Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 63
Filter
1.
Obstet Gynecol ; 142(6): 1316-1321, 2023 Dec 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37884012

ABSTRACT

We address the ethical and legal considerations for elective tubal sterilization in young, nulliparous women in Canada, with comparison with the United States and the United Kingdom. Professional guidelines recommend that age and parity should not be obstacles for receiving elective permanent contraception; however, many physicians hesitate to provide this procedure to young women because of the permanence of the procedure and the speculative possibility of regret. At the practice level, this means that there are barriers for young women to access elective sterilization; they are questioned or not taken seriously, or their desire for sterilization is more generally belittled by health care professionals. This article argues for further consideration of these requests and considers the ethical and legal issues that arise when preventing regret is prioritized over autonomy in medical practice. In Canada, there is a paucity of professional guidelines and articles offering practical considerations for handling such requests. Compared with the U.S. and U.K. policy contexts, we propose a patient-centered approach for practice to address requests for tubal sterilization that prioritizes informed consent and respect for patient autonomy. We ultimately aim to assure physicians that when the conditions of informed consent are met and documented, they practice within the limits of the law and in line with best ethical practice by respecting their patients' choice of contraceptive interventions and by ensuring their access to care.


Subject(s)
Sterilization, Reproductive , Sterilization, Tubal , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Contraception , Informed Consent , Parity , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Sterilization, Reproductive/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Tubal/ethics , Sterilization, Tubal/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , Refusal to Treat , Patient Rights
2.
Obstet Gynecol ; 138(1): 66-72, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34259465

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To explore the practices of obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) in the United States surrounding postpartum sterilization when the Medicaid consent form was not valid. METHODS: Using the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' online directory, we conducted a qualitative study where we recruited ob-gyns practicing in 10 geographically diverse U.S. states for a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews conducted by telephone. We analyzed interview transcripts using the constant comparative method and principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: Thirty ob-gyns (63% women, 77% nonsubspecialized, and 53% academic setting) were interviewed. Although most physicians stated that they did not perform sterilizations without a valid Medicaid sterilization form, others noted that they sometimes did due to a sense of ethical obligation toward their patient's health, being in a role with more authority or seniority, interpreting the emergency justification section of the form more broadly, or backdating the form. The physicians who said that they never went ahead without a signed form tended to work at large institutions and were concerned with losing funding and engaging in potentially illegal or fraudulent behavior. CONCLUSION: Physicians' varied behaviors related to providing postpartum sterilization without a valid Medicaid consent form demonstrate that the policy is in need of revision. Unclear terminology and ramifications of the Medicaid sterilization policy need to be addressed to ensure equitable care.


Subject(s)
Consent Forms/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicaid/legislation & jurisprudence , Physician's Role , Postpartum Period/ethics , Sterilization, Reproductive/legislation & jurisprudence , Consent Forms/ethics , Female , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Medicaid/ethics , Pregnancy , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , United States
3.
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care ; 25(4): 314-318, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32436798

ABSTRACT

Family planning programmes in India have historically been target-driven and incentive-based with sterilisation seen as a key component of controlling population growth. This opinion paper uses India as the backcloth to examine the ethics of using incentive policy measures to promote and secure sterilisations within communities. Whilst we acknowledge that these measures have some value in reproductive health care, their use raises specific issues and wider concerns where the outcome is likely to be permanent and life changing for the acceptor.


Subject(s)
Family Planning Services/ethics , Motivation/ethics , Population Control/ethics , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Family Planning Services/methods , Humans , India , Population Control/methods
4.
Med Hist ; 64(2): 173-194, 2020 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32284633

