Sterilization (medicine)

Sterilization (also spelled sterilisation) is any of a number of

Sterilization
medical methods of birth control that intentionally leaves a person
unable to reproduce. Sterilization methods include both surgical Background
and non-surgical, and exist for both males and females. Type Sterilization
Sterilization procedures are intended to be permanent; reversal is
generally difficult or impossible. First use Ancient
Failure rates (first year)
There are multiple ways of having sterilization done, but the two
Perfect use under 1%
that are used most frequently are tubal ligation for women and
vasectomy for men. There are many different ways tubal Typical use under 1%
sterilization can be accomplished. It is extremely effective and in Usage
the United States surgical complications are low. With that being
Duration Permanent
said, tubal sterilization is still a method that involves surgery, so
there is still a danger. Women that chose a tubal sterilization may effect
have a higher risk of serious side effects, more than a man has with Reversibility Difficult and
a vasectomy. Pregnancies after a tubal sterilization can still occur, expensive,
even many years after the procedure. It is not very likely, but if it vasectomy reversal
does happen there is a high risk of ectopic gestation. Statistics & tubal reversal may
confirm that a handful of tubal sterilization surgeries are performed
be possible
shortly after a vaginal delivery mostly by minilaparotomy.[1]
User 3 negative semen
In some cases, sterilization can be reversed but not all. It can vary reminders samples required
by the type of sterilization performed.[1] following vasectomy
Clinic review None
Advantages and disadvantages
Contents STI None
Methods protection
Surgical Benefits Permanent methods
Transluminal that require no
Pharmacological further user actions
Voluntary sterilization Risks Operative and
Lifestyle postoperative
Financial complications
Physiological
National examples
United States
Promoted sterilization
Compulsory
Incentivizing
National examples
Singapore
India
 China
Criminalization
Poland
Effects
Physical
Psychological
Familial
Women in the household
Relationship with spouse
Children
Community and beyond
See also
References
External links

Methods

Surgical

Surgical sterilization methods include:

Tubal ligation in females, known popularly as "having one's tubes tied". The fallopian tubes,
which allow the sperm to fertilize the ovum and would carry the fertilized ovum to the uterus,
are closed. This generally involves a general anesthetic and a laparotomy or laparoscopic
approach to cut, clip or cauterize the fallopian tubes.
Bilateral salpingectomy in females, also known as tubal removal. Both fallopian tubes are
surgically removed. When done for contraceptive purposes, the ovaries are left in place.
This method is considered more effective than tubal ligation, as there is no chance of tubal
reconnection or clip failure, and also prevents cancer of the fallopian tubes and can reduce
risk of ovarian cancer.
Vasoligation in males. The vasa deferentia, the tubes that connect the testicles to the
prostate, are cut and closed. This prevents sperm produced in the testicles from entering the
ejaculated semen (which is mostly produced in the seminal vesicles and prostate). Although
the term vasectomy is established in the general community, the correct medical terminology
is vasoligation.
Hysterectomy in females. The uterus is surgically removed, permanently preventing
pregnancy and some diseases, such as uterine cancer.
Castration in males. The testicles are surgically removed. This is frequently used for the
sterilization of animals, but rarely for humans. It was also formerly used on some human
male children for other reasons; see castrato and eunuch.

Transluminal

Transluminal procedures are performed by entry through the female reproductive tract. These generally use
a catheter to place a substance into the fallopian tubes that eventually causes blockage of the tract in this
segment. Such procedures are generally called non-surgical as they use natural orifices and thereby do not
necessitate any surgical incision.

The Essure procedure was one such transluminal sterilization technique. In this procedure,
polyethylene terephthalate fiber inserts were placed into the fallopian tubes, eventually
inducing scarring and occlusion of the tubes.[2]

In April 2018, the FDA restricted the sale and use of Essure. On July 20, 2018, Bayer announced the halt
of sales in the US by the end of 2018.

Quinacrine has also been used for transluminal sterilization, but despite a multitude of
clinical studies on the use of quinacrine and female sterilization, no randomized, controlled
trials have been reported to date and there is some controversy over its use.[3] See also
mepacrine.

Pharmacological

There is no working "sterilization pill" that causes permanent inability to reproduce.

In the 1977 textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, on page 787, the authors speculate
about future possible oral sterilants for humans.

In 2015, DNA editing using gene drives to sterilize mosquitos was demonstrated.[4]

There have been hoaxes involving fictitious drugs that would purportedly have such effects, notably
progesterex.

