Indigenous Women and the Risk of Reproductive Healthcare: Forced Sterilization, Genocide, and Contemporary Population Control

Clarke, Erin D

doi:10.1007/s41134-020-00139-9

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Trust issues and hesitancy around participating in research is based on strong historical context. Research has been fundamentally used as a tool of oppression and colonization, even used to justify colonizing Indigenous lands [24] , [26] , [30] , [31] . This research made its way into fundamental policy in Australia, including profiteering by early university institutions in the trade of Indigenous bodies and collections of skeletal remains and sacred ceremonial objects on display in museums and universities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous peoples and inclusion in clinical and genomic research: Understanding the history and navigating contemporary engagement

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous peoples and inclusion in clinical and genomic research: Understanding the history and navigating contemporary engagement

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Colonialism and its institutions have historically oppressed women and sexual minorities, removing the capacity for choice and agency in family planning. Colonial powers have a history of the oversexualization of indigenous women [ 12 ], gynecological experimentation, eugenics, forced sterilization [ 13 ], population control [ 14 ], homophobia [ 15 ], and more, all of which are echoed in an ongoing culture of medical experimentation in previously colonized nations [ 16 ]. This history of oppression has ramifications today in the form of perceptions around access to SRH services, reliability of institutions, discrimination in service delivery, and desire to access SRH services.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decolonization in Sexual and Reproductive Health Research Methods: Protocol for a Scoping Review

Stevens-Uninsky¹,

Barkhad²,

MacDonald³

et al. 2023

JMIR Res Protoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background As researchers and implementors begin to acknowledge the repercussions of institutionalized colonialism on community and individual health, the need to decolonize research has become clear. Despite this, there is neither a singular definition of decolonizing methodologies nor an overview of the shared principles and characteristics of decolonized research needed to codify this work as common practice in global health. Objective The review will identify papers that reference principles of decolonization and identify shared characteristics between them. The aim of this scoping review is to review decolonized research methodologies through the lens of sexual health as a step in creating a shared understanding of best practices. We will further examine the tools and methods used to collect and analyze data within the included studies. Methods The protocol for this scoping review was developed using the framework from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). The search strategy will comprise a search of electronic databases (JSTOR, Embase, EMCare, MEDLINE [Ovid], Global Health Database, Web of Science), gray literature sources, and key studies. Titles and abstracts will be reviewed by 2 or more independent reviewers against inclusion criteria. Bibliometric details, study design, methodology, community involvement, and other indicators will be collected using a data extraction tool developed for this review. Extracted data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of content and themes to identify common practices in decolonized methodologies within sexual health. Narrative summaries will be used to describe results in relation to the research question, and identified gaps will be discussed. Results The initial title or abstract review of 4967 studies identified by the search strategy was completed in November 2022. In total, 1777 studies met initial inclusion criteria and were sent to a second round of title or abstract review, which was completed in January 2023. In total, 706 studies were downloaded for full-text inclusion, which is expected to be completed by April 2023. We aim to complete data extraction and analysis by May 2023 and expect to publish the findings by the end of July 2023. Conclusions There remains a gap in the research on the meaning and application of decolonized research strategies, particularly within sexual and reproductive health. The findings of this study will contribute to a shared definition of decolonized methodologies and how they can be applied as a common practice in global health research. Applications include the development of decolonized frameworks, theoretical discourses, and methodologies. The study will inform the design and implementation of future decolonized research and evaluation strategies, particularly around sexual and reproductive health. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/45771

show abstract

“…This article 1 To situate eugenics in the general history of Western Canada in this time period is not possible here but can be found elsewhere (e.g., Dyck, 2013;Francis & Kitzan, 2007;Friesen, 1998;Kurbegovic ́, 2016Kurbegovic ́, , 2019Rennie, 2000). The oppression of indigenous communities was, until recently, not part of these histories and deserve much greater exploration, particularly in light of the general overrepresentation of indigenous people in the eugenics program, the history of anti-indigenous violence within the Canadian healthcare system, and ongoing practices of anti-indigenous violence within it (E. Clarke, 2021;Dyck & Lux, 2016;Stote, 2015Stote, , 2022.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Mere guesswork”: Clarifying the role of intelligence, mentality, and psychometric testing in the diagnosis of “mental defectives” for sterilization in Alberta from 1929 to 1972.

Reichardt

Stam

Tan-MacNeill

2023

History of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From 1929 until 1972, the Alberta Eugenics Board (the Board) recommended that 4,739 individuals be sterilized. The original 1928 act that legalized eugenic sterilization stipulated that the surgery itself required the consent of the individual or their caregiver; however, in 1937, the Alberta government removed the consent requirement for such cases where the Board determined individual patients to be "mental defectives." By analyzing published reports, case histories, medical journals, and primary sources from the Board, we situate the concept of "mental defective" in a historical context to clarify the Board's diagnostic process. By analyzing how the Board found individuals to be "mental defectives," we challenge a previous historiographic assumption that intelligence tests played a critical or defining role in this diagnostic process. We argue that the notion of the "mental defective" used by the Board had a long history before the advent of intelligence testing and eugenic thought. This history helps to explain how and why the Board relied extensively on the broader examination of behavior, social status, and physical appearance as core evidence in the diagnosis of "mental defect." Intelligence tests were certainly important as they shed light on an individual's academic ability. However, this alone was only one part of "mentality." Defects of mentality were understood to be broad and multifactorial, and included difficult, if not impossible, to measure attributes such as personality, emotionality, and morality. Further research should incorporate the concept of mentality in the history of psychology, testing, and eugenics.

show abstract

Indigenous Women and the Risk of Reproductive Healthcare: Forced Sterilization, Genocide, and Contemporary Population Control

Cited by 17 publications

References 4 publications

Indigenous peoples and inclusion in clinical and genomic research: Understanding the history and navigating contemporary engagement

Indigenous peoples and inclusion in clinical and genomic research: Understanding the history and navigating contemporary engagement

Decolonization in Sexual and Reproductive Health Research Methods: Protocol for a Scoping Review

“Mere guesswork”: Clarifying the role of intelligence, mentality, and psychometric testing in the diagnosis of “mental defectives” for sterilization in Alberta from 1929 to 1972.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About