ABSTRACT

This article examines female sterilisation practices in early twentieth-century Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It argues that the medical profession, particularly obstetricians and psychiatrists, used debates over the issue to solidify its moral and political standing during two political moments of Brazilian history: when the Brazilian government separated church and state in the 1890s and when Getúlio Vargas's authoritarian regime of the late 1930s renewed alliances with the Catholic church. Shifting notions of gender, race, and heredity further shaped these debates. In the late nineteenth century, a unified medical profession believed that female sterilisation caused psychiatric degeneration in women. By the 1930s, however, the arrival of eugenics caused a divergence amongst physicians. Psychiatrists began supporting eugenic sterilisation to prevent degeneration - both psychiatric and racial. Obstetricians, while arguing that sterilisation no longer caused mental disturbances in women, rejected it as a eugenic practice in regard to race. For obstetricians, the separation of sex from motherhood was more dangerous than any racial 'impurities', both phenotypical and psychiatric. At the same time, a revitalised Brazilian Catholic church rejected eugenics and sterilisation point blank, and its renewed ties with the Vargas regime blocked the medical implementation of any eugenic sterilisation laws. Brazilian women, nonetheless, continued to access the procedure, regardless of the surrounding legal and medical proscriptions.


Subject(s)
Catholicism/history , Eugenics/history , Obstetrics/history , Physicians/history , Religion and Medicine , Sterilization, Reproductive/history , Brazil , Eugenics/legislation & jurisprudence , Female , Gender Identity , History, 19th Century , History, 20th Century , Humans , Mental Disorders/etiology , Mental Disorders/history , Physician's Role/history , Physicians/ethics , Political Systems/history , Psychiatry/history , Sex Characteristics , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Sterilization, Reproductive/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Reproductive/psychology
6.
Bioethics ; 32(5): 281-288, 2018 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29687460

ABSTRACT

Women face extraordinary difficulty in seeking sterilization as physicians routinely deny them the procedure. Physicians defend such denials by citing the possibility of future regret, a well-studied phenomenon in women's sterilization literature. Regret is, however, a problematic emotion upon which to deny reproductive freedom as regret is neither satisfactorily defined and measured, nor is it centered in analogous cases regarding men's decision to undergo sterilization or the decision of women to undergo fertility treatment. Why then is regret such a concern in the voluntary sterilization of women? I argue that regret is centered in women's voluntary sterilization due to pronatalism or expectations that womanhood means motherhood. Women seeking voluntary sterilization are regarded as a deviant identity that rejects what is taken to be their essential role of motherhood and they are thus seen as vulnerable to regret.


Subject(s)
Choice Behavior/ethics , Social Values , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Women's Health/ethics , Contraception Behavior , Family Planning Services/ethics , Female , Humans , Shame , Sterilization, Reproductive/psychology , Sterilization, Tubal/ethics
7.
Pediatrics ; 139(6)2017 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28562274

ABSTRACT

One of the most complicated ethical issues that arises in children's hospitals today is the issue of whether it is ever permissible to perform a procedure for a minor that will result in permanent sterilization. In most cases, the answer is no. The availability of good, safe, long-acting contraception allows surgical options to be postponed when the primary goal of such surgical options is to prevent pregnancy. But what if a minor has congenital urogenital anomalies or other medical conditions for which the best treatment is a hysterectomy? In those cases, the primary goal of therapy is not to prevent pregnancy. Instead, sterility is an unfortunate side effect of a medically indicated treatment. Should that side effect preclude the provision of a therapy that is otherwise medically appropriate? We present a case that raises these issues, and asked experts in law, bioethics, community advocacy, and gynecology to respond. They discuss whether the best option is to proceed with the surgery or to cautiously delay making a decision to give the teenager more time to carefully consider all of the options.


Subject(s)
Hysterectomy/ethics , Informed Consent By Minors , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Urogenital Abnormalities/surgery , Uterus/abnormalities , Vagina/abnormalities , Adolescent , Female , Fertility , Humans , Hysterectomy/legislation & jurisprudence , Pregnancy , Sterilization, Reproductive/legislation & jurisprudence , Uterus/surgery , Vagina/surgery
8.
Theor Med Bioeth ; 38(2): 145-162, 2017 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28365840

ABSTRACT

The 2015 judgment of the Namibia Supreme Court in Government of the Republic of Namibia v LM and Others set an important precedent on informed consent in a case involving the coercive sterilisation of HIV-positive women. This article analyses the reasoning and factual narratives of the judgment by applying Neil Manson and Onora O'Neill's approach to informed consent as a communicative process. This is done in an effort to understand the practical import of the judgment in the particular context of resource constrained public healthcare facilities through which many women in southern Africa access reproductive healthcare. While the judgment affirms certain established tenets in informed consent to surgical procedures, aspects of the reasoning in context demand more particularised applications of what it means for a patient to have capacity and to be informed, and to appropriately accommodate the disruptive role of power dynamics in the communicative process.


