Talk:Sterilization (medicine)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tschweitzer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kdeluca10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Blood-testes barrier what now???
Sentence from article: "When the vasectomy is complete, sperm can no longer exit the body through the penis and it seems that they penetrate the blood-testes barrier."

Should there be the word "instead" at the end of that sentence, I don't understand what this paragraph says. Does it mean sperm, which can no longer leave through the penis, instead make their way into the blood, whence, what, they just circulate the same as any other foreign matter INJECTED or absorbed into the blood-stream? Then what happens to the sperm? Does it eventually get filtered out and leave the body as urine anyway? (In which case "through the penis" should be further qualified.) Anyway "it seems that they penetrate the blood-testes barirer" is unintelligible to me. I'm just trying to understand what happens after a vasectomy.


 * Yes, anything that penetrates the blood-testes barrier would enter the bloodstream. Also, once in the bloodstream, they could not enter the urine.  The kidneys filter out any large molecules and cells.  The reason that sperm in the bloodstream is a problem is that the cells of the immune system circulate in the bloodstream.  They do not normally encounter sperm, and therefore consider it foreign, and create antibodies that bind to the spermatozoa, negatively affecting their performance. --Slashme 05:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph contrasting with castration
To the person who removed the paragraph explaining the differences between vasectomy and castration: Please supply a good reason before removing content. --Slashme 12:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment about popularity of tubal ligation vs vasectomy
Please supply statistics instead of just saying "But tubal ligation has long since been the preferred choice of sterilization over vasectomy." Preferred by whom and why? Not by doctors! The morbidity from tubal ligation is higher, it's harder to test whether it worked, and it can't be checked later on. --Slashme 12:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Post Vasectomy Pain
This subject should be given its due, although "poorly documented" (reflecting on the researchers?) it should not be just a passing comment.

Vasectomy Failures
My dad had a vasectomy, about 6 years after he had a vasectomy I was born. I have read that there is a 99.99999% to the infinate chance that I would not have been born, should this statistic be added to the article?


 * Not without a documented (published) source. Joyous | Talk 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And 99.999...% = 100%, so that you're here means that this isn't true. 220.9.84.66 10:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, late failure occurs. Not very often, though. The article already calls it "very rare" without giving stats. If you're interested, you can check the articles cited. If I remember correctly, the odds are between 1 in a thousand and 1 in a few hundred. Better than 99.9% against, but probably not much better than 99.99%! You're much more likely to get someone pregnant after a vasectomy than to win first prize in a large national lottery. Of course, the question remains whether the original poster has DNA evidence to support the father's claim of paternity. Another question is whether two successive negative semen analyses were received (post vasectomy patient compliance is typically very low, and it's not implausible that this was actually an early failure of a vasectomy that didn't immediately lead to pregnancy. Early failure rates are close to 1%). --Slashme 11:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hassles from Doctors?
As a man who's researching the possibility of having this procedure done, I keep hearing a lot of horror stories about doctors giving men hassles and red tape. Please correct me if this sounds completely crazy - because it does to me - but what I've heard is that some doctors demand some sort of acquiescence from the man's female partner, or a minimum age of the patient, because they are afraid of being sued when later in life children are wanted.

(I can't wrap my head around this, so I keep thinking it must be some sort of urban legend. Who else could possibly have any say in the matter other than the owner of the testicles to be deactivated?  How could there possibly be any liability for the doctor (not counting malpractise, of course) for a wholly voluntary procedure?  Surely this has to be a stupid joke someone played on me.)

So are the rumors true? If I try to get this procedure done am I going to run into some sort of nonsense by someone trying to second-guess me?

Most importantly, if it isn't just a rumor, would this material be considered notable enough for inclusion? Kasreyn 14:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not an urban legend. My husband's urologist wouldn't perform the procedure because we weren't married at the time. The "reasoning" was that we might break up (married people never break up!), and his next woman might want kids.  Go to any childfree forum and ask for stories. There probably aren't as many obtuse doctors as there were 10 or 15 years ago, but there are still some extremely conservative ones.  Joyous! | Talk 15:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Doctors have the same questions for women who want to be sterilized. Because these procedures are considered 100% effective they just want to make sure that the male or female is absolutely sure that they want the procedure. I wanted my tubes tied at 24 and doctors would not do it. I eventually got them tied at 37. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.232.44 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Radiation, etc.
As a general article on sterilization, I was surprised to see no information on environmental and accidental disasters which may render an individual sterile. This article only focuses on intentional surgical procedures. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 13:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a line in the opening section, referring the reader to the article on infertility for non-surgical sterilization causes. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles
Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not ductusectomy?
I don't get it... why wouldn't the new name of vasectomy be ductusectomy? If vasectomy comes from the word "vas deferens", which has been re-named to "ductus deferens", the new name following the same logic should be, I say it again, "ductusectomy".

