Forced sterilization, the practice of permanently ending a person’s reproductive capacity without their free and informed consent, continues to affect women and girls with disabilities across multiple regions of the world. One documented case involves a woman in southern Spain who was sterilized by her parents and doctor after expressing a desire to have children, illustrating how societal and institutional pressures can lead to irreversible violations of reproductive autonomy. ⁴ A recent European Parliament written answer confirms that forced sterilization of persons with disabilities remains a legal or inadequately restricted practice in parts of the European Union, where third parties are permitted to consent on behalf of individuals deemed to lack capacity. ¹
Despite international human rights conventions explicitly prohibiting the practice, recent reports confirm that forced or coerced sterilization remains legally permissible or inadequately restricted in several countries, disproportionately impacting women with physical, intellectual, and psychosocial disabilities.
This issue sits at the intersection of medicine, disability rights, gender-based violence, and public health, raising serious ethical and legal concerns globally.
Forced sterilization refers to any medical procedure that permanently prevents reproduction when performed without the individual’s informed, voluntary, and prior consent. This may include:
Sterilization performed without the person’s knowledge
Procedures approved by guardians, parents, or courts without the individual’s consent
Sterilization carried out under coercion, misinformation, or pressure
In medical terms, sterilization typically involves procedures such as tubal ligation or hysterectomy in women. While sterilization can be an appropriate medical choice when freely chosen, it becomes a human rights violation when consent is absent or substituted.
Multiple international assessments show that women with disabilities are at significantly higher risk of forced or coerced sterilization compared to non-disabled women. Contributing factors include:
Assumptions that women with disabilities are unfit for parenthood
Misconceptions about heredity of disability
Social and familial control over reproductive decisions
Institutionalization and guardianship laws limiting legal autonomy
According to the International Disability Alliance, forced sterilization disproportionately targets women with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, often justified under the guise of “protection,” “care burden reduction,” or “best interest” arguments. ²
Forced sterilization remains legal or insufficiently prohibited in several European Union countries, where the law allows third-party consent, often from parents, guardians, or courts, particularly for individuals deemed to lack legal capacity. Recent assessments confirm that at least 12 EU Member States still authorise forced sterilisation of persons with disabilities under such provisions. ¹
Although many European states have ratified the Istanbul Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), gaps between treaty obligations and domestic law persist.
Beyond Europe, forced sterilization of women with disabilities has been documented in parts of:
Asia
Latin America
Africa
North America (historically and in isolated modern cases)
In some regions, the practice is linked to outdated eugenics policies or public health frameworks that prioritize population control over individual rights.
Forced sterilization violates multiple international treaties, including:
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
Istanbul Convention
These treaties affirm that all individuals, regardless of disability, have the right to bodily autonomy, reproductive decision-making, and informed consent in medical care.
United Nations Human Rights Committee interpretations further clarify that forced sterilization of persons with disabilities is inconsistent with protections against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. ²
The United Nations and Human Rights Watch classify forced sterilization as a form of gender-based violence and, in some contexts, as torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Reports indicate that forced sterilization may occur through several pathways:
Decisions made by parents or guardians without the woman’s consent
Court-authorized procedures based on disability status
Sterilization performed during unrelated surgeries without disclosure
Lack of accessible information preventing informed decision-making
In many documented cases, women discover they have been sterilized after the procedure has already been completed, sometimes years later.
From a medical ethics perspective, forced sterilization violates core principles including:
Autonomy
Beneficence
Non-maleficence
Informed consent
Public health bodies emphasize that disability alone does not justify sterilization and that reproductive capacity should never be removed as a substitute for social support, education, or healthcare access.
Some countries have developed rights-based alternatives that uphold reproductive autonomy. For example, Germany has implemented supported living and parenting assistance models, including supervised shared apartments with tailored social and medical support for parents with disabilities.
These models demonstrate that with appropriate support systems, parenthood among people with disabilities is both feasible and safe, reducing reliance on irreversible medical interventions.
International advocacy groups continue to call for:
Absolute legal bans on forced sterilization
Recognition of supported decision-making instead of substituted consent
Accountability and redress for survivors
Training of healthcare professionals on disability rights
Medical professionals play a critical role in recognizing consent violations and ensuring ethical reproductive healthcare.
Forced sterilization of women with disabilities remains a documented global issue with ongoing legal, medical, and human rights implications. Despite international treaties, inconsistencies in national laws and medical practices continue to expose vulnerable populations to irreversible harm. What remains clear is that protecting bodily autonomy for women with disabilities is not only a legal obligation but also a test of global commitment to ethical healthcare.
International Disability Alliance. Forced Sterilization of Persons with Disabilities. 2024. https://www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/sites/default/files/forced_sterilization2024.pdf.
Human Rights Watch. “Sterilization of Women and Girls with Disabilities.” November 10, 2011. https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/10/sterilization-women-and-girls-disabilities.
European Disability Forum. “Forced Sterilisation in the European Union.” Accessed 2025. https://www.edf-feph.org/end-forced-sterilisation-in-the-eu/.
Journalistic Fund Europe. “Forced Sterilisation of Women and Girls in Europe” (Rosario Ruiz case). May 31, 2023. https://www.journalismfund.eu/forced-sterilisation.