User:Marinati55/Compulsory sterilization/Annatsioulias Peer Review

Person peer editing: Anna Tsioulias
Peer editing article: Compulsory Sterilization

I am peer editing the section this group is adding titled “Effects on disabled People” (see below the copy and paste of the article for comments)

edit
[...] Discussion on the involuntary sterilization of disabled persons is now largely focused on the right of a guardian to request sterilization.

Going beyond the United States, sterilization practices and the legislature surrounding its legalization have had a profound impact on disabled people within Europe as well. Although many European governments have banned compulsory sterilization procedures, disabled women in Europe are still being sterilized due to circumstances deemed exceptional to these laws by doctors and parents rather than the individual themselves. "'So many times, you hear it’s in the best interest of the woman,' said Catalina Devandas Aguilar, a former United Nations special rapporteur for disability rights. 'But often, it’s because it’s more convenient for the family or the institution that takes care of them.'"

For example, in March 2023 in Iceland, Hermina Hreidarsdottir authorized a hysterectomy for her severely cognitively impaired 20-year-old daughter because of her abnormal menstrual cycle. Ms. Hreidarsdottir took liberty of this decision for her daughter with the intention that the sterilization procedure would make her daughter feel better. Since 2019, Iceland has banned nonconsensual sterilization except in cases of medical necessity. However, this law only addresses procedures of tubal ligation and surgical blocking of the fallopian tubes, excluding hysterectomies from the ban. Iceland's laws surrounding legalization of sterilization practices also do not address consent of the seriously disabled individual who is undergoing the procedure. Although the UN advises that caregivers try alternative methods to communicate with the disabled individual before considering such procedures, this is not a very common occurrence.

In France, the law permits the sterilization of individuals with severe mental disabilities under exceptional circumstances, similar to Iceland's policies. In Belgium, it is generally illegal to sterilize someone without their express consent. However, with parental insistence and medical evaluations, sterilization may still occur if it is deemed in "a woman's best interest."

In terms of South Asia, the effects of compulsory sterilization legislature on disabled people is prevalent as well. In India, the Right to Persons with Disabilities Act (RPWD) was introduced in 2016 to legally address the problems faced by the disabled community and ensure equitable access to justice for all members of society:

"While the RPWD Act took a step towards recognizing the issue of forced abortions under Section 92(f)[1] which states that any medical procedure performed on a disabled woman without her express consent that leads to the termination of pregnancy is punishable with an imprisonment term, there is still no specific mention of forced sterilization as a problem."

Additionally, there is no clause that addresses the notion of "expressed consent." The concept of consent in relation to family planning and sterilization practices has been a point of contention in India's history of reproductive justice of disabled individuals. In the court case Suchita v Chandigarh (2009), a mentally ill orphaned woman expressed clear consent to have a child, but she was opposed by the guardian welfare institution where she was admitted. Here, the Supreme Court emphasized that the requirement for consent cannot be diluted solely by what society deems to be in the woman’s best interests. The case further argued for a limited guardianship approach, whereby the state could not extend its power to the point of breaching a woman’s reproductive autonomy. This principle of limited guardianship is present even in the Rights to Persons with Disabilities Act under Section 14, but the enforcement of this stipulation is not very reflective of its establishment on paper. There is a disconnect between policy and practice, so "while these judgments have tried to take a progressive stance, access to justice remains a struggle for many.”

PEER REVIEW COMMENTS:

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Major suggestions: This entire section added is solely based on two sources. I would suggest adding more sources — every sentence needs to be backed up by a citation/ say where you got it from. If you got all information you added just from two sources, I would increase the number of sources you read to add information to Wikipedia. I also feel like this is kind of a strange combination of countries to discuss — just Iceland, France, and India? The world is a lot bigger than those three countries. Consider diversifying the areas of the world you are writing about or provide more than just three examples. Also, these are just showing examples of compulsory sterilization in different areas of the world, not necessarily the “effects on disabled people” which is the focus of the section. I would suggest reading some disability justice scholarly texts and add information to present the perspective of how disabled people feel about compulsory sterilization.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? —> this section of the article is mostly neutral and focuses on the facts rather than providing an opinion about the facts. The article at times could be interpreted as overly pro-disability and thus, since Wikipedia is a neutral publication, the wording might be tweaked in certain areas to have a more neutral tone.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? —> yes, the links work and are recently published; the sources support the article’s claim, but I think the number and type of sources used should be increased.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? —> A lot of the sentences do not have references after them and I would suggest adding more sources. The only two sources used in this section are a blog post and a New York Times article. The human rights blog post is not a neutral source, but the bias of the blog is noted.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? —> yes, see above comment about adding information from the perspective of disability advocates; need to present information about