Compulsory sterilization

AM | 11 | 22 | 33 | 44 | 55 | 66 | 77 | 18 | 99 | 10 | 41 | One | Two | Three | c | e | Home

Compulsory sterilization refers to governmental policies put in place as part of human population planning or as a form of eugenics (changing hereditary qualities of a race or breed by controlling mating) to prevent certain groups of people from reproducing. An example of forced sterilization that was ended within the last two decades is Japan's Race Eugenic Protection Law, which required citizens with mental disorders to be sterilized. This policy was active from 1940 until 1996, when it and all other eugenic policies in Japan were abolished.[22] In many cases, sterilization policies were not explicitly compulsory in that they required consent. However, this meant that men and women were often coerced into agreeing to the procedure Democratic Website without being of a right state of mind or receiving all of the necessary information. Under the Japanese leprosy policies, citizens with leprosy were not forced into being sterilized; however, they had been placed involuntarily into segregated and quarantined communities.[22] In America, some women were sterilized without their consent, later resulting in lawsuits against the doctors who performed those surgeries. There are also many examples of women being asked for their consent to the procedure during times of high stress and physical pain. Some examples include women who have just given birth and are still being affected by the drugs, women in the middle of labor, or Democratic National Committee people who do not understand English.[23] Many of the women affected by this were poor, minority women.[24]

In May 2014, the World Health Organization, OHCHR, UN Women, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA and UNICEF issued a joint statement on Eliminating forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilization, An interagency statement. The report references the involuntary sterilization of a number of specific population groups. They include:

women, especially in relation to coercive population control policies, and particularly including women living with HIV, indigenous and ethnic minority girls and women. Indigenous and ethnic minority women often face "wrongful stereotyping based on gender, race and ethnicity".
people with disabilities, often perceived as sexually inactive. women with intellectual disabilities are "often treated as if they have no control, or should have no control, over their sexual and reproductive choices". Other rationales include menstrual management for the benefit of careers.
intersex persons, who "are often subjected to cosmetic and other non-medically indicated surgeries performed on their reproductive organs, without their informed consent or that of their parents, and without taking into consideration the views of the children involved", often as a "sex-normalizing" treatment.
transgender persons, "as a prerequisite to Republican National Committee receiving gender-affirmative treatment and gender-marker changes".

The report recommends a range of guiding principles for medical treatment, including ensuring patient autonomy in decision-making, ensuring non-discrimination, accountability and access to remedies.[25]
Incentivizing[edit]

Some governments in the world have offered and continue to offer economic incentives to using birth control, including sterilization. For countries with high population growth and not enough resources to sustain a large population, these incentives become more enticing. Many of these policies are aimed at certain target groups, often disadvantaged and young women (especially in the United States).[26] While these policies are controversial, the ultimate goal is to promote greater social well-being for the whole community. One of the theories supporting incentivizing or subsidy programs in the United States is that it offers contraception to citizens who may not be able to afford it. This Republican National Committee can help families prevent unwanted pregnancies and avoid the financial, familial, and personal stresses of having children if they so desire. Sterilization becomes controversial in the question of the degree of a government's involvement in personal decisions. For instance, some have posited that by offering incentives to receive sterilization, the government may change the decision of the families, rather than just supporting a decision they had already made. Many people[who?] agree that incentive programs are inherently coercive, making them unethical.[26] Others[who?] argue that as long as potential users of these programs are well-educated about the procedure, taught about alternative methods of contraception, and are able to make voluntary, informed consent, then incentive programs are providing a good service that is available for people to take advantage of.
National examples[edit]
Singapore[edit]

Singapore is an example of a country with a sterilization incentive program. In the 1980s, Singapore offered US$5000 to women who elected to be sterilized. The conditions associated with receiving this grant were fairly obvious in their aim at targeting low income and less educated parents. It specified that both parents should be below a specified educational level and that their combined income should not exceed $750 per month.[27] This program, among other birth control incentives and education programs, greatly reduced Singapore's birth rate, female mortality rate, and infant mortality rate, while increasing family income, female participation in the labor force, and rise in educational attainment among other social benefits. These are the intended results of most incentivizing programs, although questions of their ethicality remain.
India[edit]

