↓ Skip to main content

Forced sterilization of women as discrimination

Overview of attention for article published in Public Health Reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 137)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
12 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Forced sterilization of women as discrimination
Published in
Public Health Reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40985-017-0060-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Priti Patel

Abstract

There has been a long history of subjecting marginalized women to forced and coerced sterilization. In recent years, the practice has been documented in countries in North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. It has targeted women who are ethnic and racial minorities, women with disabilities, women living with HIV, and poor women. A handful of courts have issued decisions on the recent forced sterilization of marginalized women finding that such actions violate the women's rights. However, they have all failed to address the women's claims of discrimination. The failure to acknowledge that forced sterilization is at its core a violation of the prohibition of discrimination undermines efforts to eradicate the practice. It further fails to recognize that coerced and forced sterilization fundamentally seeks to deny women deemed as "unworthy" the ability to procreate. Four key principles outlined in the human rights in patient care framework highlight the importance of a finding that the prohibition of discrimination was violated in cases of forced sterilization: the need to highlight the vulnerability of marginalized populations to discrimination in health care settings; the importance of the rights of medical providers; the role of the state in addressing systemic human rights violations in health care settings; and the application of human rights to patient care. Based on these principles, it is clear that finding a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in forced sterilization cases is critical in addressing the systemic nature of the practice, acknowledging the marginalization of specific groups and effectively ending forced sterilization through addressing the underlying purpose of the practice. If litigators, non-governmental organizations and judicial officers are mindful of these principles when dealing with cases of forced sterilization, it is likely that they will be better able to eradicate forced sterilization.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Master 8 18%
Unspecified 8 18%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 13 30%
Unspecified 9 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 16%
Psychology 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 7 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2019.
All research outputs
#408,945
of 13,347,352 outputs
Outputs from Public Health Reviews
#4
of 137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,189
of 264,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health Reviews
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,347,352 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,505 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them