This is from the section concerning vasectomy:

"Vasectomy in males. The vasa deferentia, the tubes which connect the testicles to the prostate, are cut and closed. This prevents sperm produced in the testicles to enter the ejaculated semen (which is mostly produced in the seminal vesicles and prostate). Although the term 'vasectomy' is established in the general community, the correct medical terminology is deferentectomy, since the structure known as the 'vas deferens' has been renamed the ductus deferens."

Cheers, Morten —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.238.7.41 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Opposition to sterilization
The sterilization-related articles need to find out the motives that have caused various individuals or groups to oppose sterilization, for instance during the T4 program in Germany. There is a 1975 Vatican document on this called ­Quaecumque sterilizatio. ADM (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename to Sterilization (medical procedure)?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sterilization (surgical procedure) → Sterilization (medical procedure) – Relisted Alpha Quadrant    talk    21:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that the article includes Essure, which is apparently non-surgical, should we rename the page to Sterilization (medical procedure) and reword the lead paragraph accordingly? Is there a separate article for non-surgical Sterilization? Mitch Ames (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is highly questionable to rename the Article title---the Editors have "logically" (and correctly) used "surgical" because that term is a specificity about the human sterilization procedure (surgical operation). Readers are not going to be dissuaded by correct usage of the term "surgical". Therefore, I diametrically oppose any changes to the Article title.
 * Wiki Regards,
 * Skyeking (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the word surgical was originally used to distinguish these methods from other non-medical forms of sterility, such as infertility. Surgical may have been appropriate when there were no non-surgical medical methods available, but now the article (quite reasonably) includes Essure, which is not a surgical method. Thus it appears we should either:
 * Rename the article to use medical instead of surgical, to reflect what I believe is the intent of the article (and promote Essure to a separate bullet point), or
 * Demote Essure from the body text to a See also entry, because it is not a surgical method.
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Summary Decision: I diametrically oppose any changes to the Article title.
 * Hopefully, within 72-hours (possibly longer) I may have time to respond to M.Ames's general arguments (context boxes*) ---certainly, I continue to question his statements (context boxes*).


 * -*-Definition of context box:
 * Phraseology used in a manner that is ambiguous, or a predisposed format that includes false comparisons, misleading (out-of-context) ideas, guesstimates, supposition (unsupported by policy), improbable/extreme examples, buzzwords (negative context), false authority, unauthorized speaking for others ("we" / "our"), exclusion of facts, or data (information used to reason or make decisions), and so on......
 * Key Note:
 * Do not assume that my definition of context box is an evaluation of M.Ames's statements---instead, simply apply said definition when reading (evaluating) his statements--and mine.
 * Wiki Regards,
 * Skyeking (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

An alternative name might be "... clinical procedure". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do any other editors have an opinion on this? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * COURTESY NOTIFICATION:
 * Summary Decision: I diametrically oppose any changes to the Article Title.
 * Emphatically, I do not agree, (name of person) is to arbitrarily and without further discussion delete or revise the current Article Title "Sterilization (surgical procedure)". To do such is edit warring---and my recourse is to immediately revert such an edit, and contact an Administrator.
 * Please remember, it could be 72-hours (possibly longer) before I post responses (arguments).
 * Wiki Regards,
 * Skyeking (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Skyeking, your use of boilerplate text (eg ".. (name of person) ..." above, likewise here) makes it hard to take your posts seriously. You could at least try to look like you've got a sensible argument, rather than just "I oppose whatever the other person said". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Boilerplate text is perfectly acceptable in written communication, and is frequently used by professional writers, maybe you didn't know that.


