Racial and Gender Discrimination in Forced Sterilization - Coursework Example

Is there Evidence that Show Racial and Gender Discrimination in Forced Human Sterilization existed in California and the United States since the 1900s? Introduction Human sterilization is “a medical or surgical intervention which is performed on the patient either to a man or woman with the purpose of temporarily or permanently incapacitating the person organically or functionally”. (Ciabal 104, 191) In general, the human sterilization is being classified as either therapeutic or direct such that therapeutic sterilization is being performed to a patient for the promotion of health and survival of the person whereas a direct sterilization is being performed to permanently prevent procreation between a man and a woman (Ciabal 104 – 105). Eugenic sterilization is the process of performing forceful human sterilization on individuals who have been diagnosed with mental diseases or insanity such as schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis, feeblemindedness, or epilepsy (Myerson, Ayer and Putnam 82 – 136). The main purpose of performing eugenic sterilization is to prevent the increase in population of those individuals who has defective genes that can be inherited by their future children. As an effective prevention method for unwanted pregnancies, the preservation of social standing of people who belongs to the upper- and middle-class families, and a permanent control over the rapid family growth of people in the lower-class societies; men and women in the United States were either given the option or forced to participate in either tubal ligation – the cutting of fallopian tubes in women or vasectomy – the cutting of vas deferens in men since 1900s (Myerson, Ayer and Putnam 4). It is a common report that most African Americans experience racism and prejudice when it comes to receiving helath care services throughout the United States. (Benkert and Peters 863; Gamble; Krieger and Fee 1773) To prove that gender and racial discrimination in forced human sterilization existed since 1900s, a literature review will be gathered to examine the medical practices that took place in Iowa and the United States. Based on the gathered evidences, whether or not the controversy behind the issue on gender and racial discrimination in forced human steriliazation still exist in the United States today will be determined. Literature Review Gender and Racial Discrimination in Forced Human Sterilization Existed since 1900s California Sterilization law was imposed between the years 1909 to 1979 throughout the state of California (Matocq; Stern1128). Even though the sterilization laws did not literally mention the differences between the race and social class of each American citizen, there are still a lot of evidences showing the presence of gender discrimination when it comes to the practice of human sterilization. The Eugenical Sterilization Act which protects the surgeons and physicians from performing a coercive sterilization on mentally ill patients was legally passed in California and other states in the U.S. to protect the government from excessively large amount of tax burden (Lombardo). As reported by Lombardo, approximately 83.3% of 3,000 individuals who were a victim of involuntarily sterilized throughout the United States came from the state of California back in 1924. This figure significantly increased up to 60,000 Americans during mid-1970s. Today, tens and thousands of men and women who are admitted to mental institutions during the early 20th century were forced to undergo human sterilization (Stern 1128). It remains a fact that there is a huge discrepancy in the number of men and women who were either voluntarily or forced to have human sterilization as a permanent fertility control was recorded. Between the periods of 1970 to 1978, it was reported that as much as 4.2 million women between the age brackets of 15 to 44 years of age had their tubal sterilization in the United States (DeStefano, Greenspan and Ory 481). Based on a randomized research survey study using a questionnaire for a combined face-to-face and telephone interview, as much as 141 women and 25 men received tubal ligation and vasectomy respectively out of the 1,020 respondents (Chow, Rider and Su 975). With regards to the high number of registered women who has received tubal ligation as compared to men who received vasectomy, the National Center for Health Statistics (1978) explained that one of the main reasons why more black American women receive tubal ligation is because most of the white American men prefer to have vasectomy for contraceptive purposes. (2) Based on one of the most current research findings, 14% out of 3,391 women who participated in the study are white women with a current partner received vasectomy as compared to Hispanic and African American women with 5% and 4% respectively (Borrero, Schwarz and Reeves, Does Vasectomy Explain the Difference in Tubal Sterilization Rates between Black and White Women?). Considering the explanation given to us by the National Center for Health Statistics (1978) and the findings of Borrero, Schwarz, and Reeves, it is clear that the preservation of socio-economic status, personal choices, and a better perception of the white American men has over vasectomy are among the factors that contribute as to why there is a higher rate of white American men who undergo vasectomy than the African American men. However, these factors do not fully apply to African American population because of the presence of some cultural factor. For this reason, more African American women end up having tubal ligation as compared to African American men and the minority who has undergone vasectomy. Regardless of whether having a tubal ligation is a personal preference or not, several studies revealed that more number of African American women as compared to the white American women received tubal ligation because of financial limitation, religion, insurance and marital status (Borrero, Schwarz and Reeves 94; DeStefano, Greenspan and Ory 480). Likewise, Stern also revealed that individuals who belong to the minority group such as in the case of Mexican Americans and other immigrants was given no choice but to participate in a coercive eugenic sterilization. Upon analyzing the whole situation, the fact that the existence of genetic defects and dominant race which is the white Americans also has a great