Redressing forced sterilisation: the role of the medical profession

Abstract

Forced sterilisation has been used by many states to control or diminish minority groups. Historic examples of forced sterilisation include those conducted by the Nazis, acting against Jewish, Roma and Sinti peoples, and the Imperial Japanese Army in Korea during the Second World War, its historic use against Native Americans in the USA, and more recent practice in Peru and in First Nations people in Canada. Although it is prohibited under international criminal law, forced sterilisation often involves medical practitioners, with little reflection on the context and drivers of such violations being demonstrated within the profession. This article sets out the historic and contemporary struggles for accountability and redress for forced sterilisation, focusing on the role of medical practitioners in such violations. Drawing from interviews conducted in Peru in May 2019, the article also suggests new ways of establishing reparations and offers a critical reflection of ethics for medical practitioners and their role in redress.

Equitable delivery of expanded genetic technologies: Considerations for prenatal and reproductive care

“…35 In the United States in the decades before World War II, at least 60,000 people were sterilized without their consent. 36 Even screening programs with the intent to improve health have been used to promote discriminatory practices, such as the sickle cell screening programs of the 1970s which targeted African Americans and lead to downstream impacts including denial of insurance coverage. 37,38 For Indigenous communities these harms have been unimaginable.…”

“…The Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act in effect from 1928 to 1972 lead to almost 3000 forced sterilization procedures, of which 25% were performed on Indigenous peoples 35 . In the United States in the decades before World War II, at least 60,000 people were sterilized without their consent 36 . Even screening programs with the intent to improve health have been used to promote discriminatory practices, such as the sickle cell screening programs of the 1970s which targeted African Americans and lead to downstream impacts including denial of insurance coverage 37,38 .…”

Indigenous and Deaf People and the Implications of Ongoing Practices of Colonization: A Comparison of Australia and Canada

“…During the 1960s, however, a series of policies were enacted by provincial child welfare authorities to again remove Indigenous children from their traditional homes and families, this time into the child welfare systems; this phase in Canadian history is referred to as the 60s Scoop (Sinclair 2007). “Biological absorption” and genocide (Gilmore and Moffett 2020; Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [Australia] 1997), was further enacted by non-indigenous people in Australia and Canada through the sexual exploitation of young Indigenous women, and systemic practices facilitating the forced and coerced contraceptive practices and sterilizations of Indigenous women (Patel 2017; Stote 2015).…”

Bridging justice and health: reparations for conflict‐related sexual violence

“…11 This includes after sexual violence, or when they deprive persons of their choice regarding their right to a private and family life, 12,13 whether through identifying and caring for victims of sexual violence in a sensitive and empathetic manner, documenting the scale and medical consequences of such abuses, or performing rehabilitative medical or surgical interventions to improve the sexual, urological, or reproductive functions of victims after sexual violence. 14,15 These are all key contributions, albeit rarely conceptualised as a form of reparations. Indeed, clinicians can provide invaluable insight to reparations and their effectiveness, given that they holistically understand the patient.…”

“…According to the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, healthcare professionals in sexual and reproductive health have a duty to enunciate concerns when legislative, policy or regulatory measures obstruct access to medical care 11 . This includes after sexual violence, or when they deprive persons of their choice regarding their right to a private and family life, 12,13 whether through identifying and caring for victims of sexual violence in a sensitive and empathetic manner, documenting the scale and medical consequences of such abuses or performing rehabilitative medical or surgical interventions to improve the sexual, urological, or reproductive functions of victims after sexual violence 14,15 . These are all key contributions, albeit rarely conceptualised as a form of reparations.…”