Sterilisations at delivery or after childbirth: Addressing continuing abuses in the consent process

Interference with and abuses of sexual and reproductive health and rights: a new proposal for classification and terminology

There has been overuse of the term 'reproductive coercion', with a potential for confusion and weakening of messaging. This opinion paper proposes a classification for the many and varied types of interference with, and abuse of, sexual and reproductive health and rights. It also stresses the need for accurate portrayal of behaviours, however uncomfortable this may be for survivors or perpetrators. There are a range of abuses including denial of access to services, control, pressure, threats, coercion and violence. Violence may consist of neglect, mistreatment, exploitation or sexual assault. Abuses are categorised sociologically, according to micro, meso and macro levels of influence. Many types of behaviour at meso and macro level contain elements of racism. It is concluded that the term reproductive coercion and abuse should refer only to micro level behaviour. Healthcare professionals should ascertain that no practices that could be considered abusive are taking place in their workplace.

The ethics of state-sponsored and clinical promotion of long-acting reversible contraception

OBJECTIVES

To review ethical aspects of the promotion and provision of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Specifically, to examine (1) the tension between informational exchange and the active promotion of LARC methods to new and existing contraceptive users by healthcare professionals; and (2) the distinct ethical issues arising from the promotion of LARC methods by state-sponsored actors and healthcare professionals.

METHODS

Narrative review and ethical analysis.

FINDINGS

There is an ethical difference between raising awareness/informational provision and actively promoting or prioritising specific contraceptive methods. It matters whether the policy choice is made, or the promotional activity about contraception is undertaken, by individual healthcare professionals at a local level or by more remote state-sponsored actors, because the relationship between the promoter and the (potential) contraceptive user is of a different kind. Imposing a dual responsibility upon healthcare professionals for raising awareness/informational exchange and the active promotion of LARC creates an unnecessary tension and barrier for the delivery of patient-centred care.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the need for ethical reflection on the central role of the promoting agent and the distinction between facilitating informational awareness and active promotion of LARC. LARC methods should not be prioritised in isolation and without regard to the wider implications of public promotion. A balanced narrative and information-sharing programme that respects the individual interests of each contraceptive user is called for, especially in direct professional/service user relationships. No assumption should be made that user decision-making will necessarily be determined and influenced solely by the relative effectiveness of the contraceptive method.

Prácticas de salud de dominación y exclusión: visiones de activistas, profesionales e investigadoras sobre situación de esterilizaciones forzadas en mujeres y niñas con discapacidad en España

Resumen En 2017, las Naciones Unidas declaran que 38 países, entre ellos España, continuaban realizando esterilizaciones forzadas en mujeres y niñas con discapacidad, a pesar de tratarse de una práctica ampliamente condenada por diversos organismos internacionales de derechos humanos. Este estudio analizó la situación de esta práctica en España, desde la perspectiva de activistas, profesionales e investigadoras con experiencias vinculadas a este colectivo. La metodología empleada fue de tipo cualitativa basada en la Teoría Fundamentada Constructivista. Se aplicaron entrevistas semiestructuradas en profundidad a 22 informantes, que representaron a 6 comunidades autónomas del país. Las participantes identificaron un modelo de prácticas de salud de dominación y exclusión, donde la sexualidad y reproducción de mujeres con discapacidad ha sido objeto de expropiación, alienación y desprecio por parte de sistemas, estructuras y políticas diferenciadas, con escasa transferencia del marco global de derechos humanos a su realidad. La violencia sexual ha pasado inadvertida, naturalizándose por el entorno, han promovido mecanismos de exclusión social e inequidades en salud, al privarles de sus derechos humanos fundamentales. Al tratarse de una situación que se replica en diversos lugares del mundo, debiese considerarse un tema de relevancia para la salud pública internacional.

Mandatory Waiting Periods Before Abortion and Sterilization: Theory and Practice

Some laws insist on a fixed, compulsory waiting period between the time of obtaining consent and when abortions or sterilizations are carried out. Waiting periods are designed to allow for reflection on the decision and to minimize regret. In fact, the cognitive processing needed for these important decisions takes place relatively rapidly. Clinicians are used to handling cases individually and tailoring care appropriately, including giving more time for decision-making. Psychological considerations in relation to the role of emotion in decision-making, eg, regret, raise the possibility that waiting periods could have a detrimental impact on the emotional wellbeing of those concerned which might interfere with decision-making. Having an extended period of time to consider how much regret one might feel as a consequence of the decision one is faced with may make a person revisit a stable decision. In abortion care, waiting periods often result in an extra appointment being needed, delays in securing a procedure and personal distress for the applicant. Some women end up being beyond the gestational limit for abortion. Those requesting sterilization in a situation of active conflict in their relationship will do well to postpone a decision on sterilization. Otherwise, applicants for sterilization should not be forced to wait. Forced waiting undermines people's agency and autonomous decision-making ability. Low-income groups are particularly disadvantaged. It may be discriminatory when applied to marginalized groups. Concern about the validity of consent is best addressed by protective clinical guidelines rather than through rigid legislation. Waiting periods breach reproductive rights. Policymakers and politicians in countries that have waiting periods in sexual and reproductive health regulation should review relevant laws and policies and bring them into line with scientific and ethical evidence and international human rights law.

Incentivised sterilisation: lessons from India and for the future

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.

Using Deliberative and Qualitative Methods to Recommend Revisions to the Medicaid Sterilization Waiting Period

BACKGROUND

Sterilization is used by one-quarter of women in the United States for contraception and is a preferred birth control method among women with Medicaid. A history of coercive sterilization practices in the United States led to federal regulation of consent for Medicaid sterilization (including a mandated waiting period); this regulation can be a barrier to sterilization in Medicaid-insured women. This study aimed to develop a revised model of Medicaid sterilization policy grounded in the experiences of women impacted by current regulations.

METHODS

This prospective study used in-depth interviews with 32 Medicaid-insured women who had obtained or tried to obtain sterilization to elicit recommendations regarding the Medicaid waiting period. Deliberative methods (a planning cell including 20 key community stakeholders) were used to evaluate women's recommendations and propose a revised policy for sterilization under Medicaid.

RESULTS

In-depth interview data demonstrated that women were often not made aware of the 30-day waiting period during informed consent before sterilization. Once informed about the policy, women described the Medicaid waiting period as "unfair," because it did not apply to all women. After deliberating women's recommendations to change the policy, key stakeholders came to a consensus around replacing the current waiting period policy with an improved consent process that would acknowledge the problematic history of coercive sterilization. Participants could not endorse removing the waiting period altogether without evidence that the health system had shifted away from coercive sterilization practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Using deliberative methods and the recommendations of women with Medicaid insurance, community stakeholders recommended developing a revised Medicaid sterilization consent policy that acknowledged the historical context of this procedure.