impact over the surgeons’ decision to perform forced human sterilization on both men and women. In other words, classism that is present within and outside the health and medical institutions throughout the United States contributes to the development of racial and ethnic discrimination triggers the practice of prejudice acts and decision-making with regards to forced human sterilization (Krieger and Fee 391; Markel 420). Existence of Gender and Racial Discrimination Debate on Forced Human Steriliazation in the United States Today Although the public concern in family planning, the need to control the increasing population, and the reproductive health of women who have experienced multiple childbirth and pregnancies remains high, most of the existing human sterilization policies and programs are more focused on women rather than men. Upon calling a local planned parenthood, a personnel told me that “they do not force anyone to get sterilization and had no comment on the patient’s ethnicity or gender statistics since this type of information are confidential. According to Hussain, one of the possible reasons that cause women to have forced tubal ligation is due to the fact that a lot of countries like the United States are still being ruled by male dominance – a type of cultural norms (Hussain). A recent research study result pertaining to racial differences in tubal ligation revealed that the African American women more than 30 years of age prefer to implement tubal ligation reversal as compared to the white Americans (Borrero, Reeves and Schwarz 272). It only means that the African American women who were commonly the subject of forced human sterilization prefers the use of alternative birth control methods rather than going through a permanent infertility caused by surgical intervention. Based on human rights, each individual regardless of their race, gender, and social status in life have the right to chose and decide for their own preferred treatment or the use of birth control methods. Because of mental illnesses or lack of adequate financial resources, a lot of women who belongs to the minority group or is an African American by race are usually being forced to receive human sterilization. It has been a long time debate that this type of medical practice should no longer be tolerated. Contrary to the desire of African American and the minorities to implement tubal ligation reversal, there are also cases wherein some white American women who do not want to have a child seeks medical help for tubal ligation but doctors simply refuse to sterilize them because of young age or lack of permission from their husband (Radical Doula). Conclusion Not all patients who seek medical assistance on family planning are being forced to undergo human sterilization. Despite the government’s effort to promote equal opportunity towards the access in health care services, it is clear that gender and racial discrimination with regards to forced human sterilization still exists. In reality, gender and racial discrimination on forced human sterilization is not only depends on socio-economic of each person but also their ability to contribute something back to the society. The U.S. state government is responsible in terms of supporting the financial, mental, and social needs of the neglected children. Given the fact that mentally incapacitated individuals are not capable of performing their responsibilities as a parent, most of the state governments legally support the promotion of eugenic sterilization. For this reason, thousands of men and women who do not have the capacity to financially support themselves suffer from becoming a victim of forced human sterilization. *** End *** References: Benkert, Ramona and Rosalind M. Peters. "African American Women’s Coping with Health Care Prejudice." Western Journal of Nursing Research 27. 7 (2005) : 863 - 889. Borrero, Sonya, Eleanor B. Schwarz, Matthew F. Reeves, et al. "Does Vasectomy Explain the Difference in Tubal Sterilization Rates between Black and White Women?" Fertility and Sterility (2008): Apr. 2 [Epub ahead of print]. PMID: 1894618 [PubMed – as supplied by Publisher] —. "Race, Insurance Status, and Tubal Sterilization." Obstetrics and Gynecology: 109. 1 (2007): 94 - 100. Borrero, Sonya B., Matthew F. Reeves, Eleanor B. Schwartz, et al. "Race, Insurance Status, and Desire for Tubal Sterilization Reversal." Fertility and Sterility 90.2 (2007): 272 - 277. Chow, L.P., et al. "Contraceptive and Fertility Behavior of Family Planning Clinic Dropouts: A Maryland Study." American Journal of Public Health 77. 8 (1987): 975 - 976. Ciabal, Laura Evelyn Paunil. Ethics for Health Professionals. C&E Publishing Inc., 2003. DeStefano, Frank, et al. "Demographic Trends in Tubal Sterilization: United States, 1970-1978." American Journal of Public Health 72. 5 (1982): 480 - 484. Gamble, Vanessa N. "Under the Shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and Health Care." American Journal of Public Health 87.11 (1997): 1773 - 1778. Hussain, Sabiha. "Gender and Reproductive Behaviour: The Role of Men." Indian Journal of Gender Studies 10.1 (2003): 45 - 76. Krieger, N. and E. Fee. "Measuring Social Inequalities in Health in the United States: a Historical Review." International Journal of Health Services 26.3 (1996): 391 - 418. Lombardo, Paul. "Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement." 2008. Eugenic Sterilization Laws. 31 December 2008 . Markel, Howard ““Knocking out the cholera”:, class, and quarantine in New York City, 1892." Bulletin of the History of Medicine 69. 3 (1995): 420 - 457. Matocq, Lisa M. "Public Health Then and Now. Sterilized in the Name of Public Health: Race, Immigration, Reproductive Control in Modern California." California legislative report of the Senate Select Committee on Genetic, Genetics Technologies, and Public Policy. 2003. Myerson, Abraham, et al. Eugenical Sterilization: A Reorientation of the Problem. New York: Macmillan Co., 1936. National Center for Health Statistics: Contraceptive Utilization in the United States: 1973 and 1976. Rockville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, No. 36. 1978. 12:78 – 1250. 2 – 12. "Radical Doula." 30 July 2007. Sterilization: Abuse vs. Access. 30 December 2008 . Stern, Alexandra Minna. "Sterilized in the Name of Public Health: Race, Immigration, and Reproductive Control in Modern California." American Journal of Public Health 95.7 (2005): 1128 - 1138. Read More