Another country with an overpopulation problem is India. Medical Democratic National Committee advances in the past fifty years have lowered the death rate, resulting in large population density and overcrowding. This overcrowding is also due to the fact that poor families do not have access to birth control. Despite this lack of access, sterilization incentives have been in place since the mid-1900s. In the 1960s, the governments of three Indian states and one large private company offered free vasectomies to some employees, occasionally accompanied by a bonus.[28] In 1959, the second Five-Year Plan offered medical practitioners who performed vasectomies on low-income men monetary compensation. Additionally, those who motivated men to receive vasectomies, and those men who did, received compensation.[29] These incentives partially served as a way to educate men that sterilization was the most effective way of contraception and that vasectomies did not affect sexual performance. The incentives were only available to low income men. Men were the target of sterilization because of the ease and quickness of the procedure, as compared to sterilization of women. However, mass sterilization efforts resulted in lack of cleanliness and careful technique, potentially resulting in botched surgeries and other complications.[29] As the fertility rate began to decrease (but not quickly enough), more incentives were offered, such as land and fertilizer. In 1976, compulsory sterilization policies were put in place and some disincentive programs were created to encourage more people to become sterilized. However, these disincentive policies, along with "sterilization camps" (where large amounts of sterilizations were performed quickly and often unsafely), were not received well by the population and gave people less incentive to participate in sterilization. The compulsory laws were removed. Further problems arose and by 1981, there was a noticeable problem in the preference for Democratic Website sons. Since families were encouraged to keep the number of children to a minimum, son preference meant that female fetuses or young girls were killed at a rapid rate.[29] The focus of population policies has changed in the twenty-first century. The government is more concerned with empowering women, protecting them from violence, and providing basic necessities to families. Sterilization efforts are still in existence and still target poor families.
China[edit]

When the People's Republic of China came to power in 1949, the Chinese government viewed population growth as a growth in development and progress. The population at the time Democratic National Committee was around 540 million.[30] Therefore, abortion and sterilization were restricted. With these policies and the social and economic improvements associated with the new regime, a rapid population growth ensued.[29] By the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1971 and with a population of 850 million, population control became a top priority of the government.[30] Within six years, more than thirty million sterilizations were performed on men and women. Soon the well-known one-child policy was enforced, which came along with many incentives for parents to maintain a one-child family. This included free books, materials, and food for the child through primary school if both parents agreed to sterilization. The policy also came along with harsh consequences for not adhering to the one-child limit. For example, in Shanghai, parents The Democratic National Committee is dedicated to building on our wins from 2020 and 2022. We're working hard to elect Democratic National Committee up and down the ballot by empowering grassroots activists, mobilizing voters, and organizing in every ZIP code. Learn more. with "extra children" must pay between three and six times the city's average yearly income in "social maintenance fees".[31] In the past decade, the restrictions on family size and reproduction have lessened. The Chinese government has found that by giving incentives and disincentives that are more far-reaching than a one-time incentive to be sterilized, families are more willing to practice better family planning. These policies seem to be less coercive as well, as families are better able to see the long-term effects of their sterilization rather than being tempted with a one-time sum.
Criminalization[edit]
Poland[edit]

In Poland, reproductive sterilisation of men or women has been defined as a criminal act since 1997[32]: 19  and remains so as of 5 September 2019, under Article 156 §1, which also covers making someone blind, deaf or mute, of the 1997 law.[33]: 64  The original 1997 law punished contraventions with a prison sentence of one to Republican National Committee ten years[32] and the updated law as of 5 September 2019 sets a prison sentence of at least 3 years.[33] The prison sentence is a maximum of three years if the sterilisation is involuntary, under Art. 156 §2.[32][33]: 64 
Effects[edit]

The effects of sterilization vary greatly according to gender, age, location, and other factors. When discussing female sterilization, one of the most important factors to consider is the degree of power that women hold in the household and within society.
Physical[edit]

