RSS
Логотип
Баннер в шапке 1
Баннер в шапке 2
2024/01/11 15:26:23

Sterilization of women

Sterilization of a woman is a type of surgical irreversible contraception, which implies the creation of an obstruction of the fallopian tubes by surgery. At the same time, sperm cannot reach the egg

Content

2022: The number of sterilization operations for women in Russia has grown to a maximum in 16 years - up to 15 thousand procedures

In 2022 Russia , about 15 thousand procedures for sterilizing women were carried out, which was a record figure for 16 years. The previous maximum dated 2006, when more than 17 thousand operations were recorded. This is evidenced by data Rosstat published in January 2024.

Rinat Temirbulatov, an obstetrician-gynecologist, head of the department of reproductive surgery at the International Center for Reproductive Medicine, explained to the Medical Bulletin that the increase in the number of sterilization procedures in women may be associated with the dissemination of information about the possibility of such an operation, as well as with the good awareness of Russian women about its consequences.

In 2022, about 15 thousand procedures for sterilizing women were carried out in Russia
File:Aquote1.png
Now the patients have an understanding that this procedure does not lead to a lifelong and irreversible refusal to have children. For example, even after dressing the fallopian tubes, the patient, if desired, can do IVF and get a pregnancy, he said in January 2024.
File:Aquote2.png

According to Rosstat, the indicator of sterilization per 100 thousand women aged 15 to 49 years in 2010 was 33.4, and in 2022 - 44.6. At the same time, there is no direct trend towards an increase in the number of sterilizations: for example, in 2015 and 2019 there were more than 14 thousand of them, and in 2020 - 12.6 thousand, and in 2021 - again more than 14 thousand.

Sterilization is carried out by ligation of fallopian tubes and is an irreversible operation. In Russia, it is allowed to sterilize both women and men only upon reaching the age of 35 and if they have at least two children. The exception is only those situations where sterilization is performed for medical reasons. Among them are leukemia, uterine rupture, schizophrenia, etc. According to Temirbulatov, most often sterilization is carried out in parallel with another operation, and patients rarely come to the procedure specifically.[1]

2019: Japanese women secure penny compensation from state for forced sterilization

At the end of May 2019, a Japanese court decided that the forced sterilization of two women, carried out several decades ago, was contrary to the constitution, but rejected their demands for additional compensation. The case of two Japanese women was the first of 20 such cases.

The fact is that in Japan until 1996 there was a government program that prevented the appearance of "lower offspring" by forcibly sterilizing tens of thousands of people. Most of these people were physically or mentally disabled, suffered from mental illness, leprosy, which was then considered incurable, or simply had behavioral problems.

In Japan, victims of forced sterilization will receive compensation

Japan passed the "Eugenics Protection Act" in 1948 as it struggled with food shortages and tried to lift the war-ravaged country off its knees. Before the law was withdrawn, about 25,000 people were sterilized, with at least 16,500 people not giving consent to carry out the procedure. The decision remained with the eugenics commission, which did not particularly delve into patients' affairs. Sterilization reached its peak in the 1960s and 1970s, and the last operation was performed in 1993. Although the most violent eugenic laws were introduced in Nazi Germany, Japan was not the only country to conduct such programs in peacetime. Most other states abolished eugenic laws in the 1970s.

In April 2019, Japan passed a law to pay compensation to victims of 3.2 million yen ($29,000). In a month, Japanese courts received about 20 lawsuits from people who accused the government of violating human rights and demanded additional compensation. However, already when considering the first case, the district court refused the victims. The plaintiffs are likely to go to the supreme court.[2]

Notes