Forced contraception performed in public institutions of health among Mexican women: An ethnographic approximation
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Forced or under coercion contraception against women is a long-standing phenomenon. There are diverse institutional mechanisms aimed at guaranteeing the respect to the reproductive rights of women, however in the practice, coercion is still imposed to forcé women to choose contraception options.
Objective: To become familiar with the strategies used by the health staff seeking to force the decision of some women regarding undergoing surgical methods or using contraception devices.
Methodology: This is an ethnographic study carried out in health institutions of Mexico City and the State of Querétaro. Nine women users of family planning services and 12 members of the health staff participated in this study. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. An analytical matrix of the forms of coercion and related emerging categories was generated.
Results: The health staff used diverse strategies to persuade women to utilize contraception measures after birth care. Some of these strategies were considered forms of coercion; for example by picking moments of emotional vulnerability to make women sign informed consent documents without them being really informed, or by provoking fear, or by preventing the women leaving the hospital if they would not adopt some contraception method.
Discussion: The strategies used by the health staff are within the frame of public policies, however, these strategies are imposed without considering the specific desires and needs of women.
Conclusions: Family planification policies can be used as instruments to the sexuality and reproduction of women.
Article Details
Dimensions citation
MÉTRICAS
References
(1) Open Society Foundations. Against her will: Forced and coerced sterilization of women worldwide. Manhattan, New York. OSF; 2011. https://bit.ly/43rZrDp
(2) Reilly PR. Eugenics and involuntary sterilization: 1907-2015. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 2015; 16: 351-68. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-090314-024930
(3) Rowlands S, Amy J-J. Sterilization of those with intellectual disability: Evolution from non-consensual interventions to strict safeguards. J Intellect Disabil. 2019; 23(2): 233-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629517747162
(4) Price GN, Darity Jr. WA. The economics of race and eugenic sterilization in North Carolina: 1958-1968. Econ Hum Biol. 2010; 8(2): 261-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ehb.2010.01.002
(5) Molina-Serra A. Esterilizaciones (forzadas) en Perú: poder y configuraciones narrativas. Antropól. Iberoam. Red. 2017; 12(1): 31-52. https://doi.org/10.11156/aibr.120103
(6) Smith-Oka V. Shaping the motherhood of indigenous Mexico. EE.UU.: Vanderbilt University Press; 2013.
(7) Zampas C, Lamačková A. Forced and coerced sterilization of women in Europe. Int J Obstet Gynaecol Obstet. 2011; 114(2): 163-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.05.002
(8) Rowlands S, Amy JJ. Non-consensual sterilization of women living with HIV. Int J STD AIDS. 2018; 29(9): 917-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956462418758116
(9) Strode A, Mthembu S, Essack Z. “She made up a choice for me”: 22 HIV-positive women’s experiences of involuntary sterilization in two South African provinces. Reprod Health Matters. 2012; 20(Suppl. 39): 61-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(12)39643-2
(10) Essack Z, Strode A. “I feel like half a woman all the time”: The impacts of coerced and forced sterilisations on HIV-positive women in South Africa. Agenda. 2012; 26(2): 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2012.708583
(11) Khosla R, Zampas C, Vogel JP, Bohren MA, Roseman M, Erdman JN. International human rights and the mistreatment of women during childbirth. Health Hum Rights. 2016; 18(2): 131-43. https://bit.ly/3MWXzx2
(12) Tulchinsky TH. Chapter 13 – Ethical issues in public health. In: Tulchinsky TH. Case studies in public health. 3rd edition. San Diego: AcademicPress/Elsevier; 2014. P.p. 277-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804571-8.00027-5
(13) Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women New York, 18 Decembrer 1979. Geneve, Switzerland: United Nations General Assembly; 1979. https://bit.ly/428fBkd
(14) Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos. Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional. Ginebra, Suiza: ONU;1998. https://bit.ly/3OCH0Eb
(15) Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos. Convención sobre los derechos de las personas con discapacidad. Ginebra, Suiza: ONU; 2006. https://bit.ly/3zd9v5L
(16) Holt E. Uzbekistan accused of forced sterilisation campaign. Lancet. 2012; 379(9835): 2415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61050-2
(17) Harris LH, Wolfe T. Stratified reproduction, family planning care and the double edge of history. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 26(6): 539-44. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000121