 * Mitch, you obviously misunderstood (out-of-context) the meaning of my statements (May 30, 2011 - 21:51 hours)---as you know, my responses (arguments) can be delayed 72-hours (possibly longer), and due to such I post a "Courtesy Notification" to inform Editors there is an "OPEN" WP:Discussion and they shouldn't edit items that are being disputed. Hence, your interpretation of my post is "out-of-context".
 * And, as you know, my arguments are forthcoming, not immediate.
 * If you have further comments (or questions) about this post please reply at my User Talk Page (the proper area for personal discussions).
 * CAUTION:
 * Editors (myself included) could misconstrue your questionable statement (May 31, 2011 - 11:58 hours) as baiting---unacceptable behavior (WP:Civility).
 * Please remember, it could be 72-hours (possibly longer) before I post responses (arguments).
 * Wiki Regards,
 * Skyeking (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about wading into this debate, but... the problem is that this is not (yet) a question of article title, but one of scope. Is the scope of this article all medical procedures intended to sterilize, or only those that are surgical in nature. Certainly we could have a Non-surgical sterilization procedures article, or something similarly titled, but should we? That is the question which must be answered before deciding on a title. As such, I oppose moving the article until the question of scope is resolved. Powers T 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the title should follow the scope. Currently the article includes Essure, which is not surgical, so there is a prima facie discrepancy that needs to be resolved. There appear to be two obvious ways to do this, as per the bullet points in my post of 12:08, 24 May 2011: rename the article, or remove Essure. The last sentence of the lead paragraph - For non-surgical causes ... see infertility - suggests that the intent of the article is "medical", including Essure, because I would not expect to see Essure listed under "infertility" ("...biological inability of a person to contribute to conception...").
 * What's your opinion of what the scope of the article should be?
 * Should we have a Non-surgical sterilization procedures article, and if so, what would we put in it? Possibilities are: Essure, chemical castration, anything else? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not familiar enough with the topic to say. Powers T 15:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've move the Essure information into a separate bullet point. This does not change the scope of the article - the information presented is the same. If we decide that the scope should be surgical only, we can simply delete that new bullet point (and add Essure to See also). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * COURTESY NOTIFICATION:
 * First, the additional comments by my fellow Editors are interesting (inclusive of Article edits by M.Ames).
 * Second, I concur (limitation/reservation) with LtPowers (Powers t) that the Article Title not be changed until a successful conclusion of our active WP:Discussion.
 * Third, please remember, it could be 72-hours (possibly longer) before I post responses (arguments).
 * Wiki Regards,
 * Skyeking (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have questioned the closure of this discussion: details at User talk:Vegaswikian Mitch Ames (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As suggested by the response from Vegaswikian, discussion continues below. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What should the scope of this article be? Should it be limited to "surgical"?
As per archived discussion in "Rename ..." section above, there is currently no consensus to rename the article, and the RM request has been closed, it not being appropriate at this time. Fair enough.... However there is still a prima facie discrepancy between the article's current contents/scope (non-surgical Essure, the lede paragraph's wording) and its title (surgical) that I think needs to be resolved. Thus the question for discussion is What should the scope of this article be?. In particular, should it be limited to surgical procedures, or should it broadened to include medical but non-surgical procedures (specifically Essure)?

On the one hand (scope = surgical only) we currently have: But on the other hand (scope includes medical, non-surgical procedures) we currently have:
 * The article title is "... surgical procedure".
 * The lead sentence defines sterilization as a surgical technique.
 * The lead paragraph finishes with "For non-surgical causes of sterility, see infertility", ie excluding non-surgical from the article.
 * The article includes Essure, a non-surgical method. (Non-surgical according to Essure's web site. Our article doesn't state either way.)
 * The first sentence defines "sterilization" as a surgical technique, but that definition is incorrect because there are "sterilization" methods or processes that are non-surgical, both for birth control (Essure) and other purposes (Sterilization (microbiology)). It could be that the sentence is just poorly worded and should say "Surgical sterilization is a surgical technique ..." (redundant but literally correct), but it could also be intended to say "Sterilization is a medical technique ...".
 * The lead paragraph's last sentence - "For non-surgical causes of sterility, see infertility" - refers to an article about the inability to reproduce, nominally when a person wants to, not an article about non-surgical methods of making a fertile person sterile. This to me implies that the scope of this article (sterilization) is "medical (including non-surgical) methods for intentionally making a fertile person sterile" not "surgical-only methods ...".

Does anyone have any opinions on whether the scope of the article should be "surgical-only" or "medical including non-surgical"? Personally, I am undecided as to which it should be, but either way something needs to change.

If the scope is surgical only then we should:
 * Remove the Essure paragraph. (But probably add it to See also.)
 * Change the lead paragraph to something like:
 * Surgical sterilization is a technique that leaves a male or female unable to reproduce. ... For non-surgical medical techniques see <???>. For other causes of sterility, see infertility.

(Does anyone have a suggestion for non-surgical medical techniques? Do we have such an article? Are there any others than Essure?)

If the scope is medical including non-surgical:
 * Rename the article, eg to "... medical technique"
 * Change the lead paragraph to something like:
 * Sterilization is a medical technique ... For other causes of sterility, see infertility.

