Ethical and Legal Considerations for Sterilization Refusal in Nulliparous Women.
Journal
Obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1873-233X
Titre abrégé: Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401101
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Dec 2023
01 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
10
07
2023
accepted:
31
08
2023
medline:
20
11
2023
pubmed:
27
10
2023
entrez:
26
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We address the ethical and legal considerations for elective tubal sterilization in young, nulliparous women in Canada, with comparison with the United States and the United Kingdom. Professional guidelines recommend that age and parity should not be obstacles for receiving elective permanent contraception; however, many physicians hesitate to provide this procedure to young women because of the permanence of the procedure and the speculative possibility of regret. At the practice level, this means that there are barriers for young women to access elective sterilization; they are questioned or not taken seriously, or their desire for sterilization is more generally belittled by health care professionals. This article argues for further consideration of these requests and considers the ethical and legal issues that arise when preventing regret is prioritized over autonomy in medical practice. In Canada, there is a paucity of professional guidelines and articles offering practical considerations for handling such requests. Compared with the U.S. and U.K. policy contexts, we propose a patient-centered approach for practice to address requests for tubal sterilization that prioritizes informed consent and respect for patient autonomy. We ultimately aim to assure physicians that when the conditions of informed consent are met and documented, they practice within the limits of the law and in line with best ethical practice by respecting their patients' choice of contraceptive interventions and by ensuring their access to care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37884012
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005414
pii: 00006250-990000000-00935
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1316-1321Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Financial Disclosure Julie Thorne belongs to the Bayer Canada LNG-IUS medical advisory board and is a master trainer for Nexplanon with Organon Canada. Neither organization has participated in or is involved in funding this research. She also disclosed that her registration was paid by the SOGC for the 2023 Annual Clinical and Scientific Conference for the Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists of Canada, as she was an invited speaker for a lecture on off-label uses of the LNG-IUS. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
Références
Black KA, Rich R, Felske-Durksen C. Forced and coerced sterilization of indigenous peoples: considerations for health care providers. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2021;43:1090–3. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2021.04.006
doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2021.04.006
Mui C, Costescu D. Walking into battle”: a qualitative exploration of barriers and facilitators to accessing permanent contraception among childfree women [abstract]. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2021;43:662. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.045
doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.045
Black A, Guilbert E, Costescu D, Dunn S, Fisher W, Kives S, et al. Canadian contraception consensus (part 2 of 4). J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37:1033–5. doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)30054-8
doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)30054-8
Yassa M, Kaya C, Kalafat E, Tekin AB, Karakas S, Mutlu MA, et al. The comparison of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and conventional laparoscopy in opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy for permanent female sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2022;29:257–64.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2021.08.009
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2021.08.009
Malacova E, Kemp A, Hart R, Jama-Alol K, Preen DB. Effectiveness of in vitro fertilization in women with previous tubal sterilization. Contraception 2015;91:240–4. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.12.001
doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.12.001
Browne K. Voluntary sterilisation and access to IVF in Québec. J Med Ethics 2018;44:262–5. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103726
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103726
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Committee opinion: role of tubal surgery in the era of assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2012;97:539–45. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.031
doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.031
Government of Canada. Exclusions and limitations to health services. Medical services excluded from entitlement. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/benefits-military/pay-pension-benefits/benefits/medical-dental/exclusions-limitations.html
Patel A. What women need to know about getting their tubes tied. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://globalnews.ca/news/5438973/getting-tubes-tied/
Hillis S, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States collaborative review of sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:889–95. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00539-0
doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00539-0
Martyn P, Prather V. A clinical and medico-legal review of tubal ligation in Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2012;34:683–7. doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)35323-3
doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)35323-3
Ehman D, Costescu D. Tubal sterilization in women under 30: case series and ethical implications. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2018;40:36–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.05.034
doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.05.034
Sterilization of women: ethical issues and considerations. Committee Opinion No. 695. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e109–16. doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000002023
doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000002023
Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare. Clinical guideline: male and female sterilisation. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2014.
