Talk:Sterilization (medicine)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blood-testes barrier what now??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of paragraph contrasting with castration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment about popularity of tubal ligation vs vasectomy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vasectomy Failures

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hassles from Doctors? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Radiation, etc. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why not ductusectomy? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Opposition to sterilization

message: 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:
*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
I'd choose either of the first two. Any other ideas? Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Classification of methods

message: 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)
thread_title:  How is Essure the "main" transluminal sterilization technique? And what's the difference between it and other methods? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion of page 

message: 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)
thread_title: Contribution Feedback

message: 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. 
#psych should be psyche in introduction
#love to box to the side in the intro!
#there need to be references in the surgical section
#pictures in surgical section could be very useful
#could you expand more on the Medicaid-funded sterilizations? I think this concept is important and not often discussed
#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. 
#does first sentence have more substantial proof in the lifestyle section, perhaps attribute to the author 
#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.
#In the relationship section you use two different tenses in the first two sentences. Probably just stick with saying can instead of could
#The Japan Eugenic Protection law is super interesting, could you put brackets around it to link to the Wiki page?
#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. 
#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)
thread_title: Feedback number 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article Review 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Review

message: 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)
thread_title: SWGS 322 Feedback Response

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