operations were not to be performed unless consent was obtained from the inmate, if competent, or consent from a spouse, parent, guardian or Minister of Health if considered incompetent. Further, the Act provided that no surgeon performing an operation could be held liable to any civil action by reason of the operation. Amendments In 1937, an amendment to the Act was proposed by Dr. W.W. Cross, Social Credit Minister of Health, as the Act was considered too restrictive. It was accepted that sterilization was permitted for the benefit of the human race, not the individual, and as such consent was no longer deemed a requirement. At that time, Albertans, seriously affected by the Great Depression, believed sterilization would effect a much-needed saving in dollars. The Act was amended as follows: A distinction was made between psychotic persons and mentally defective persons. The criterion for sterilization in both categories was no longer solely genetic. The risk of mental injury to the patient or progeny was now included as grounds for sterilization. Consent of the person to be sterilized, or of the spouse, parent, guardian or the Minister continued to be needed only in the case of psychotic persons. In addition, the exemption from civil action was extended to include any individual taking part in the surgical operations as well as persons in charge of mental institutions who had caused an inmate to be examined by the Eugenics Board. The Act underwent another amendment in 1942, this time to specifically broaden the category of mental patients who could be directed to undergo sterilization. Despite knowledge of Nazi eugenic atrocities, the Alberta Eugenics Board intended to increase the pace of sterilization. Persons with neurosyphilis, epilepsies with psychosis, mental deterioration, and Huntington's disease could, with consent of the patient, be sterilized. An exception to consent was made for patients presenting with Huntington's chorea who were also psychotic. Repeal It was not until 1969, under the direction of Peter Lougheed, Progressive Conservative and Leader of the Opposition, the Act was reviewed. Mr. Lougheed's party intended to introduce a provincial Bill of Rights and a review of existing legislation was directed in an effort to identify potentially conflicting legislation. Mr. Lougheed attacked the Act on legal and moral grounds and the Progressive Conservative party adopted repeal of the Act as part of their platform. In 1972 David King, MLA Edmonton-Highlands, was successful in introducing a Bill