See also Norplant, Depo-Provera and oral contraceptive.

Voluntary sterilization
Motivations for voluntary sterilizations include:

Lifestyle

Because of the emphasis placed on childbearing as the most important role of women, not having children
was traditionally seen as a deficiency or due to fertility problems.[5] However, better access to
contraception, new economic and educational opportunities, and changing ideas about motherhood have
led to new reproductive experiences for women in the United States, particularly for women who choose to
be childless.[6] Scholars define "voluntarily childless" women as "women of childbearing age who are
fertile and state that they do not intend to have children, women of childbearing age who have chosen
sterilization, or women past childbearing age who were fertile but chose not to have children."[7] In
industrialized countries such as the United Kingdom, those of Western Europe, and the United States, the
fertility rate has declined below or near the population replacement rate of two children per woman.
Women are having children at a later age, and most notably, an increasing number of women are choosing
not to bear children at all.[5] According to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, 46% of
women aged 15 to 44 were childless in June 2008 compared to 35% of childless women in 1976.[8] The
personal freedoms of a childless lifestyle and the ability to focus on other relationships were common
motivations underlying the decision to be voluntarily childless. Such personal freedoms included increased
autonomy and improved financial positions. The couple could engage in more spontaneous activities
because they did not need a babysitter or to consult with someone else. Women had more time to devote to
their careers and hobbies. Regarding other relationships, some women chose to forgo children because they
wanted to maintain the "type of intimacy that they found fulfilling" with their partners.[5] Although
voluntary childlessness was a joint decision for many couples, "studies have found that women were more
often the primary decision makers. There is also some evidence that when one partner (either male or
female) was ambivalent, a strong desire not to have children on the side of the other partner was often the
deciding factor." [7] 'Not finding a suitable partner at an appropriate time in life" was another deciding
factor, particularly for ambivalent women.

Financial

Economic incentives and career reasons also motivate women to choose sterilization. With regard to
women who are voluntarily childless, studies show that there are higher "opportunity costs" for women of
higher socioeconomic status because women are more likely than men to forfeit labor force participation
once they have children. Some women stated the lack of financial resources as a reason why they remained
childfree. Combined with the costliness of raising children, having children was viewed as a negative
impact on financial resources.[7] Thus, childlessness is generally correlated with working full-time. "Many
women expressed the view that women ultimately have to make a choice between motherhood and career."
In contrast, childlessness was also found among adults who were not overly committed to careers. In these
finding, the importance of leisure time and the potential to retire early was emphasized over career
ambitions. Sterilization is also an option for low-income families. Public funding for contraceptive services
come from a variety of federal and state sources in the United States. Until the mid-1990s, "[f]ederal funds
for contraceptive services [were] provided under Title X of the Public Health Service Act, Title XIX of the
Social Security (Medicaid), and two block-grant programs, Maternal and Child Health (MCH) and Social
Services."[9] The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families was another federal block granted created in
1996 and is the main federal source of financial "welfare" aid. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services administers Title X, which is the sole federal program dedicated to family planning. Under Title X,
public and nonprofit private agencies receive grants to operate clinics that provide care largely to the
uninsured and the underinsured. Unlike Title X, Medicaid is an entitlement program that is jointly funded
by federal and state governments to "provide medical care to various low-income populations."[10]
Medicaid provided the majority of publicly funded sterilizations. In 1979, regulations were implemented on
sterilizations funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. The regulations included "a
complex procedure to ensure women's informed consent, a 30-day waiting period between consent and the
procedure, and a prohibition on sterilization of anyone younger than 21 or who is mentally
incompetent."[10]

Physiological

Physiological reasons, such as genetic disorders or disabilities, can influence whether couples seek
sterilization. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1 in 6 children in the U.S.
had a developmental disability in 2006–2008.[11] Developmental disabilities are defined as "a diverse
group of severe chronic conditions that are due to mental and/or physical impairments." Many disabled
children may eventually grow to lead independent lives as adults, but they may require intensive parental
care and extensive medical costs as children. Intensive care can lead to a parent's "withdrawal from the
labor force, worsened economic situation of the household, interruptions in parents' sleep and a greater
chance of marital instability."[12] Couples may choose sterilization in order to concentrate on caring for a
child with a disability and to avoid withholding any necessary resources from additional children.
Alternatively, couples may also desire more children in hopes of experiencing the normal parental activities
of their peers. A child without a disability may be more likely to provide the couple with grandchildren and
support in their old age. For couples without children, technological advancements have enabled the use of
carrier screening and prenatal testing for the detection of genetic disorders in prospective parents or in their
unborn offspring.[13] If prenatal testing has detected a genetic disorder in the child, parents may opt to be
sterilized to forgo having more children who may also be affected.[12]