Are there any alternative changes that could be made to resolve the current scope/title and contents discrepancies? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * COURTESY NOTIFICATION:
 * Mitch, "Thank You" for your interesting outline (June 12, 2011 - 13:57 hrs).
 * I have posted additional information at the VHEMT Article Talk Page (Essure wikilink - See also section).
 * Please remember, it could be 72-hours (possibly longer) before I post responses (course of reasoning). Your patience is appreciated.
 * Wiki Regards,
 * Skyeking (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The following is an extract (including signature, for date/time) of the relevant parts of Skyeking's post on Talk:VHEMT that I have copied here because it is relevant to this discussion. (As per my comments at Talk:VHEMT, this discussion belongs here, not there.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts on the matter ...
 * I'm not sure that there is merit in having separate articles for surgical vs non-surgical (but still "medical") sterilization, especially if each article is not particular large. This article is really just a summary, with links to more detailed articles on the specific methods, and I would expect a "non-surgical" article to be similar. We might be better off having a single article (ie this one, renamed) with two major sections. My opinion is that the distinction between surgical and non-surgical is not sufficiently important to justify separate articles; it is more a marketing tool (by Essure, Adiana etc) than anything else. A "non-surgical" procedure sounds "safer" to the layman. But what exactly makes it "surgical" or not? My understanding is that "surgical" requires incision (ie cutting of skin or other tissue). However that doesn't necessarily mean that non-surgical procedure is simpler or safer. Non-surgical (ie not requiring incision) procedures may involve invasion of body cavities, may require sterilization of instruments, and may require longer recovery time than surgery. For example a vasectomy (which is "surgical") can be done in the doctor's rooms - not a hospital - with a local anaesthetic, and the patient can walk out in less than an hour. But a colonoscopy - which has no incision (assuming no biopsy is taken) and so is technically not surgical - requires hospitalisation, general anaesthetic or at least sedation, and half a day of recovery time. Ie the "surgical" procedure is quicker, simpler and safer than the "non-surgical" procedure.
 * Essure and Adiana look to be the same basic method to me - insert foreign body into Fallopian tubes, prompting tissue to grow around it to block the tubes. Possibly the different names are for legal reasons (Essure is a registered trademark) - but I am not a doctor or a lawyer. There may be merit in having a single "Hysteroscopic Tubal Occlusion Procedures" (assuming that to be the correct term) article or section of "Sterilization (medical procedure)" to cover both (and perhaps Ovabloc, although that method is slightly different), rather than separate articles.
 * Quinacrine is a drug, rather than a procedure, although I notice that Quinacrine mentions inserting pellets around which scar tissue grows. This is similar (although slightly different location) to Essure and Adiana, and perhaps should part of "Hysteroscopic Tubal Occlusion Procedures".
 * I'd like to hear some other opinions on whether we should have separate surgical and non-surgical articles. However, there may be merit in creating and starting to write a new article Sterilization (non-surgical methods). It gives us somewhere to put the new material, and we can always merge the two (surgical and non-surgical) articles later if we deem it appropriate. With any luck actually creating the second article will make it more obvious whether they should be merged or not. In answer to your question, yes I will help develop that new article - although I will continue considering merging it into this one until it becomes apparent (including by consensus of other editors) that it should remain a separate article. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to have a single summary style article, with a surgical and non-surgical section. I would prefer to name it Sterilization (procedure), however, as removes some other potential issues. But Sterilization (medical procedure) would be ok. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My only concern with Sterilization (procedure) is that it is too general. For example dry heat sterilization is a sterilization procedure as are the other methods covered by Sterilization (microbiology), but those are definitely out of scope of this article. I think it better that we qualify the term somehow - ie what we mean is Sterilization (procedure that doctors perform - with or without surgical incision(s) - to permanently stop a person making babies), but obviously we need something much shorter. "Medical" was all I could think of, but I'm sure we could find something better if needs be - might need to consult a thesaurus.
 * (Of course, minor haggling about the exact title needn't prevent us from reaching consensus on the scope of the article. It's easy to rename the article later if needs be.) Mitch Ames (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a good point, I'm amenable to going with Sterilization (medical procedure) for the time being. As you say, we can always change our minds, and medical would limit scope. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding, What should the scope of this article be?---my questions:
 * Currently, animals (topic) is included, unrelated to humans, why was such done?
 * Is such in compliance with WP:MEDMOS?

Whatever your answers, please explain your course of reasoning (argument).

My suggestion is to delete said animal information, and incorporate it in the Article "Animal Population Control"Idea; include a wikilink to that Article in the See also section of this wiki-article.

My proposal for the wiki-article title is---Sterilization_(surgical / nonsurgical)---the terms* are obviously inherent to something medical ---word usage of "procedure" not necessary. Also, such a title is beneficial because the specificity is immediately apparent when Readers use the search term "Sterilization" (Search box, drop-down list)..


 * -*-"Surgical sterilization is considered a permanent method of contraception."


 * -*-"Hysteroscopic sterilization is a nonsurgical form of permanent birth control..."

The following are some resources we could use during our editing and discussion:


 * USER:Davidruben
 * (General Practitioner / member of "Reproductive Medicine Task Force")
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (WP:MED)
 * Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) (WP:MEDMOS)
 * Reproductive Medicine Task Force

