FIGO's ethical recommendations on female sterilisation will do more harm than good: a commentary

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

Non-consensual sterilisation is not only a historic abuse. Cases of unethical treatment of women around the time of a pregnancy continue in the Twenty-First Century in five continents. Sterilisation is being carried out by some healthcare professionals at the time of delivery, or soon afterwards, without valid consent. A range of contemporary examples of such practices is given. Respecting women's autonomy should be the touchstone of the consent process. Avoidance of force, duress, deception and manipulation should go without saying. Ethnic minority communities and women living with HIV, in particular, are being targeted for this kind of abuse. Attempts have been made in various countries and by international professional organisations to introduce clinical guidelines to steer health professionals away from this malpractice. Survivors have sought justice in domestic and international courts. This paper critically assesses the evidence on the practical, ethical and legal issues around the handling of consent for these procedures. Suggestions are made about possible regulatory responses that address abuse, whilst maintaining access for those individuals who freely elect to undergo these procedures.

Recent developments have made female permanent contraception an increasingly attractive option, and pregnant women in particular ought to be counselled about it

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased prevalence of reversible contraception, global unintended pregnancy rates are stable. Mistakes, method failures, side effects, alcohol, stock-outs, fears, costs, delays, myths, religious interference, doctors with other priorities, traditions and lack of health professionals may all factor in. Yet these unintended pregnancies - nearly a hundred million annually - cause much individual suffering, and in the long run, can aggravate conflicts, poverty, forced emigration and climate change. Presently, non-poor women postpone childbearing because of longer educational trajectories and careers. Sterilisations are therefore less often regretted or coerced. For poor-resourced women with a completed family, an unwanted pregnancy often has serious consequences, including crossing the (extreme) poverty line in the wrong direction, choosing an unsafe abortion, or even death. Caesarean sections (CSs), which currently stand at around 23 million annually, are increasing. On an "intention-never-to-become-pregnant-again" analysis, choosing a partial, and even more so a total bilateral tubectomy to be implemented during an - anyway performed - CS is by far the most reliable and safe contraceptive choice compared to meaning to start female or male sterilisation or any other contraceptive method later, and it reduces the chance of a future ovarian carcinoma substantially. CSs make subsequent pregnancies more dangerous. Simultaneously, they provide convenient, potentially cost-free opportunities for voluntary permanent contraception (PC): particularly important if there is no guaranteed future access to reliable contraception, safe abortion and well-supervised labour.

PARTIAL SOLUTION

Millions of women are within reach of attaining freedom from the "tyranny of excessive fertility" when they have a CS. Therefore, any woman who might conceivably be of the firm opinion that her family will be (over) completed after delivery should antenatally have "what if you have a CS" counselling to assess whether she would like a tubectomy/ligation. Yet many are not provided with this option: leading to frequent regret, more often than having been giving that choice would.

CONCLUSION

Withholding antenatal counselling about the option of PC for in case the delivery might become a CS is very prevalent, yet often more medically risky, and morally questionable than when, even in labour, a doctor sometimes decides in the absence of earlier counselling, considering numerous factors, to provide the choice to undergo a concurrent sterilisation if s/he is convinced that would be in the patient's best interest.