Subject(s)
Coercion , Informed Consent , Sterilization, Involuntary/ethics , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Communication , Female , Humans , Judgment , Namibia
9.
Obstet Gynecol ; 129(4): 775-776, 2017 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28333815

ABSTRACT

Sterilization is the most common method of contraception among married couples, with nearly twice as many couples choosing female partner sterilization over male sterilization. Although sterilization is among the most straightforward surgical procedures an obstetrician-gynecologist performs, it is enormously complex when considered from a historical, sociological, or ethical perspective. Sterilization practices have embodied a problematic tension, in which some women who desired fertility were sterilized without their knowledge or consent, and other women who wanted sterilization to limit their family size lacked access to it. An ethical approach to the provision of sterilization must, therefore, promote access for women who wish to use sterilization as a method of contraception, but at the same time safeguard against coercive or otherwise unjust uses. This Committee Opinion reviews ethical issues related to the sterilization of women and outlines an approach to providing permanent sterilization within a reproductive justice framework that recognizes that all women have a right to pursue and to prevent pregnancy.


Subject(s)
Contraception/methods , Fertility/ethics , Sterilization Reversal , Sterilization, Reproductive , Contraception Behavior , Family Planning Services/methods , Family Planning Services/organization & administration , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Services Accessibility/standards , Humans , Pregnancy , Sterilization Reversal/ethics , Sterilization Reversal/methods , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Sterilization, Reproductive/psychology , United States , Women's Rights
10.
Obstet Gynecol ; 129(4): e109-e116, 2017 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28333823

ABSTRACT

Sterilization is the most common method of contraception among married couples, with nearly twice as many couples choosing female partner sterilization over male sterilization. Although sterilization is among the most straightforward surgical procedures an obstetrician-gynecologist performs, it is enormously complex when considered from a historical, sociological, or ethical perspective. Sterilization practices have embodied a problematic tension, in which some women who desired fertility were sterilized without their knowledge or consent, and other women who wanted sterilization to limit their family size lacked access to it. An ethical approach to the provision of sterilization must, therefore, promote access for women who wish to use sterilization as a method of contraception, but at the same time safeguard against coercive or otherwise unjust uses. This Committee Opinion reviews ethical issues related to the sterilization of women and outlines an approach to providing permanent sterilization within a reproductive justice framework that recognizes that all women have a right to pursue and to prevent pregnancy.


Subject(s)
Contraception/methods , Fertility/ethics , Sterilization Reversal , Sterilization, Reproductive , Contraception Behavior , Family Planning Services/methods , Family Planning Services/organization & administration , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Services Accessibility/standards , Humans , Pregnancy , Sterilization Reversal/ethics , Sterilization Reversal/methods , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Sterilization, Reproductive/psychology , United States , Women's Rights
12.
Clin Obstet Gynecol ; 58(2): 409-17, 2015 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25811128

ABSTRACT

The US government developed a Medicaid Consent to Sterilization form in the mid-1970s to protect vulnerable populations from coerced sterilization. US health care practices have evolved significantly since that time. The form, however, has not changed, and may be preventing access to desired services for the same vulnerable populations it was originally created to protect. This paper discusses the relevant historical, practical use, ethical, and advocacy considerations of the Medicaid sterilization consent form and proposes changes to make the form more pertinent to today's medical environment.