Please remember, it could be 72-hours (possibly longer) before I post responses (arguments). Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Currently, animals (topic) is included ...":
 * There may be merit in moving the "Sterilization of animals" section out into a separate article, but I'm not sure that it's strictly necessary. I.e. I currently have no definite opinion either way on this. Is there a specific part of WP:MEDMOS that gives clear guidance on this? I searched that page for "human", and found a couple of references to "non-human" that imply (to me) that inclusion of a section about animals is acceptable.
 * Animal sterilization is not necessarily a subset of animal population control, because the former may be done for reasons other than population control, eg "prolonging a female animal's lifespan" and "behavioural changes". It might be appropriate to remove the bulk of the material from this article and move/merge/link to Animal population control and Neutering, as appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding proposed title "Sterilization (surgical / nonsurgical)":
 * Including both "surgical" and its antonym "nonsurgical" in the title is pointless - it adds no information at all. We might just as well rename the "Drink" article to "Drink (tea / no tea)" :-) I agree that the word "procedure" may not be necessary, but we do need something. In this case WP:MEDMOS does explicitly help. The penultimate paragraph of Titles requiring disambiguation strongly suggests that Sterilization (medical) is the correct title. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * >>"We might just as well rename the 'Drink' article to..."<<
 * With editorial respect, your "Drink" example is a false comparison. First, drink topic (tea) not related to medicine. Second, the wiki-article "Drink" has numerous types/styles of drinks, so your "(tea / no tea)" not applicable.
 * Whereas, regarding "Sterilization" there are only two procedures "surgical / nonsurgical"---hence, that added clarification is valid. For me, the title "medical" (generalized term / ambiguous) is "pointless" and the lowest form of title---such, offers no definitive information, merely "medical" (ambiguous)---I posit that the Reader would easily understand that the topic is medical by the inherent terms of "surgical / nonsurgical" (definitive information)---and the Reader would immediately understand that the wiki-article information is only about two kinds of procedures; "surgical / nonsurgical".


 * Definition of disambiguation: Clarification that follows from the removal of ambiguity.
 * Definition of posit: Put forward as fact or the factual basis for an argument


 * At this time you not persuade me about your suggested ATtherefore, I will continue to defend my proposed Article Title of Sterilization_(surgical / nonsurgical).


 * Regarding "animal sterilization" and the "Article Title", I suggest we seek editorial assistance from the Reproductive Medicine Task Force and/or WP:MED. What are your thoughts about doing such?
 * Wiki Regards,
 * Skyeking (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: Drink example: Perhaps you missed the smiley face, and/or you're not a HHGTTG fan. Never mind, I admit it was not a good example. A more serious analogy would be a proposal to rename Drink to Drink (alcoholic / non-alcoholic). The fact that is has nothing to do with "medical" is irrelevant. It is an example of renaming X to X (Y / non-Y), where Y is a sub-set of X. There is no point in having a title X (Y and everything except Y) - the bracketed part is completely redundant.
 * Given that we apparently agree that "surgical" and "non-surgical" (the one being the complement of the other) are the only two possible subsets of sterilization, I don't see how "surgical/non-surgical" (ie everything) can possibly be more specific than any other term.
 * I notice that you don't appear to have addressed my point that WP:MEDMOS appears to give us the answer explicitly. In fact the first paragraph says "... the appropriate disambiguating words are 'medicine' .." My post of 13:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC) incorrectly proposed Sterilization (medical), but it should be Sterilization (medicine).
 * If you still disagree with (what seems to me to be) a clear guideline from WP:MEDMOS, then I agree that we should seek the opinions of others as to the title. WP:RFC, Reproductive Medicine Task Force or WP:MED - whatever you think is appropriate. Personally, I'd use RFC, but a more specialist approach may be appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force for others to join the discussion here. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Mitch, "Thank You" for requesting editorial assistance from the Reproductive Medicine Task Force (specialist approach)---kudos (friendly smile) for your consideration of my perspective. Skyeking (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As to what we should do with the "animal sterilization" section, I think we both agree that it should be removed, so I'll do that, unless anyone else objects. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes Mitch, I concur with you about removing the "animal sterilization" section.
 * Question: "Should there be a wikilink (or statement) in this Article referring Readers to animal sterilization?"
 * Wikilink - See also section: Sterilization_(veterinary medicine)
 * Statement - Lead section: "For animal sterilization refer to...."
 * Wiki Regards,
 * Skyeking (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC) of view in

Thanks for the notification at the wp:RMTF. I agree that there should be one article covering both surgical and non-surgical methods. Both Sterilization (surgical/nonsurgical) and Sterilization (medicine) have their pros and cons, and would both be acceptable, but if I have to choose I'm leaning slightly towards supporting Sterilization (medicine). The introduction can do the rest, such as by "Sterilization (...) is a surgical or non-surgical technique...". I'd personally support the removal of the "animal sterilization" section, but I'm probably not of a neutral point of view in that matter, as it is not my specialty, so I rather say that I'm neutral there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As previously agreed, the "animal sterilization" has been removed and replaced with a hatnote referring to Neutering. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We all seem agreed on the scope of the article, so I've changed the lead paragraph thus: This wording is probably not the best (it doesn't seem to flow) - and we can always tweak it again later - but at least it's a more accurate summary of the article contents. Now all we need to do is agree on the article title ... Mitch Ames (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * At this time, but with reservation*, I will concede* to my fellow Editors (Mitch Ames, Nuujinn, and Mikael Häggströmand) about their proposed article title Sterilization (medicine)---and to prove my concurrence I would have changed the Article Title accordingly---but, my request is that M.Ames "move" (rename) said Article; such is due to M.Ames editing experiences and expertise.