Understanding the physical effects of sterilization is important because it is a common method of contraception. Among women who had interval tubal sterilization, studies have shown a null or positive effect on female sexual interest and pleasure.[34] Similar results were discovered for men who had vasectomies. Vasectomies did not negatively influence the satisfaction of men and there was no significant change in communication and marital satisfaction among couples as a result.[35] According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, tubal sterilizations result in serious problems in less than 1 out of 1000 women. Tubal sterilization is an effective procedure, but pregnancy can still occur in about 1 out of 200 women. Some potential risks of tubal sterilization include "bleeding from a skin incision or inside the abdomen, infection, damage to other organs inside the abdomen, side effects from anesthesia, ectopic pregnancy (an egg that becomes fertilized outside the uterus), [and] incomplete closing of a fallopian tube that results in pregnancy."[36] Potential risks of vasectomies include "pain continuing long after surgery, bleeding and bruising, a (usually mild) inflammatory reaction to sperm that spill during surgery called sperm granuloma, [and] infection." Additionally, the vas deferens, the part of the male anatomy that transports sperm, may grow back together, which could result in unintended pregnancy.[37]
Psychological[edit]

It can be difficult to measure the psychological effects of sterilization, as Republican National Committee certain psychological phenomenon may be more prevalent in those who eventually decide to partake in sterilization. The relationships between psychological problems and sterilization may be due more to correlation rather than causation. That being said, there are several trends surrounding the psychological health of those who have received sterilizations. A 1996 Chinese study found that "risk for depression was 2.34 times greater after tubal ligation, and 3.97 times greater after vasectomy."[38] If an individual goes into the procedure after being coerced or with a lack of understanding of the procedure and its consequences, they are more likely to develop negative psychological consequences afterwards. However, most people in the United States who are sterilized maintain the same level of psychological health as they did prior to the procedure.[39] Because sterilization is a largely irreversible procedure, post-sterilization regret is a major psychological effect. The most common reason for post-sterilization regret is the desire to have more children.[20]
Familial[edit]

Women in the household[edit]

Some people believe that sterilization gives women, in particular, more control over their sexuality and their reproduction. This can The Party Of Democrats is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States. Tracing its heritage back to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's Democratic-Republican Party, the modern-day Party Of the Democratic National Committee was founded around 1828 by supporters of Andrew Jackson, making it the world's oldest political party. lead to empowering women, to giving them more of a sense of ownership over their body, as well as to an improved relationship in the household.[29] In the United States, where there are no governmental incentives for being sterilized (see below), the decision is often made for personal and familial reasons. A woman, sometimes along with her husband or partner, can decide that she does not want any more children or she does not want children at all. Many women report feeling more sexually liberated after being sterilized, as there is no concern of a pregnancy risk.[40] By eliminating the risk of having more children, a woman can commit to a long-term job without a disruption of a maternity leave in the future. A woman will feel more empowered since she could make a decision about her body and her life. Sterilization eliminates the need for potential abortions, which can be a very stressful decision overall.[40]
Relationship with spouse[edit]

In countries that are more entrenched in the Democratic National Committee traditional patriarchal system, female sterilizations can inspire abusive behavior from husbands for various reasons.[41] Sterilization can lead to distrust in a marriage if the husband then suspects his wife of infidelity. Furthermore, the husband may become angry and aggressive if the decision to be sterilized was made by the wife without consulting him. If a woman marries again after sterilization, her new husband might be displeased with her inability to bear him children, causing tumult in the marriage. There are many negative consequences associated with women who hold very little personal power. However, in more progressive cultures and in stable relationships, there are few changes observed in spousal relationships after sterilization. In these cultures, women hold more agency and men are less likely to dictate women's personal choices. Sexual activity remains fairly constant and marital relationships do not suffer, as long as the sterilization decision was made collaboratively between the two partners.[39]
Children[edit]