Thurman AR, Janecek T. One-year follow-up of women with unfulfilled postpartum sterilization requests. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1071–7. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73eaa
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73eaa
Watson K. Reframing regret. JAMA 2014;311:27. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.283739
doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.283739
Purdy L Women's reproductive autonomy: medicalisation and beyond. J Med Ethics 2006;32:287–91. doi: 10.1136/jme.2004.013193
doi: 10.1136/jme.2004.013193
Denbow J. Sterilization as cyborg performance: reproductive freedom and the regulation of sterilization. Front A J Women Stud 2014;35:107. doi: 10.5250/fronjwomestud.35.1.0107
doi: 10.5250/fronjwomestud.35.1.0107
Lalonde D. Regret, shame, and denials of women's voluntary sterilization. Bioethics 2018;32:281–8. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12431
doi: 10.1111/bioe.12431
Batra P, Rodriguez K, Cheney AM. Using deliberative and qualitative methods to recommend revisions to the Medicaid sterilization waiting period. Womens Health Issues 2020;30:260–7. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2020.04.001
doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2020.04.001
Moaddab A, McCullough LB, Chervenak FA, Fox KA, Aagaard KM, Salmanian B, et al. Health care justice and its implications for current policy of a mandatory waiting period for elective tubal sterilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212:736–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.049
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.049
Ciarlariello v Schacter, 2 SCR 119 (1993) (quoting Fleming v Reid, 82 DLR [1991] [4th] 298) (Ont CA) (Supreme Court of Canada).
Arora KS, Chua A, Miller E, Boozer M, Serna T, Bullington BW, et al. Medicaid and fulfillment of postpartum permanent contraception requests. Obstet Gynecol 2023;141:918–25. doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000005130
doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000005130
Amalraj J, Arora KS. Ethics of a mandatory waiting period for female sterilization. Hastings Cent Rep 2022;52:17–25. doi: 10.1002/hast.1405
doi: 10.1002/hast.1405
Gilmour J. Legal capacity and decision-making. In: Erdman J, Gruben V, Nelson E, editors. Canadian health law and policy. LexisNexis; 2017.
Bélanger-Hardy L. Informed choice in medical care. In: Erdman J, Gruben V, Nelson E, editor. Canadian health law and policy. LexisNexis; 2017.
Cuthbertson v. Rasouli, SCR 53 (2013) Supreme Court of Canada.
Starson v Swayze, SCR 32 (2003) Supreme Court of Canada.
Picard E, Robertson G. Legal liability of doctors and hospitals in Canada. 4th ed. Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd; 2007.
Ries NM, Jansen J. Physicians' views and experiences of defensive medicine: an international review of empirical research. Health Policy 2021;125:634–42. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.02.005
doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.02.005
Arendt v Smith, 2 SCR 539 (1997) Supreme Court of Canada.
Feldthusen B. Suppressing damages in involuntary parenthood actions: contorting Tort law, denying reproductive freedom, and discriminating against mothers. SSRN 2014;29:11. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2433004
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2433004
Reible v Hughes, 2 S.C.R. 880 at 62 (1980) Supreme Court of Canada.
Davis S, Dubisar A. Communicating elective sterilization: a feminist perspective. Rhetoric Health Med 2019;2:88–113. doi: 10.5744/rhm.2019.1004
doi: 10.5744/rhm.2019.1004
Hopp v Lepp, 2 SCR 192 (1980) Supreme Court of Canada.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Understanding how risk is discussed in health care: patient information leaflet. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://rcog.org.uk/for-the-public/browse-our-patient-information/understanding-how-risk-is-discussed-in-health-care-patient-information-leaflet/
McQueen P. Autonomy, age and sterilisation requests. J Med Ethics 2016;43:310–3. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103664
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103664
Canadian Medical Protective Association. Good practices. Accessed March 24, 2023. https://cmpa-acpm.ca/en/education-events/good-practices
Cancer Care Ontario. About the person-centred care guideline. 2017. Accessed July 6, 2023. https://cancercareontario.ca/en/guidelines-advice/treatment-modality/person-centred-care/about-guideline