Forced Sterilization Charges Against Chile
This just in from The Center for Reproductive Rights:
A woman diagnosed with HIV filed a complaint against Chile before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an international human rights body, charging that the government failed to protect her from being forcibly sterilized at a state hospital immediately after she gave birth. In a petition submitted by the Center for Reproductive Rights and Chilean-based HIV/AIDS service organization VIVO POSITIVO on her behalf, the 27-year-old Chilean woman F.S. argues that the hospital staff operated on her because of her HIV status, without ever discussing the possibility of performing a surgical sterilization nor asking for her consent.
It's disturbing, though not terribly surprising, to hear that women of color are still being subjected to forced sterilization. In fact, a eugenics program just ended in Japan in 1996. Sweden and Finland both had forced sterilization up until the 1970's, and Peru's population control program started in 1995.
Add to this the widespread misconceptions about HIV positive women and reproduction, and you've got an ugly mix of ignorance and racism. For accurate information on HIV positive women and pregnancy, check out this National Institute of Health fact sheet.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Forced Sterilization Charges Against Chile.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11810
I'm not saying this is good or anything, but isn't it based more on her HIV status than her color?
My family is Native American on my dad's side. The horrors some of them were subjected to is enough to make your skin crawl, so I won't detail them here. But my great-aunt Patty, who was taken from her family and forced into boarding school to be given a "good" (read: white) education, went to a hospital as a teenager to have her tonsils removed and came back sans tonsils AND her uterus.
That sort of horror is the reason, in part, so many Native American women cling so fiercely to anti-birth control stances. They know, and I know, that people would like nothing more than to sterilize us out of existence. A sort of updated version of Chivington's "kill the nits" philosophy.
The article isn't clear, but I would be curious about whether this woman's sterilization is strictly related to her HIV status or is also indicative of being an ethnic minority. Sort of a twofer. In a very sick way.
I don't know the details, but let me assume for a moment that this sterilization was ONLY because she had HIV. That's an interesting moral quandary. First of all let me say I don't think what they did was right at all-- its definitely wrong to do that sort of thing against someone's will and without informing them, etc.
I also don't know the details on HIV being passed from a mother to a baby. I think I've read it isn't guaranteed but I'm not sure what the statistics are.
Assuming it is highly likely to pass HIV to the baby, do we think its right to bring a child into this world already infected with HIV? I doubt anyone thinks its right to knowingly infect one of your sex partners with HIV, so why is it better to do it to a child?
you shouldn't assume anything without researching it.
if a woman has HIV/AIDS and gets pregnant, her babies stand up to a 45% chance of contracting the virus. there are treatments that may help her keep up her health and reduce the chances of passing HIV to her baby... if a pregnant woman with HIV does not get any treatment, the chance of her passing HIV to her baby is about one in four. if she gets treatment, the chance of her passing HIV to her baby is about one in twelve.
and i don't think anyone has the right to sterilize a woman without her knowledge or consent.
This is assuming that the woman in the story could afford the treatment and also formula.
James_,
Is the woman paying for the sterilization procedure? I doubt it. More likely, it's being paid for as a public health initiative.
However, its effectiveness is undermined by its cruelty. As word spreads, fewer women will want to be tested or receive prenatal treatment or even deliver in a state hospital. This can increase the spread of the infection as the state is imposing additional deterrents for getting proper medical care.
In the long run, that will end up costing the state more (in terms of treating the disease farther along, losing a greater portion of its workforce and dealing with a wider spread of the disease) than providing clinical care to reduce transmission from mother child in accordance with the hundreds of pages of medical and health research on the subject.
Don't you think he was asking if she could pay for the HIV treatment, not the sterilization procedure?
Check it out, I was the one asking if the state (or hospital) was paying for the sterilization procedure.
The REASON I was asking this rhetorical question is because providing antiviral treatment and prenatal care is a much more effective way for the state (or hospital) to spend its money than forced sterilization.
Get it?
Ah, I see what you meant. It sounded like you were rephrasing his question to clarify your interpretation of it.
That's the internet for ya'... not exactly the most comprehensive form of communication.
In the short run its probably much cheaper to do a sterilization procedure than to pay for HIV treatment, but I agree they'll have to spend more in the long run as people get scared and avoid medical care.
EXACTLY! And that's not even considering the human rights issues...
In this context I think it was very clear that my use of the phrase "assuming" meant "assuming for the sake of argument, while having already admitted that I don't know the actual answer."
I also said above that it was absolutely wrong to sterilize anyone without their knowledge and consent.
So how about discussing the idea I actually raised instead of getting mad at me for things I've already addressed?
i wasn't getting angry with you. i just don't understand the point of "assuming for the sake of argument" when there are real facts to suggest the opposite of what you are assuming...
I'm often in a hurry when posting and don't have time to research everything. So I'm posting my ideas that occur to me upon reading this, while clearly stating what assumptions they are based on. (I think its much more annoying when people post ideas based on assumptions without stating that they are doing so).
