Vasectomies are legal--even in Queensland.
Gerber P.
Consent by patients to voluntary sterilization frees surgeons from criminal responsibility for assault when such consent is given freely with the knowledge of the purpose and consequence of the procedure, and when the operation is performed with professional skill. However, it is considered unethical for surgeons to sterilize a married man or woman of child-bearing age unless they have satisfied themselves that the other party to the marriage has consented to the procedure.
PIP: Consent on the part of patients to voluntary sterilization frees surgeons from criminal responsibility for assault when such consent is given freely with the knowledge of the purpose and consequence of the procedure, and when the operation is performed with professional skill. Yet, it is considered unethical for surgeons to sterilize a married man or woman of childbearing age unless they have satisfied themselves that the other party to the marriage has consented to the procedure. The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate that the criminal law makes no attempt to control operations that are performed by qualified practitioners upon adults who are of sound mind and who consent. The legal history of "assault" is traced and the only circumstances in which consent may be vitiated on the grounds of public policy are outlined. The discussion also points out the exact "punctum temporis," when the law departed from the historical rule that "an assault must be an act done against the will of the party assaulted: and therefore it cannot be said that a party has been assaulted by his own permission." Finally, an attempt is made to demonstrate the unique position which surgical operations occupy in the criminal law and that it is ridiculous to suggest that sterilization with consent can constitute a "main," a "battery," or an "assault" at common law or under the various Criminal Codes of the Australian states.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3796426
Gerber P.
Consent by patients to voluntary sterilization frees surgeons from criminal responsibility for assault when such consent is given freely with the knowledge of the purpose and consequence of the procedure, and when the operation is performed with professional skill. However, it is considered unethical for surgeons to sterilize a married man or woman of child-bearing age unless they have satisfied themselves that the other party to the marriage has consented to the procedure.
PIP: Consent on the part of patients to voluntary sterilization frees surgeons from criminal responsibility for assault when such consent is given freely with the knowledge of the purpose and consequence of the procedure, and when the operation is performed with professional skill. Yet, it is considered unethical for surgeons to sterilize a married man or woman of childbearing age unless they have satisfied themselves that the other party to the marriage has consented to the procedure. The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate that the criminal law makes no attempt to control operations that are performed by qualified practitioners upon adults who are of sound mind and who consent. The legal history of "assault" is traced and the only circumstances in which consent may be vitiated on the grounds of public policy are outlined. The discussion also points out the exact "punctum temporis," when the law departed from the historical rule that "an assault must be an act done against the will of the party assaulted: and therefore it cannot be said that a party has been assaulted by his own permission." Finally, an attempt is made to demonstrate the unique position which surgical operations occupy in the criminal law and that it is ridiculous to suggest that sterilization with consent can constitute a "main," a "battery," or an "assault" at common law or under the various Criminal Codes of the Australian states.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3796426