 * -*-Definition of reservation: A limiting qualification, condition, or exception: "...has reservations about the proposal."


 * -*-Definition of concede: To acknowledge, often reluctantly, as being true, just, or proper.


 * With editorial respect, "Thank You" Mikael Häggström for your contributions and your courteous phraseology.
 * Also, I thank M.Ames for said wiki-article's "hatnote"---removal of the section "Sterilization of animals"---and revision of "Castration in males."


 * PROPOSAL - Lead sentences (Lead section):


 * "Sterilization (also spelled sterilisation) is a surgical or nonsurgical technique, and is a method of permanent birth control[1]. Undergoing sterilization causes the female or male to become sterile; reversal of such medical procedures is difficult and may not restore fertility[2][3]. For other causes of sterility, see infertility."


 * References section:
 * Link [1 ]
 * Link [2 ]
 * Link [3 ]


 * Regarding my proposal, "What are the thoughts of my fellow Editors."
 * Wiki Regards,
 * Skyeking (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you too, and to Mitch Ames and other contributors, for all your interesting ideas. [[Image:Face-smile.svg|20px]] I think the proposed lead section looks like a good start for the renamed article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, article is now renamed. I suggest that this section ("What should the scope of this article be? ...") be closed now, and further discussion about the wording of the lead section be in a new section, which I have started below. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wording of lead section
In an earlier post in the "What should the scope of this article be? ..." section above, Skyeking suggested that the lead paragraph include:

(I've reformatted the numbered reference links to save space, but copied other links unchanged.)

In general I agree that we should explicitly state that: However: I shall have a go at adding the extra information ("covers both surgical and non-surgical techniques", "nominally permanent, and difficult or impossible to reverse") in the next day or so. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sterilization (and this article) covers both surgical and non-surgical techniques.
 * Such sterilization is nominally permanent, and difficult or impossible to reverse.
 * I disagree with the wording "Sterilization ... is a surgical or nonsurgical technique", for the same reasons I disagreed with "... (surgical / nonsurgical)" as an article title. The statement that "X is Y or non-Y" logically conveys no information. We do want to tell the user that both surgical and non-surgical are included, but I think it needs to be more explicit, eg "Sterilization methods include both surgical and non-surgical".
 * The piped links nonsurgical and reversal - displaying a general term but linking to specific example - are just wrong. (See WP:EASTEREGG.) Essure is explicitly described and linked in the article. We can add a mention of specific reversal procedures, with non-piped links, in the relevant places if it is appropriate (and I agree that a brief mention is appropriate).
 * Likewise sterile - displaying one word but linking to the dictionary definition of a different word.


 * I think the exampled methods should be classified into surgical versus nonsurgical methods, distinguished by section headers or equivalent. With such a layout, the statement of "surgical / nonsurgical" would not be necessary.
 * I agree that we should try to target links at what is expected by the reader. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Extra information ("include both surgical and non-surgical", "intended to be permanent; reversal is generally difficult or impossible") added. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Classification of methods
Currently, the methods seem to be classified into "common" and, suggestively, "uncommon" methods, but there is no evidence that all the latter actually are uncommon. However, rather than starting to give numbers, I think we should change the classification, and two alternatives are: I'd choose either of the first two. Any other ideas? Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Invasive surgical procedures, intraluminal procedures, and, possibly, "sterilization pill"
 * Procedures performed on females, procedures performed on males, and, possibly, procedures potentially performed on both.
 * Having no classification, just a list


 * Either of the first two seems fine to me. I think I prefer the first one, as the "procedures potentially performed on both" seems potentially messy, and surgical procedures, intraluminal procedures and oral drugs are easy to keep separate, leaving room in case some other method comes to fore. I don't want to open a can of worms, but was there any research on use of radiation as a method? (outside of the Nazi medical experiments, which don't belong here as we have a place for that already) --Nuujinn (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I classified them according to the first suggestion now. However, I'm not familiar with intentionally using radiation for the purpose of sterilization. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Risk factors for Psychological effects
The "Psychological effects" section includes some risk factors that don't make sense, and may need clarification: Mikael Häggström, could clarify these please - presumably you have access to the full reference. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "location in India" - what does this mean?
 * "having an unstable marriage" - I presume that this means "(re-)marrying after sterilization and being unable to have a child with new partner", but I can't check the ref so I can't be sure.
 * "... and disagreeing with partner" - is this part of "having an unstable marriage" or a separate reason? Perhaps bullet points would be better here, rather than a long list of prose.