And here, I am using "assumptions" in its logical sense -- like at the beginning of a proof you assume something is true and then every step afterwords should follow logically from the initial assumption. It does not at all mean that you actually think that assumption is true in real life, it is stating the premise upon which your subsequent steps lie.
Actually with the right antiretroviral therapy you can reduce the risk to 1.2%.
The bigger question though, is not should the government be allowed to sterilize mothers (they obviously shouldn't) but can the government charge hiv infected mothers with negligence? I would say yes but it really depends on how negligence is applied.
"but can the government charge hiv infected mothers with negligence? I would say yes but it really depends on how negligence is applied."
Criminalizing these sorts of situations definitely leads to a question of where it ends. Aside from the question of how we prove the mother KNOWINGLY got pregnant... Do we apply it to communicable diseases only? What if they aren't fatal but extremely painful? A friend of mine has cystic fibrosis. After his oldest sibling was born, his parents knew they were both carriers. Each child would have a 25% chance of having CF, a 50% chance of being carriers, and a 25% chance of being clear. They went on to have 11 children and unfortunately, 5 of them have CF. Just like HIV, it's a fatal disease with lots of unpleasant complications and they knowingly had children understanding that risk. He's already lost three of his siblings. I've always found their choice disturbing, but should it be illegal?
MissKitty, with proper drug therapies, it is very likely that an HIV-positive woman can have an HIV-negative child.
Ooh, the phrase "forced sterilization" gives me the chills anytime I read it or hear about it. Horrific.
The HIV status does bring a certain twist to the story but regardless, forced sterilization is wrong in nearly every situation. I'll have to think on this some more, but it is almost like relegating HIV-positive people to some kind of criminal status.
MissKittyFantastico,
Check out the following article:
http://www.childinfo.org/hiv_aids_mother_to_child.html
Pretty short li'l summary... to summarize further, without antiviral treatment, transmission rates vary between 15 and 45%... the higher end of this assumes breastfeeding as well...
However, with proper prenatal care and antiviral drugs, as well as using alternatives to breastfeeding, these numbers can be drastically reduced.
So, check it out, there are many alternatives for preventing transmission of the virus to newborns which don't deny the human rights of sick women. Personally, when confronted with a situation where individuals are being denied human rights, I think it's best to get informed before defending the inhumane practices of patriarchal governments.
Finally, from a public health perspective, it's important to recognize that penalizing mothers who are positive is a great deterrent from getting tested. If a woman knows she could be forcible sterilized after giving birth if she's HIV+, there's a better chance she will avoid getting tested... ie, avoid getting treatment, avoid getting prenatal care, etc... which can lead, easily, to increasing the spread of the disease. Really smart.
I remember when poor women of color were getting drug tested during prenatal care in South Carolina - then thrown in jail if they tested positive. What was the result? Fewer women went for prenatal care - which is more damaging to the health of a developing embryo than most drug use. Really smart.
According to the CDC:
Antiretroviral therapy administered to the mother during pregnancy, labor and delivery, and then to the newborn, as well as elective cesarean section for women with high viral loads (more than 1,000 copies/ml), can reduce the rate of perinatal HIV transmission to 2% or less [12]. If medications are started during labor and delivery, the rate of perinatal transmission can still be decreased to less than 10% [13].
No-brainer.
"Personally, when confronted with a situation where individuals are being denied human rights, I think it's best to get informed before defending the inhumane practices of patriarchal governments."
If this was aimed at me, I'd like to point out that I was in no way defending what they did-- already said upthread it was wrong-- but was trying to open discussion on what is the right decision for a woman who knows she's HIV positive to make.
Is it ok to have a baby knowing there's a chance it will have HIV? This may vary a lot depending on how high the chance is. If you can get the proper care and the chance is 1 in 12 that might seem like a pretty safe risk. What if you can't? In any case you can't be sure. Personally I think I'd make sure not to get pregnant, and try to adopt. But we don't make it illegal for people who other diseases like Huningtons to have children, and I wouldn't say we should make it illegal for people with HIV to have children (especially since medical advances are made all the time).
And since some people don't seem to understand what the idea of assuming something for the sake of argument means, let's take a different hypothetical. Say, hypothetically, there was a disease that was incurable and very dangerous and that has a 100% chance of being passed to a baby. What would you do? What if it only has a 90% chance, does that change your answer?
I think these are interesting questions. Something a philosophy class might discuss. (It certainly does not mean I'm defending the hospital doing something like this forcibly and probably illegally).
Well, I'm glad we're in agreement that the policy of forcibly sterilizing women is reprehensible. Further, I want you to understand that (like another commenter) I'm definitely not mad at you, but I also want you to understand why I think your redirection is foundational to a defense of the practice of forced sterilization.
The hypothetical question (particularly with the 90/100% numbers) is not really germane to a discussion of HIV... it's more relevant to a discussion of congenital issues, perhaps, where gene sequencing is getting close to being able to reasonably predict whether an embryo will develop into a child who will have Down's or CF (with a much greater chance of correct prediction than in the case of an HIV+ mother)...
