Editing Sterilization (medicine) (section)

===National examples===

====United States====
The [[United States]] is an example of a country that once implemented [[Eugenics|eugenic]] [[Sterilization law in the United States|sterilization laws]] and practices. White American eugenicists promoted involuntary sterilization as a means of ensuring [[white supremacy]] by preventing so-called "race suicide."<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |title=Eugenics and Scientific Racism |url=https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism |access-date=2025-04-04 |website=www.genome.gov |language=en}}</ref> Therefore, eugenic policies in America often targeted [[Hispanic and Latino Americans|Latinos]], [[African Americans]], [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]], people with [[Disability|disabilities]], and poor whites. <ref name=":5" /> The first involuntary sterilization law was enacted in [[Indiana]] in 1907, later followed by a [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] ruling in 1927 that legalized the practice nationwide.<ref name=":02">{{Cite news |title=The Supreme Court Ruling That Led To 70,000 Forced Sterilizations |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/469478098/the-supreme-court-ruling-that-led-to-70-000-forced-sterilizations |access-date=2025-02-27 |work=NPR |language=en}}</ref> The 1927 Supreme Court decision in ''[[Buck v. Bell]]'' ruled that a state could perform forcible sterilization procedures on those deemed unfit for reproduction.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/200/ |access-date=2025-02-27 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref> As a result of this ruling, an estimated 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized.<ref name=":02" /> Until 1970, 30 states had enacted eugenic sterilization practices. <ref name=":5" /> Both men and women were subjected to sterilization, with [[vasectomy]] being the most common procedure for men, and women often subjected to a [[salpingectomy]], a comparatively more invasive procedure.<ref name=":02" /> These eugenic sterilizations had the greatest impacts on people with [[Mental disorder|mental illness]], [[Intellectual disability|intellectual disabilities]], and [[Person of color|people of color]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Reilly |first=Philip R. |date=2015 |title=Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907–2015 |journal=Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics |language=en |volume=16 |pages=351–368 |doi=10.1146/annurev-genom-090314-024930 |doi-access=free |issn=1527-8204}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Novak |first=Nicole L. |last2=Lira |first2=Natalie |last3=O'Connor |first3=Kate E. |last4=Harlow |first4=Siobán D. |last5=Kardia |first5=Sharon L. R. |last6=Stern |first6=Alexandra Minna |date=May 2018 |title=Disproportionate Sterilization of Latinos Under California's Eugenic Sterilization Program, 1920–1945 |title-link=doi |journal=American Journal of Public Health |volume=108 |issue=5 |pages=611–613 |doi=10.2105/AJPH.2018.304369 |doi-access=free|issn=0090-0036 |pmc=5888070 |pmid=29565671}}</ref> In addition, states varied in the extent to which they employed these practices, with [[California]] operating one of the largest [[Eugenics in California|eugenic sterilization programs]] in the country.<ref name=":1" /> Beginning in 1909, California executed approximately one-third of the nation's eugenic sterilizations.<ref name=":2" /> Under California law, sterilization was permitted for individuals in hospitals and state homes who were classified as "feebleminded."<ref name=":2" /> These laws disproportionately targeted people of Latin American heritage, especially women and girls.<ref name=":2" /> By the late 1930s, the practice of widespread eugenic sterilization in the United States began to decline, with further declines following the 1942 Supreme Court Ruling in ''[[Skinner v. Oklahoma]]''.<ref name=":1" /> However, the ''[[Buck v. Bell]]'' ruling has never been explicitly overturned.

==== Japan ====
An example of forced sterilization that was ended within the last two decades is Japan's Race [[Eugenics in Japan|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.<ref name="The Enactment of Japan's Sterilization Laws">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.</ref>  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 in the 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.<ref name="The Enactment of Japan's Sterilization Laws" /> 

====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 clearly aimed 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.<ref>Singh, K., O. A. C. Viegas, and S. S. Ratnam. "Balance in Family Planning". ''World Health Forum''. 10 (1989): 344–49.</ref>  This program, among other birth control incentives and education programs, greatly reduced Singapore's birth rate, female mortality rate, and [[Infant mortality|infant mortality rate]] while increasing family income, female participation in the labor force, with a 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 a result of poor families' lack of 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.<ref>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.</ref>  In 1959, the second [[Five-Year Plans of India|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.<ref name="Seeking Zero Growth"/>  These incentives partially served as a way to educate men that sterilization was the most effective form of [[Birth control|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 a lack of cleanliness and careful technique, potentially resulting in botched surgeries and other complications.<ref name="Seeking Zero Growth"/>  As the [[Total fertility rate|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.<ref name="Seeking Zero Growth"/>  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 [[Government of China|Chinese government]] viewed population growth as a growth in development and progress.  The population at the time was around 540 million.<ref name="China Daily">{{cite news|title=Total population, CBR, CDR, NIR and TFR of China (1949–2000)|url=http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010census/2010-08/20/content_11182379.htm|newspaper=China Daily}}</ref>  Therefore, [[abortion]] and sterilization were restricted.  With these policies and the social and economic improvements associated with the new regime, rapid population growth ensued.<ref name="Seeking Zero Growth"/>  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.<ref name="China Daily"/>  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 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".<ref name="Consequences of the one-child policy">{{cite news|last=The Economist Online|title=Consequences of the one-child policy: Perils of motherhood|url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2012/06/consequences-one-child-policy|newspaper=The Economist|date=June 16, 2012}}</ref>  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.