National examples

United States

Sterilization is the most common form of contraception in the United States when female and male usage is
combined. However, usage varies across demographic categories such as gender, age, education, etc.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16.7% of women aged 15–44 used female
sterilization as a method of contraception in 2006–2008 while 6.1% of their partners used male
sterilization.[14] Minority women were more likely to use female sterilization than their white
counterparts.[15] The proportion of women using female sterilization was highest for black women (22%),
followed by Hispanic women (20%) and white women (15%). Reverse sterilization trends by race occurred
for the male partners of the women: 8% of male partners of white women used male sterilization, but it
dropped to 3% of the partners of Hispanic women and only 1% of the partners of black women. White
women were more likely to rely on male sterilization and the pill. While use of the pill declined with age,
the report found that female sterilization increased with age.

Correspondingly, female
sterilization was the leading
method among currently and
formerly married women; the pill
was the leading method among
cohabiting and never married
women. 59% of women with three
or more children used female
sterilization. Thus, women who do
not intend to have more children
primarily rely on this method of
contraception in contrast with
women who only aim to space or
delay their next birth. Regarding
education, "[l]ess-educated
women aged 22–44 years were
much more likely to rely on female
sterilization than those with more
education." For example, female sterilization was used among 55% of women who had not completed high
school compared with 16% of women who had graduated from college.[14] Because national surveys of
contraceptive methods have generally relied on the input of women, information about male sterilization is
not as widespread. A survey using data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth found similar
trends to those reported for female sterilization by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2006–
2008. Among men aged 15–44 years, vasectomy prevalence was highest in older men and those with two
or more biological children. Men with less education were more likely to report female sterilization in their
partner. In contrast to female sterilization trends, vasectomy was associated with white males and those who
had ever visited a family planning clinic.[16] Several factors can explain the different findings between
female and male sterilization trends in the United States. Women are more likely to receive reproductive
health services. "Additionally, overall use of contraception is associated with higher socioeconomic status,
but for women, use of contraceptive tubal sterilization has been found to be related to lower socioeconomic
status and lack of health insurance." This finding could be related to Medicaid-funded sterilizations in the
postpartum period that are not available to men.[16]

Promoted sterilization

Compulsory

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.[17] 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
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.[17] 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 people who do not understand English.[18] Many of
the women affected by this were poor, minority women.[19]

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 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.[20]

Incentivizing
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).[21] 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 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 agree that incentive programs are inherently coercive, making them unethical.[21]
Others 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

Singapore

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.[22] 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

Another country with an overpopulation problem is India. Medical 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.[23] 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.[24] 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.[24] 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 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.[24] 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

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 was around 540 million.[25]
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.[24] 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.[25] 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 with "extra children" must pay
between three and six times the city's average yearly income in "social maintenance fees."[26] 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

Poland

In Poland, reproductive sterilisation of men or women has been defined as a criminal act since 1997[27]: 1 9 
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.[28]: 6 4  The original 1997 law punished contraventions with a prison sentence
of one to ten years[27] and the updated law as of 5  September  2019 sets a prison sentence of at least 3
years.[28] The prison sentence is a maximum of three years if the sterilisation is involuntary, under Art. 156
§2.[27][28]: 6 4 

Effects
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
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.[29] 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.[30] 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."[31] 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.[32]

Psychological

It can be difficult to measure the psychological effects of sterilization, as 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."[33] 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.[34] 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.[15]

Familial

Women in the household

Some people believe that sterilization gives women, in particular, more control over their sexuality and their
reproduction. This can 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.[24] 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.[35] 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.[35]

Relationship with spouse

In countries that are more entrenched in the traditional patriarchal system, female sterilizations can inspire
abusive behavior from husbands for various reasons.[36] 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.[34]

Children

As the Chinese government tried to communicate to their people after the population boom between 1953
and 1971, having fewer children allows more of a family's total resources to be dedicated to each child.[24]
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 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.[24] 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

In countries with high population rates, such as China and India, compulsory sterilization policies or
incentivizes to sterilization may be implemented in order to lower birth rates.[24] 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.[24] 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.[24]