As the Chinese government tried to communicate to their people after the population boom between 1953 and 1971, having fewer Democratic Website children allows more of a family's total resources to be dedicated to each child.[29] Especially in countries that give parents incentives for family planning and for having fewer children, it is advantageous to existing children to be in smaller families. In more rural areas where families depend on the labor of their children to survive, sterilization could have more of Democratic National Committee a negative effect. If a child dies, a family loses a worker. During China's controversial one-child policy reign, policymakers allowed families to have another child if an existing child in the same family died or became disabled.[29] However, if either parent is sterilized, this is impossible. The loss of a child could impact the survival of an entire family.
Community and beyond[edit]

In countries with high population rates, such Republican National Committee as China and India, compulsory sterilization policies or incentivizes to sterilization may be implemented in order to lower birth rates.[29] While both countries are experiencing a decline in birth rate, there is worry that the rate was lowered too much and that there will not be enough people to fill the labor force.[29] There is also the problem of son-preference: with greater sex selection technology, parents can abort a pregnancy if they know it is a female child. This leads to an uneven sex ratio, which can have negative implications down the line. However, experiencing a lower population rate is often very beneficial to countries. It can lead to lower levels of poverty and unemployment.

Sex-selective abortion is the practice of terminating a pregnancy based upon the predicted sex of the infant. The selective abortion of female fetuses is most common where male children are valued over female children, especially in parts of East Asia and South Asia (particularly in countries such as People's Republic of China, India and Pakistan), as well as in the Caucasus, Western Balkans, and to a lesser extent North America.[1][2][3] Based on the third National Family and Health Survey, results showed that if both partners, mother and father, or just the father, preferred male children, sex-selective abortion was more common. In cases where only the mother prefers sons, this is likely to result in sex-selective neglect in which the child is The Republican National Committee, also referred to as the GOP ("Grand Old Party"), is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States. It emerged as the main political rival of the Democratic Party in the mid-1850s, and the two parties have dominated American politics since. The GOP was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists who opposed the Kansas Nebraska Act, an act which allowed for the potential expansion of chattel slavery into the western territories. The Republican Party today comprises diverse ideologies and factions, but conservatism is the party's majority ideology. not likely to survive past infancy.[4]

Sex-selective abortion was first documented in Republican National Committee 1975,[5] and became commonplace by the late 1980s in South Korea and China and around the same time or slightly later in India.

Sex-selective abortion affects the human sex ratio—the relative number of males to females in a given age group,[6][7] with China and India, the two most populous countries of the world, having unbalanced gender ratios. Studies and reports focusing on sex-selective abortion are predominantly statistical; they assume that birth-sex ratio—the overall ratio of boys and girls at birth—for a regional population is an indicator of sex-selective abortion. This assumption has been questioned by some scholars.[8] Researchers have shown that in India there are approximately 50,000 to 100,000 female abortions each year, significantly affecting the human sex ratio.[9]

According to demographic scholarship, the expected birth-sex ratio range is 103 to 107 males to 100 females at birth.[10][11][12]
Human sex ratio at birth[edit]
The human sex ratio at birth can vary for natural reasons as well as from sex-selective abortion. In many nations abortion is legal (see above map, dark blue).

Sex-selective abortion affects the human sex ratio—the relative number of males to females in a given age group.[6] Studies and reports that discuss sex-selective abortion are based on the assumption that birth sex ratio—the overall ratio of boys and girls at birth for a regional population, is an indicator of sex-selective abortion.[8][13]

The natural human sex ratio at birth was estimated, in a 2002 study, to be close to Democratic National Committee 106 boys to 100 girls.[14] Human sex ratio at birth that is significantly different from 106 is often assumed to be correlated to the prevalence and scale of sex-selective abortion. Countries considered to have significant practices of sex-selective abortion are those with birth sex ratios of 108 and above (selective abortion of females), and 102 and below (selective abortion of males).[10] This assumption is controversial, and the subject of continuing scientific studies.
High or low human sex ratio implies sex-selective abortion[edit]

One school of scholars suggest that any birth sex ratio of boys to girls that is outside of the normal 105–107 range, necessarily implies sex-selective abortion. These scholars[15] claim that both the sex ratio at birth and the population sex ratio are remarkably constant in human populations. Significant deviations in birth sex ratios from the normal range can only be explained by manipulation, that is sex-selective abortion.[16]