 * "Location in India" refers to the review of studies from India (presumably on people within the country and performed within the country) showing a greater rates of negative effects on marital relationships, general mental health and regretting the procedure. Feel free to find a better wording of it.
 * "having an unstable marriage" is indeed explained as "Two important precipitating factors are the death of a child and divorce followed by a new rela- tionship in which the couple desires to bear children. While there is no secure way to protect against the first tragedy, several authors recommend that the presence of an unstable marital relationship should be a con- traindication to sterilization." Perhaps a similar clarification is appropriate in the article?
 * "disagreeing with partner", as I understand it, refers specifically to the decision to perform sterilization.
 * And yes, bullet points format may be more appropriate here.Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Re India: Does the reference indicate any reason for the high rates of negative effect (causation), or does it just note the correlation. Presumably there is some cultural reason, rather than the physical location. In the absence of a specific cause, I suggest that "location in India" be moved out to a separate paragraph (after the other bullet points, which are more specific). Exact wording will depend on how much information we have, and what it say, but for example, something like:
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I skimmed the study and the most specific causative factor I found was the time taken before resuming intercourse, so I've tried to give a more specific description: Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * {|class="wikitable"


 * The time taken from the sterilization procedure until resuming sexual intercourse with partner varies geographically. For example, in the United States, 90-100 percent of sterilized persons resume intercourse within two weeks and virtually all resume intercourse within one month. In India, on the other hand, virtually no one resumes intercourse within a month and less than 10 percent resume intercourse within two months.
 * }
 * However, this point seems to be dependent on technological development and competence of the provider of the service, and as such, it may no longer be valid for a 25 year old review study of even older original research. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

How is Essure the "main" transluminal sterilization technique? And what's the difference between it and other methods?
The article says "The main ... transluminal ... is ... Essure ...", but in this context what does "main" actually mean? We need to be more specific - if it is the most common, say so explicitly.
 * Good point. My wording there reflected a hunch that it would be the most common method, but I have no reference to that claim so I removed that designation for now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd also like to see some mention of Adiana (we have no article, but it gets a mention in Tubal reversal) and Ovabloc and brief comparisons between them. As I mentioned previously, Essure and Adiana look to be the same basic method to me - insert foreign body into Fallopian tubes, prompting tissue to grow around it to block the tubes. Possibly the different names are for legal reasons (Essure is a registered trademark, as apparently is Adiana) - but I am not a doctor or a lawyer. It seems that all of the transluminal techniques are trademarked names, whereas the other methods are generic terms. Is this sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the article? Does anyone have an appropriate (medical and/or legal) background to be able to write the correct text - ie about the use of trademarks rather than generic terms for "new" procedures - and of course provide the appropriate references? Mitch Ames (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of page
As part of a class project, my partner and I want to expand this page to cover more than just the medicinal side of sterilization. Specifically, an investigation of affected populations (categorized by gender, race, socio-economic class, etc.), more effects than simply psychological (physical, familial, communal, etc.), and policies surrounding sterilization (compulsory, incentivizing, historical, and the outcomes of these policies.)

We feel that the current Wikipedia article on sterilization neglects the social reality of the practice. Our goal is to add sections that will provide readers with more information than just the clinical methods and psychological effects. Fortunately, the existing sections are relevant and easy to understand (especially given their clinical nature). The current article also extensively links to other Wikipedia articles; however, most of them are medical terms. This is helpful because the average reader may not know the anatomical terms and medical procedures. Although sterilization is a gender-neutral procedure, women are largely impacted due to their role as child bearer and childcare provider. Sterilization alters the impact of pregnancy and associated burdens for women since its purpose is to prevent pregnancies in the first place. On a macro-level, states have incentivized sterilization as a viable form of population control. India and China are examples of such states. Overpopulation, which occurs when the population in a given area exceeds the carrying capacity, tends to afflict developing nations. In contrast, a declining natural fertility rate is normally viewed as an indicator that a country is industrializing. From a eugenics approach, states have also used forced sterilization to prevent procreation among certain groups. Nazi Germany under Hitler’s leadership is an example of states forcing certain populations to be sterilized. Sterilization was forced upon Gypsies, people of mixed heritage, and those with disabilities to prevent the corruption of the “pure Aryan” race. On a micro-level, couples can choose sterilization as a contraceptive once they’ve reached their desired number of children. When executed properly, sterilization has a low failure rate. Whether used as a form of birth control or to prevent certain populations from reproducing, sterilization can empower or oppress and it’s important to explore this topic more given its prevalence and irreversibility. It is important to explore sterilization and its effects because of its relation to poverty, poverty alleviation measures, and its worldwide prevalence. As a practice with a long history, sterilization is a form of birth control that has been utilized for various reasons with the same intent: to prevent future pregnancies. Because of its (mostly) irreversible nature, we think that the Wikipedia articles needs to be expanded to include the social aspects of sterilization in addition to the clinical aspect that is already there. As our class focuses on empowering women, improving reproductive rights is one such way, and this includes addressing sterilization practices.