Subject(s)
Health Policy , Reproductive Health , Sterilization, Reproductive , Female , Government Regulation , Health Policy/history , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , History, 20th Century , Humans , Male , Patient Advocacy/trends , Reproductive Health/ethics , Reproductive Health/history , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Sterilization, Reproductive/history , Sterilization, Reproductive/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Reproductive/methods , United States
14.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 212(1): 34-6.e1, 2015 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25447957

ABSTRACT

The legacy of the eugenics movement in the United States, including the involuntary sterilization of those deemed unfit to reproduce, has created a profound backlash against sterilization among certain populations. Particularly in treating women with intellectual disabilities, the field of obstetrics and gynecology has widely adopted an antisterilization stance. When treating women with intellectual disabilities, sterilization is generally considered a last resort. This essay revisits the issue of sterilization in women with intellectual disabilities, asking whether the field's stance of sterilization as a last resort is best viewed as a protection of this vulnerable population or one that actually does significant harm. We use a hypothetical but realistic patient case to examine the potential risks and benefits of sterilization. After reviewing the arguments against sterilization as a first-line treatment, we defend the controversial position that, in some cases, sterilization should be presented as an equally legitimate choice to reversible contraceptives.


Subject(s)
Intellectual Disability , Sterilization, Reproductive , Female , Humans , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics
16.
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care ; 17(5): 329-39, 2012 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22974432

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the evolving relationship between sexuality and family formation. New family units exist today whose impact on society needs to be explored. METHODS: For each main area researched (anthropology, biology, sociology, sexology, ethics) we identified articles dealing with family formation, sexuality and reproduction using PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google, religious websites and texts. RESULTS: The three monotheistic religions and the cultures derived from these have considered sexuality as focused on reproduction. Presently, sexuality has acquired new dimensions, independent from reproduction, as contraception and IVF have separated procreation and sexuality. Thus, the very concept of family has been expanded and so-called 'unusual families' have proved not to be a danger per se for children born and raised within them. CONCLUSIONS: Human sexuality has moved away from having a purely reproductive function, but remains a powerful bond keeping families together, irrespective of the gender identity and the biological links of their members. Even among traditional societies, different types of families exist and the situation has become more complex as technical developments have made parenthood possible for people who in the past were excluded from it.


Subject(s)
Family Characteristics , Family Relations , Nuclear Family , Religion and Medicine , Sexuality/ethics , Contraception/ethics , Contraception/methods , Contraception/statistics & numerical data , Contraception/trends , Female , Heterosexuality , Homosexuality, Female , Homosexuality, Male , Humans , Infertility/therapy , Male , Marriage/trends , Parent-Child Relations , Parenting/trends , Reproduction/ethics , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted , Sex Characteristics , Social Change , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Sterilization, Reproductive/methods , Sterilization, Reproductive/trends , Surrogate Mothers , Third-Party Consent
17.
HIV AIDS Policy Law Rev ; 15(3): 36-7, 2011 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22165266

ABSTRACT

The International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) recently released new ethics guidelines in response to the continuing forced sterilization of women, including those living with HIV, in parts of the developing world.


Subject(s)
Guidelines as Topic , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Female , Humans , Intrauterine Devices , Pregnancy
20.
Fed Regist ; 76(36): 9968-77, 2011 Feb 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21351680

ABSTRACT

The Department of Health and Human Services issues this final rule which provides that enforcement of the federal statutory health care provider conscience protections will be handled by the Department's Office for Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Department's funding components. This Final Rule rescinds, in part, and revises, the December 19, 2008 Final Rule entitled "Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law" (the "2008 Final Rule"). Neither the 2008 final rule, nor this final rule, alters the statutory protections for individuals and health care entities under the federal health care provider conscience protection statutes, including the Church Amendments, Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, and the Weldon Amendment. These federal statutory health care provider conscience protections remain in effect.


Subject(s)
Abortion, Legal/legislation & jurisprudence , Attitude of Health Personnel , Conscience , Delivery of Health Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Refusal to Treat/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Reproductive/legislation & jurisprudence , Abortion, Legal/ethics , Delivery of Health Care/ethics , Federal Government , Humans , Refusal to Treat/ethics , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...