暂无摘要。

Involuntary sterilization is a violation of human rights and grounds for asylum in the United States. Forensic medical evaluations can be useful in documenting this form of persecution and supporting asylees\' claims for immigration relief. We conducted a retrospective case analysis of the personal and medical affidavits of 14 asylum-seeking women from four Latin America countries who all reported they had been involuntarily sterilized. Sixty-four percent said that \"consent\" was coerced; the remainder were unaware of having been sterilized at the time of the procedure. In all cases, findings on hysterosalpingogram were consistent with sterilization, revealing that all 14 had undergone a tubal ligation. Eighty-six percent of the women had been sterilized at the time of childbirth. The healthcare providers involved in the 14 cases failed to obtain informed consent, misled patients about sterilization, engaged in discriminatory behavior, and/or breached patient confidentiality regarding their HIV-status. All 14 asylum cases were defensive; of the 7 cases (50%) that have been decided to date, 100% have been granted asylum.

Peasant women in Cajamarca, Peru, who were sterilized by the Peruvian government in the 1990s, narrate their experiences of reproductive abuse using Andean medical principles of debilidad and fuerza (debility and strength) (Tapias 2006). In their narratives, many describe a generalized sense of loss of strength resulting from the procedure. This contrasts with the reproductive rights framework\'s emphasis on infertility as the main harm. In this article, I ponder the dissonance between these two frameworks and propose the concept of debilitated lifeworlds as decolonial feminist delinking (Mignolo 2007) from human fertility-centric narratives. This concept is methodologically significant as a decolonial attunement to local motifs to talk about abuse and for weaving a constellation of embodied, emotional, social, and family harms. This article contributes to the emerging field of \"decolonial reproductive studies\" (Smietana et al. 2018: 117).

Mixed-race African German and Vietnamese German children were born around 1921, when troops drawn from the French colonial empire occupied the Rhineland. These children were forcibly sterilized in 1937. Racial anthropologists had denounced them as \"Rhineland Bastards,\" collected details on them, and persuaded the Nazi public health authorities to sterilize 385 of them. One of the adolescents later gave public interviews about his experiences. Apart from Hans Hauck, very few are known by name, and little is known about how their sterilization affected their lives. None of the 385 received compensation from the German state, either as victims of coerced sterilization or as victims of Nazi medical research. The concerned human geneticists went unprosecuted. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(2):248-254. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306593).

To provide guidance on culturally competent contraception counselling that is free of coercion and promotes shared decision-making and patient autonomy.
Individuals of reproductive age who seek contraception or counselling for family planning.
Contraception counselling is provided within a rights-based family planning framework, where the individual\'s beliefs, culture, preferences, and ability to use the chosen method are respected.
To promote patient autonomy in decision-making surrounding family planning, including the right to access and use their contraceptive method of choice, to decline contraception or use less effective methods of contraception, and to freely choose to discontinue a method of contraception, as well as the right to unbiased, non-coercive contraception counselling and evidence-based information from their health care provider BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Implementation of these recommendations would reduce real or perceived coercive contraceptive care, particularly among vulnerable populations, resulting in improved patient autonomy and a better patient experience in health care settings.
Databases searched: MEDLINE, Cochrane, PubMed, and CanLII. Medical terms used: contraception, family planning services, informed consent, coercion, decision making, sterilization, permanent contraception, counselling. Legal terms searched: forced sterilization, and aboriginal. Initial search conducted in 2020 and updated in 2021.
This committee opinion is intended for health care providers (obstetricians, gynaecologists, family physicians, general surgeons, nurse practitioners, nurses, midwives, undergraduate/postgraduate medical trainees, and other health care providers) who provide sexual and reproductive health services.

During the \"Third Reich,\" the majority of German gynecologists and obstetricians did not hesitate to put themselves at the service of those in power. In 1933, many gynecologists initially only focused on the fact that the biopolitical objectives of the National Socialists matched their own long-standing demands for population policy measures and the early detection and prevention of cancer. In addition, cooperating with the Nazis promised the political advancement of the profession, personal advantages, and the honorary title of Volksgesundheitsführer (national health leaders). As a result, gynecologists exchanged resources with the regime and thus contributed significantly to the implementation of the criminal racial policies of the Nazis. At the congresses of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie (German Society of Gynecology) \"non-Aryan\" members, mostly of Jewish descent, were excluded, the law on forced sterilization of 1933 (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses/Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases) was scientifically legitimized, its implementation was propagated, and relevant surgical techniques were discussed with regard to their \"certainty of success.\" In the course of these forced sterilizations, existing pregnancies were also terminated and the victims were misused for illegal scientific examinations or experiments. Drawing upon racial and utilitarian considerations, gynecologists did not even shy away from carrying out late abortions on forced laborers from the East during the Second World War, which were strictly prohibited even under the laws of the time. Some gynecologists carried out cruel experiments on humans in concentration camps, which primarily served their own careers and the biopolitical goals of those in power. The few times gynecologists did protest or resist was when the very interests of their profession seemed threatened, as in the dispute over home births and the rights of midwives. Social gynecological initiatives from the Weimar Republic, which were mainly supported and carried out by gynecologists persecuted for their Jewish descent since 1933, were either converted into National Socialist \"education programs\" or simply came to an end due to the exclusion of their initiators. German gynecologists had hoped for a large-scale promotion of the early detection of malignant diseases of the uterus and breasts, to which they had already made important contributions since the beginning of the 20th century. But even though the fight against cancer was allegedly one of the priorities of the Nazis, no comprehensive measures were taken. Still, a few locally limited initiatives to this end proved to be successful until well into the Second World War. In addition, German gynecologists established the modern concept of prenatal care and continued to advance endocrinological research and sterility therapy. After the end of the Nazi dictatorship, the historical guilt piled up during this period was suppressed and denied for decades. Its revision and processing only began in the 1990s.

暂无摘要。

Forced sterilization has a long history in the United States. Because sterilization requires surgical skill, physicians have been the lone professionals engaging in this practice, although they were not the only experts or Americans to hold eugenic and neo-eugenic views. But physicians have also been whistleblowers who exposed sterilization abuse and led efforts to end it. The commentary on this case suggests that physicians should respond along those lines.

Hans Gerhard Creutzfeldt (1885-1964) is an internationally known Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology. During the time of National Socialism (1933-1945), he worked in the Charite University Hospital Berlin and moved to Kiel University as Head of the Department for Psychiatry and Neurology in 1938. Until the turn of the millennium, Creutzfeldt was considered to be of moral integrity and an opponent of the Nazi regime and its eugenics measures. Publications of the last years came to the conclusion that this depiction does not hold up. They questioned his relations to the ideas and structures of the National Socialist system, his role as a consultant in the National Socialist\'s forced sterilization program, a possible involvement in the Nazi euthanasia measures, and his position as a psychiatric consultant for the German navy. The article considers 2 aspects concerning the National Socialist racial hygiene in greater detail by using newly found source material. It is shown that Creutzfeldt, although he did not actively resist, was not acting in the interest of the Nazi regime, but rather was trying to save as much patients as possible by changing their diagnoses and prevent them from being killed in the euthanasia program.

暂无摘要。