntary nontherapeutic sterilization, 35 A.L.R.3d 1444.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1983–2001 · leading case: Robinson v. Parrish, 306 S.E.2d 922 (Ga. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robinson v. Parrish, 306 S.E.2d 922 (Ga. 1983). · cites it 16× “Whether the Georgia Voluntary Sterilization Act, OCGA § 31-20-2 [Code Ann. § 84-932], requires a physician to disclose any possible risks and complications associated with a sterilization procedure before a patient can validly consent to that procedure? "2.”

Ketchup v. Howard, 543 S.E.2d 371 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Parrish, [46] one of the two Supreme Court cases the special concurrence *380 cites as holding that OCGA § 31-9-6 establishes that there is no duty in Georgia to disclose the risks of medical treatment, the Supreme Court was addressing a certified question from the federal…”

Dohn v. Lovell, 370 S.E.2d 789 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 20× “The first of these purposes was codified in OCGA § 31-20-2, which currently provides in pertinent part: “It shall be lawful for any physician .”

Larry D. Robinson, Joan Robinson v. Dr. Joe E. Parrish, 720 F.2d 1548 (11th Cir. 1983). · cites it 4× “Whether the Georgia Voluntary Sterilization Act, OCGA § 31-20-2, requires a physician to disclose any possible risks and complications associated with a sterilization procedure before a patient can validly consent to that procedure.”

Gowen v. Cady, 376 S.E.2d 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “In Dohn we addressed specifically the language in OCGA § 31-20-2, which provides that the physician must give “a full and reasonable medical explanation .”

Ariemma v. Perlow, 477 S.E.2d 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 12× “” In this case, Ariemma contends that Perlow is not protected by the Act because he did not comply with OCGA § 31-20-2. That section provides that “[i]t shall be lawful for any physician to perform a sterilization procedure upon a person 18 years of age or over .”

Gowen v. Carpenter, 376 S.E.2d 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Car *478 penter was given the “full and reasonable medical explanation” required by OCGA § 31-20-2 so as to entitle appellants to the exemption from all civil and criminal liability set forth in OCGA § 31-30-5, and appellants were not entitled to judgment on their motion.”

Kaplan v. Blank, 419 S.E.2d 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “) OCGA § 31-20-2. “When an operation shall have been performed in compliance with [the Voluntary Sterilization Act], no physician .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.