See also
Infertility
Eugenics
Male contraceptive
Vas-occlusive contraception

References
1. Peterson, Herbert B (2008). "Sterilization". Obstetrics and Gynecology. 111 (1): 189–203.
doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000298621.98372.62 (https://doi.org/10.1097%2F01.AOG.000029862
1.98372.62). hdl:10983/15925 (https://hdl.handle.net/10983%2F15925). PMID 18165410 (htt
ps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18165410). S2CID 220557510 (https://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:220557510).
 2. Smith RD (January 2010). "Contemporary hysteroscopic methods for female sterilization" (ht
tps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135408/1/ijgo79.pdf) (PDF). Int J Gynaecol
Obstet. 108 (1): 79–84. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.026 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ijgo.200
9.07.026). hdl:2027.42/135408 (https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42%2F135408). PMID 19716128
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19716128). S2CID 13613243 (https://api.semanticscholar.o
rg/CorpusID:13613243).
3. Drugs.com --> Quinacrine. (https://www.drugs.com/mmx/quinacrine-hydrochloride.html)
Retrieved on August 24, 2009
4. Hesman Saey, Tina (December 7, 2015). "DNA editing shows success in mosquito
sterilization" (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/dna-editing-shows-success-mosquito-steri
lization). Science News. Retrieved October 5, 2016.
5. Gillespie, Rosemary. 2003. "Childfree and Feminine: Understanding the Gender Identity of
Voluntary Childless Women". Gender and Society. 17(1): 122–136.
6. Forsyth, Craig J. 1999. "The Perspectives of Childless Couples". International Review of
Modern Sociology. 29(2): 59–70.
7. Kelly, Maura. 2009. "Women's Voluntary Childlessness: A Radical Rejection of
Motherhood?". Women's Studies Quarterly. 37(3/4): 157–172.
8. 2010. "Fertility of American Women: 2008". American Community Survey. United States'
Census Bureau.
9. Gold, Rachel Benson and Barry Nestor. 1985. "Public Funding of Contraceptive,
Sterilization, and Abortion Services". Family Planning Perspectives. 17(1): 25–30.
10. Sonfield, Adam, and Rachel Benson Gold. 2005. "Methodology for Measuring Public
Funding for Contraceptive, Sterilization, and Abortion Services, FY 1980–2001". The Alan
Guttmacher Institute.
11. "Developmental Disabilities Increasing in US". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
2011.
12. Park, Jennifer M., Hogan, Dennis P. and Frances K. Goldscheider. 2003. "Child Disability
and Mothers' Tubal Sterilization". Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 35(3):
138–143.
13. Rowley, Peter T. "Genetic Screening: Marvel or Menace?". 1984. Science. 225(4658): 138–
144.
14. 2010. "Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982–2008". Vital and Health Statistics.
23(29)
15. Zite, Nikki and Sonya Borrero. 2011. "Female Sterilisation in the United States". The
European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care. 16: 336–340.
16. Anderson, John E. et al. 2010. "Contraceptive Sterilization Use Among Married Men in the
United States: Results from the Male Sample of the National Survey of Family Growth".
82(3): 230–235
17. Matsubara, Yôko. "The Enactment of Japan's Sterilization Laws in the 1940s: A Prelude to
Postwar Eugenic Policy." The History of Science Society of Japan. 8.2 (1998): 187–201.
18. Kluchin, Rebecca M. "Locating the Voices of the Sterilized." The Public Historian. 29.3
(2007): 131–44.
19. Pierson-Balik, Denise A. 2003. "Race, Class, and Gender in Punitive Welfare Reform:
Social Eugenics and Welfare Policy". Race, Gender, & Class. 10 (1): 11–30.
20. Eliminating forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilization, An interagency
statement (https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/gender_rights/eliminating-for
ced-sterilization/en/), World Health Organization, May 2014.
21. Mauldon, Jane Gilbert. "Providing Subsidies and Incentives for Norplant, Sterilization and
Other Contraception: Allowing Economic Theory to Inform Ethical Analysis." The Journal of
Law, Medicine & Ethics. 31.3 (2003): 351–64.
22. Singh, K., O. A. C. Viegas, and S. S. Ratnam. "Balance in Family Planning". World Health
Forum. 10 (1989): 344–49.
23. Enke, Stephen. "The Gains to India from Population Control: Some Money Measures and
Incentive Schemes." The Review of Economics and Statistics. 42.2 (1960): 175–81.
24. STOLC, Phyllis E W. "Seeking Zero Growth: Population Policy in China and India".
Graduate Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies. 6.2 (2008): 10–32.
25. "Total population, CBR, CDR, NIR and TFR of China (1949–2000)" (http://www.chinadaily.c
om.cn/china/2010census/2010-08/20/content_11182379.htm). China Daily.
26. The Economist Online (June 16, 2012). "Consequences of the one-child policy: Perils of
motherhood" (https://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2012/06/consequences-one-child-
policy). The Economist.
27. "553 Ustawa z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. – Kodeks karny" (https://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/do
wnload.xsp/WDU19970880553/O/D19970553.pdf) [553 Law of 6 June 1997 - Criminal
code] (PDF). Sejm. 1997-06-06. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190930144435/htt
ps://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19970880553/O/D19970553.pdf) (PDF)
from the original on 2019-09-30. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
28. "Ustawa z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. – Kodeks karny – Opracowano na podstawie t.j. Dz. U. z
2018 r. poz. 1600, 2077, z 2019 r. poz. 730, 858, 870, 1135, 1579" (https://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/
isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20180001600/U/D20181600Lj.pdf) [Law of 6 June 1997 -
Criminal code – Updated on the basis of Dz. U. 2018 parts 1600, 2077, and Dz. U. 2019
parts 730, 858, 870, 1135, 1579] (PDF). Sejm. 2019-09-05. Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20190930143114/https://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU2018000160
0/U/D20181600Lj.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 2019-09-30. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
29. Costello, Caroline et al. 2002. "The Effect of Interval Tubal Sterilization on Sexual Interest
and Pleasure". The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 100(3): 511–517.
30. Hofmeyr, Doreen G. and Abraham P. Greeff. 2002. "The Influence of a Vasectomy on the
Marital Relationship and Sexual Satisfaction of the Married Man". Journal of Sex and Marital
Therapy. 28:339–351.
31. "Tubal Ligation". Johns Hopkins Medicine.
32. "Vasectomy". Johns Hopkins Medicine.
33. Lin, Luo; Wu Shi-Zhong; Zhu Changmin; Fan Qifu; Liu Keqiang; Sun Goliang (1996).
"Psychological Effects of Sterilization". Contraception. 54 (6): 345–357. doi:10.1016/s0010-
7824(96)00200-4 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0010-7824%2896%2900200-4).
PMID 8968663 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8968663).
34. Philliber, S. G.; Philliber, W. W. (1985). "Social and psychological perspectives on voluntary
sterilization: A review". Studies in Family Planning. 16 (1): 1–29. doi:10.2307/1965814 (http
s://doi.org/10.2307%2F1965814). JSTOR 1965814 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1965814).
PMID 3983979 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3983979).
35. Abell, P. K. "The Decision to End Childbearing by Sterilization." Family Relations. 36.1
(1987): 66–71.
36. Rao, Vijayendra. "Wife-Beating in a Rural South India Community." Social Science and
Medicine. 44.8 (1997): 1169–1181.

