Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jul;52(4):17-25.
doi: 10.1002/hast.1405.

Ethics of a Mandatory Waiting Period for Female Sterilization

Review

Ethics of a Mandatory Waiting Period for Female Sterilization

Jessica Amalraj et al. Hastings Cent Rep. 2022 Jul.

Abstract

Due to a history of coerced sterilization, a federal Medicaid sterilization policy mandates that a specific consent form be signed by a patient at least thirty days prior to when the patient undergoes sterilization. However, in contemporary obstetrical practice, the Medicaid sterilization policy serves as a policy-level barrier to autonomously desired care. We review the clinical and ethical implications of the current Medicaid sterilization policy. After discussing the utility and impact of waiting periods for other surgical procedures, we explore the psychology of time required for decision-making and consider scientific understanding of regret. We argue that the current Medicaid sterilization waiting period is clinically and ethically unjustifiable and that the policy ought to be revised in light of the goals, preferences, and concerns of the people most affected by it. While the need for continued protection against coercion remains, the current mandated waiting period does little to enforce the high-quality shared decision-making that is desired for sterilization counseling.

Keywords: Medicaid; bioethics; contraception; disparities; reproductive justice; sterilization; women's health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest – None

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rafter NH, “Claims-Making and Socio-cultural Context in the First U.S. Eugenics Campaign,” Social Problems 39, no. 1 (1992): 17–34;
    2. Schoen J, “Between Choice and Coercion: Women and the Politics of Sterilization in North Carolina, 1929-1975,” Journal of Women’s History 13, no. 1 (2001): 132–56;
    3. Stern AM et al., “California’s Sterilization Survivors: An Estimate and Call for Redress,” American Journal of Public Health 107, no. 1 (2017): 50–54. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kline W, Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005).
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 371. July 2007. Sterilization of Women, Including Those with Mental Disabilities,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 110, no. 1 (2007): 217–20; - PubMed
    2. Birnbaum M, “Eugenic Sterilization: A Discussion of Certain Legal, Medical, and Moral Aspects of Present Practices in Our Public Mental Institutions,” Journal of the American Medical Association 175, no. 11 (1961): 951–58; - PubMed
    3. Stern AM, “Sterilized in the Name of Public Health,” American Journal of Public Health 95, no. 7 (2005): 1128–38. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sterilization of Persons in Federally Assisted Family Planning Projects, 42 C.F.R 50(b).
    1. Borrero S et al., “Medicaid Policy on Sterilization—Anachronistic or Still Relevant?,” New England Journal of Medicine 370, no. 2 (2014): 102–4. - PMC - PubMed