Mariapickett (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC) and ThatRavengirl

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from on 14:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Contribution Feedback
Such a clear and well-written article! It reads like a very neutral, and I had a lot of interesting statistics. In order to make the article stronger, I suggest you proofread it for grammar mistakes, Specifically, there were several within the first paragraph of the article. To also increase readability, I would suggest adding tables that summarize the statistics within your contribution. For example, under the section talking specifically about the United States, there are a lot of different statistics covering a lot of different demographic factors. Though the statistics are interesting, they can be hard to read and keep track of in paragraph form. Simple tables would provide a summary for readers and a way to synthesize all of the information. As a last suggest, maybe add more links throughout your article. For example, links can be added to Social Security, marriage, and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (just to name a few). Overall, great job!

Morell21 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Feedback number 2
Overall great job on the article! I think this concept is really important and I am glad you covered it not just scientifically but socially and psychologically as well. I included some comments I made as I read the article below.


 * 1) psych should be psyche in introduction
 * 2) love to box to the side in the intro!
 * 3) there need to be references in the surgical section
 * 4) pictures in surgical section could be very useful
 * 5) could you expand more on the Medicaid-funded sterilizations? I think this concept is important and not often discussed
 * 6) You guys should definitely discuss more affected populations than just in the U.S. I know that it was a huge problem in Latin America that the US and other international organizations forced sterilization on uneducated women.
 * 7) does first sentence have more substantial proof in the lifestyle section, perhaps attribute to the author
 * 8) I am very surprised that there are no psychological effects from sterilization especially in populations who were somewhat forced into doing it. I would love to hear more information about their experiences.
 * 9) In the relationship section you use two different tenses in the first two sentences. Probably just stick with saying can instead of could
 * 10) The Japan Eugenic Protection law is super interesting, could you put brackets around it to link to the Wiki page?
 * 11) I think compulsory section is very important and often disregarded, I love that you included it. I think you should discuss it more in other sections earlier on in the article to give it more weight.
 * 12) I am also not sure if policies is the best name for the entire section, maybe rename Promoting sterilization? Just a thought

I think some re-organization of the policies section in this article would help with conveying the balanced view that you guys eventually do portray. Perhaps move the subsections under policies about India and China to the section with the United States so readers will understand that sterilization affects the entire world. I was worried that your article wasn't going to include these other populations, and I was very excited to finally get to it at the end. However, many readers lose interest earlier on so I think it would be good to be mentioned earlier. I definitely learned a lot from this article and I look forward to what you guys add to it in the future. Great job! Robinkvest (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Review
Under the Policies subsection, I think the text would have more authority if you began certain phrases with the scholar's name or group's title. Also, do you have an numerical statistics to give weight to your statements, like "Many of the women affected by this were poor, minority women."

I think the incentivizing section could be more neutral in its point of view - right now its pretty overtly positive given the ending statement. Also, the statement "It becomes controversial when the question of how involved the government should be in personal decisions comes up." is incomplete - there are definitely other reasons why it is controversial, which is alluded to only superficially: "Many of these policies are aimed at certain target groups, often disadvantaged and young women (especially in the United States) [30]. While these policies are controversial, the ultimate goal is to promote greater social well being for the whole community." There is a lot more controversy surrounding this point and ultimately I feel that this section's tone doesn't adequately reflect that.

Great examples given!

Another general note I would make is to be a little more purposeful and clear about the inclusion/exclusion of the discussion of male sterilization - it is brought up in certain places but not in others and I just think it could be more consistent. Lenasilva (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Review
Overall what an impressive page. You guys have done an awesome job. The organization of the page is great and I especially am impressed by the balance of information throughout and that no one section is too much heavier than another. In regards to balance, given that the rest of the page is so thorough and each section covers a lot of ground I think you could afford to expand the affected populations section some more to include some more regions and gain a more holistic perspective. Going along with the same idea I think it would be interesting to see some different examples under the National Examples subsection of your Policies section. I think it would be especially beneficial to include countries that are not from the same region as the three you have already given. Additionally the graphic you included was great and it would definitely benefit your page to include a few more wherever possible. Victoria.delgado (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

SWGS 322 Feedback Response
We appreciate the feedback that was given. In regards to some of your recommendations:
 * We have added an image of U.S. sterilization statistics by race in 2006-2008
 * We have added a few more links (Ex: Social Security, Japan's Race Eugenic Law)
 * We proofread the entire article, looking especially at verb tense
 * More information from an additional source was included in the "Psychological Effects" section
 * The "Incentivizing" section was editing to be more neutral in tone
 * "Policies" was changed to be titled "Promoting Sterilization"
 * We intentionally stayed away from adding too much about compulsory sterilization policies because there is already a well-written article on that topic. We provided a link to that article in addition to brief information instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatRavengirl (talk • contribs) 09:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

pesticides
what are the uses of pesticides?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.200.221 (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)