External links
Cat's sterilization (video) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4m6PnJlwqc)
 Vasectomy Information (http://www.vasectomy-information.com) —The website of
newsgroup alt.support.vasectomy.
All About Vasectomy & Finding a Doctor. Latest advances, videos etc (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20010412100740/http://www.vasectomymedical.com/)
My Vasectomy in Words and Pictures (https://web.archive.org/web/20181101175441/http://m
y-vasectomy.com/) —One man's personal experience.
Vasectomy Reversal Resource (http://vasectomy--reversal.blogspot.com/)
Female Sterilization Options (https://web.archive.org/web/20101130104329/http://www.wom
enshealthchannel.com/contraception/permanent.shtml) – /mk.nkl/cvas1.html Is Vasectomy
the Right Method For Me?] and * * * Is Female Sterilization the Right Method For Me? (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20070416094442/http://engenderhealth.org/wh/fp/cfem1.html)
No-Scalpel Vasectomy: The NSV Book (https://www.no-scalpelvasectomy.com/nsv_book.ht
ml)
Video: The NSV Procedure (graphic) (https://web.archive.org/web/20141110214908/https://
no-scalpelvasectomy.com/video/)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sterilization_(medicine)&oldid=1124608439"

This page was last edited on 29 November 2022, at 15:57 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0; additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.