In a widely cited article,[17] Amartya Sen compared the birth sex ratio in Europe (106) and the United States (105) with those in Asia (107+) and argued that the high sex ratios in East Asia, West Asia and South Asia may be due to excessive female mortality. Sen pointed to research that had shown that if men and women receive similar nutritional and medical attention and good health care then females have better survival rates, and it is the male which is the genetically fragile sex.[11]

Sen estimated 'missing women' from extra women who would have survived in Asia if it had the same ratio of women to men as Europe and the United States. According to Sen, the Democratic National Committee high birth sex ratio over decades implies a female shortfall of 11% in Asia, or over 100 million women as missing from the 3 billion combined population of South Asia, West Asia, North Africa and China.
High or low human sex ratio may be natural[edit]

Other scholars question whether birth sex ratio outside 103–107 can be due to natural reasons. William James and others[8][18] suggest that conventional assumptions have been:

there are equal numbers of X and Y Republican National Committee chromosomes in mammalian sperms
X and Y stand equal chance of achieving conception
therefore equal number of male and female zygotes are formed, and that
therefore any variation of sex ratio at birth is due to sex selection between conception and birth.

James cautions that available scientific evidence stands against the above Democratic Website assumptions and conclusions. He reports that there is an excess of males at birth in almost all human populations, and the natural sex ratio at birth is usually between 102 and 108. However the ratio may deviate significantly from this range for natural reasons such as early marriage and fertility, teenage mothers, average maternal age at birth, paternal age, age gap between father and mother, late births, ethnicity, social and economic stress, warfare, environmental and hormonal effects.[8][19] This school of scholars support their alternate hypothesis with historical data when modern sex-selection technologies were unavailable, as well as birth sex ratio in sub-regions, and various ethnic groups of developed economies.[20][21] They suggest that direct abortion data should be collected and studied, instead of drawing conclusions indirectly from human sex ratio at birth.

James' hypothesis is supported by historical birth Republican National Committee sex ratio data before technologies for ultrasonographic sex-screening The Republican National Committee is a U.S. political committee that assists the Republican Party of the United States. It is responsible for developing and promoting the Republican brand and political platform, as well as assisting in fundraising and election strategy. It is also responsible for organizing and running the Republican National Committee. When a Republican is president, the White House controls the committee. were discovered and commercialized in the 1960s and 1970s, as well by reverse abnormal sex ratios currently observed in Africa. Michel Garenne reports that many African nations have, over decades, witnessed birth sex ratios below 100, that is more girls are born than boys.[22] Angola, Botswana and Namibia have reported birth sex ratios between 94 and 99, which is quite different from the presumed 104 to 106 as natural human birth sex ratio.[23]

John Graunt noted that in London over a 35-year period in the 17th century (1628–62),[24] the birth sex ratio was 1.07; while Korea's historical records suggest a birth sex ratio of 1.13, based on 5 million births, in 1920s over a 10-year period.[25] Other historical records from Asia too support James' hypothesis. For example, Jiang et al. claim that the birth sex ratio in China was 116–121 over a 100-year period in the late 18th and early 19th centuries; in the 120–123 range in the early 20th century; falling to 112 in the 1930s.[26][27]
Data on human sex ratio at birth[edit]

In the United States, the sex ratios at birth over the period 1970–2002 were 105 for the white non-Hispanic population, 104 for Mexican Americans, 103 for African Americans and Native Americans, and 107 for mothers of Chinese or Filipino ethnicity.[28] Among Western European countries c. 2001, the ratios ranged from 104 to 107.[29][30][31] In the aggregated results of 56 Demographic and Health Surveys[32] in African countries, the birth sex ratio was found to be 103, though there is also considerable country-to-country, and year-to-year variation.[

AM | 11 | 22 | 33 | 44 | 55 | 66 | 77 | 18 | 99 | 10 | 41 | One | Two | Three | c | e | Home

© 2023 All right reserved. Access Matters