And, perhaps my confusion is due to that you never said the sterilization was "wrong," you just stated that you weren't "saying this is good or anything." You proceeded to question the decision of the mother to want children which, to me, seems to be the philosophical underpinning of the forced sterilization policy. You've certainly clarified your point of view since then, but understand that what I had to work with was rather thin and simply looked like you weren't enthusiastic about the forced sterilization, but thought it was a grey area as it may be irresponsible for an HIV+ woman to want children.
So, to summarize, I'm not mad at you and I don't think you're a bad person. I do think you were being intellectually lazy by positing that it's irresponsible for HIV+ women to want to bear children despite not actually knowing the transmission statistics. Further, I think it's frightening close to the logic that would support the sterilization policy. I know close =/= the same as, but try to understand my apprehension.
From my second post, the one everyone replied to:
"First of all let me say I don't think what they did was right at all-- its definitely wrong to do that sort of thing against someone's will and without informing them, etc."
This is not just to MissKittyFantastico:
By the way, I would like to point out that my language in comments today may be a little stronger than is required... it's been a hard couple of months and I think I'm losing some of my emotional finesse...
So, to anyone who's pissed off or offended by anything I say... it's not you, it's me.
I hope things go better.
I realize I'm probably a little defensive here-- but its because I specifically made a point of including the above sentence about how I think forced sterilization is wrong, because I suspected people here would jump on me for trying to express any sort of nuanced opinion beyond that, or starting any sort of discussion of closely related issues, as has happened a lot on threads here in the past.
Without more information on this particular incident, can anyone claim to know what the doctors are guilty of? Sure, the allegation is that they did this to her because of her race and AIDS status - but complications in childbirth can lead to sterilization.
Of course I'm not saying that forced sterilization doesn't happen or that it's not horrific - just that sitting thousands of miles away instantly deciding guilt is a bad idea.
Wow, James_, how fair and balanced of you.
Unfortunately, the original article was not linked. Here it is:
http://reproductiverights.org/en/press-room/forcibly-sterilized-woman-files-international-case-against-chile
Original source (Spanish language)
I understand that this information was not immediately available and required advanced Googling skills to attain, but now that you're more informed, are you willing to give Courtney a pass on her 1st world paternalism?
Thought it might also be relevant that the article goes on to detail just how poor the legal situation is under current Chilean law:
"Despite proof to the contrary, neither the Ministry of Health nor the Chilean Courts found that the facts of this case amounted to a violation of F.S.’s human rights. This denial of justice clearly demonstrates the discrimination that people living with HIV/AIDS continue to suffer in Chile,” said Vasili Deliyanis, executive director of VIVO POSITIVO.
The problem is clearly very wide-ranging:
The study found that, of the women living with HIV who were interviewed who had been sterilized, 29% of them had been pressured by medical staff to do so and 12.9% did not consent to the procedure at all.
The organization seems optimistic about the potential benefits of appeal to an international court, so I'll try to be optimistic too.
But, by the way, on the topic of discussing this issue as one of women of color, this a Chilean woman who was "treated" in a Chilean hospital, presumably by hospital staff who were also Chilean. The issue is that she and other Chilean women who have been diagnosed with HIV have been pressured or forced into sterilization. We don't know, nor does the article give us even a clue as to what her ethnic identity is, so I can't help but feel that in the context of this particular article, this comment really appears as though it has somehow been assumed that all of South America is populated by people of color and that any crime committed by a South American against another South American woman is specifically a crime against a woman of color.
Great points. Particularly regarding the justice system...
And, re: the color issue... where is the race in this case of forced sterilization? I know race was a factor in the CRACK program and numerous other situations, but here it just seems to be about denying the human rights of HIV+ women, whatever skin they happen to be wearing.
Thanks, puckalish, this is exactly my point. I should have been clearer, because I was referring in that section of my comment not to the content of the article itself but to Courtney's comment directly following her quote of the article:
It's disturbing, though not terribly surprising, to hear that women of color are still being subjected to forced sterilization.
It would be interesting, though, to discover whether the current abuses detailed by VIVO POSITIVO in the article can be shown to be disproportionately affecting HIV-positive Chilean women of color or of lower income as opposed to wealthier, white compatriots.
Why am I not surprised this is still an issue? Given some of the boneheaded remarks I've heard here (USA) recently, the practice could just as easily return here and some folks wouldn't bat an eye. People don't realize the horrific extent of our previous forced sterilization campaigns against women of color and the poor, and they don't stop to consider the moral issues involved when they advocate sterilization (advocating in the sense of saying, "Gosh, the State should really keep poor people from having more babies!"). They just don't realize the ramifications of what they're saying, and I wonder if it's because we've swept the issue under the rug here. I really wish more people were aware of this stuff.
Courtney have you seen a picture of this woman?
You do realize there are white Caucasian women in South America or are you one of those people who automatically think JLo or Salma Hayek anytime a Latin American country is mentioned.
Not every woman who calls herself a "Latina" is a woman of color, so you may need to do some more research before you starting making accusations about racism.