(18) Bi S, Klusty T. Forced sterilizations of HIV-positive women: A global ethics and policy failure. AMA J Ethics. 2015; 17(10): 952-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.10.pfor2-1510
(19) Kendall T, Albert C. Experiences of coercion to sterilize and forced sterilization among women living with HIV in Latin America. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015; 18(1): 19462. https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.18.1.19462
(20) Stucchi-Portocarrero S. Eugenics, medicine and psychiatry in Peru. Hist Psychiatry. 2018; 29(1): 96-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957154X17741232
(21) Bosch X. Former Peruvian government censured over sterilisations. BMJ. 2002; 325: 236. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7358.236/b
(22) Smith-Oka V. Unintended consequences: Exploring the tensions between development programs and indigenous women in Mexico in the context of reproductive health. Soc Sci Med. 2009; 68(11): 2069–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.026
(23) Gutiérrez-Román JL, Cariño-Cepeda IG, De la Peña-Rodríguez LJ. Mujeres privadas de libertad ¿mujeres sin derechos? Diagnóstico sobre la situación de los Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos de las mujeres privadas de libertad en los estados de Guanajuato, Guerrero, Puebla y Querétaro. México: Asistencia Legal por los Derechos Humanos A.C./Instituto de Derechos Humanos Ignacio Ellacuría SJ-Universidad Iberoamericana Puebla; 2011. https://bit.ly/3N3IJEI
(24) Rodríguez P, Rosenthal E, Ahern L, Santos N, Cancino I, Lopez P, et al. Abuso y negación de derechos sexuales y reproductivos a mujeres con discapacidad psicosocial en México. México: Disability Rights International/Colectivo Chuhcan; s/f. https://bit.ly/3oAaact
(25) Kirsch J, Cedeño MA. Informed consent for family planning for poor women in Chiapas, Mexico. Lancet. 1999; 354(9176): 419-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)90136-8
(26) Castro R, Erviti J. La violación de derechos reproductivos durante la atención institucional del parto: un estudio introductorio. En: López P, Rico B, Langer A, Espinoza G. Género y Política en Salud. México: SSA/UNIFEM. 2003. https://bit.ly/3IKOFQF
(27) Martínez-Villa C, Rangel-Flores Y. Experiences influencing upon the significance of obstetric care in Mexican nurses. Inv. educ. enferm. 2018; 36(1): e12. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.v36n1e12
(28) Foucault M. Historia de la sexualidad I: la Voluntad de Saber. 25a ed. Madrid: Siglo XXI Editores; 1998. https://bit.ly/3vhtQ8P
(29) Foucault M. Clase del 1° de febrero de 1978. En Foucault M. Seguridad, territorio, población: Curso en el Collège de France (1977-1978). Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 2006. https://bit.ly/3BsiYIO
(30) Morgan LM, Roberts EFS. Reproductive governance in Latin America. Anthropol Med. 2012; 19(2): 241-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2012.675046
(31) Yañez, SS. De cómo las instituciones de salud pública regulan las experiencias del embarazo, parto y puerperio… y de lo que resta. [Tesis de Doctorado]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad de Buenos Aires-Facultad de Filosofía y Letras; 2016. https://bit.ly/3IR88zg
(32) Secretaría de Salud. Programa de acción específico: Planificación familiar y anticoncepción 2013-2018. Programa sectorial de salud. México: SSA; 2013. https://bit.ly/3qmSYva
(33) Secretaría de Salud. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-005-SSA2-1993, De los servicios de planificación familiar. México: DOF; 1994. https://bit.ly/45HUZSD
(34) Secretaría de Salud. El derecho a la libre decisión en salud reproductiva. México, D.F.: SSA; 2002. https://bit.ly/3OTrF2h
(35) Dirección General de Salud Reproductiva. Capítulo 5. El proceso de la comunicación interpersonal y la orientación-consejería, durante el posparto, la transcesárea, la poscesárea y el posaborto. En: Secretaria de Salud. Anticoncepción posparto, transcesárea, poscesárea y posaborto. México, D.F.: SSA; 2002. Pp. 33. https://bit.ly/3qn6sXJ
(36) Prata N, Fraser A, Huchko MJ, Gipson JD, Withers M, Lewis S, et al. Women’s empowerment and family planning: A review of the literature. J Biosoc Sci. 2017; 49(6): 713-43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932016000663
(37) Casique I. Uso de anticonceptivos en México: ¿qué diferencia hacen el poder de decisión y la autonomía femenina?. Papeles Poblac. 2003; 9(35): 209-33. https://bit.ly/3b8NkFB
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Enfermería Universitaria by Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México it is distributed under the License Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Accepted and published articles become open-access under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, which authorizes the reproduction and sharing without commercial purposes, provided the corresponding acknowledgments to their authors. Authors are allowed to manage a self-archive copy of the article’s published version so that they can open-access it in their personal or institutional web pages, and/or any other broad-diffusion space.
