An increasing number of bioethicists are raising concerns that young childless women requesting sterilisation as means of birth control are facing unfair obstacles. It is argued that these obstacles are inconsistent, paternalistic, that they reflect pronatalist bias and that men seem to face fewer obstacles. It is commonly recommended that physicians should change their approach to this type of patient. In contrast, I argue that physicians’ reluctance to eagerly follow an unusual request is understandable and that whatever obstacles result from (...) this reluctance serve as a useful filter for women who are not seriously committed to their expressed requests for sterilisation. As women already disproportionally bear the birth control burden, less resistance that men might be getting in terms of voluntary sterilisation works to women’s advantage, providing a much needed balance. Societal attitudes towards women and motherhood should not be confused with individual physicians’ reasonable reluctance to jump at a serious elective procedure at fairly mild expression of interest. (shrink)

Some National Health Service healthcare boards in the UK will approve a request for female sterilisation only if the patient first accepts a trial period of 1 year with an intrauterine device (IUD), a form of long-acting reversible contraception. In this article, I argue that this requirement is not justified by appeal to any of (or any combination of) promotion of informed consent, paternalistic concerns regarding patient regret in later life and health service budgetary considerations. Informed consent and patient autonomy (...) may be promoted by a mandatory waiting period, but the concomitant imposition of an IUD trial during this period cannot be justified on these grounds. As long as elective vasectomy is offered by the healthcare system, elective female sterilisation should be accessible under reasonably similar—even if not identical—conditions. (shrink)

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. (shrink)