Compulsory female sterilisation in Brazil: reproductive rights for whom?

Family planning programmes have been implemented throughout the world since the mid-20th century. In Brazil, the act governing family planning has been law for 25 years. However, the concept does not seem to be well known, being understood as contraceptives distribution. This article discusses Brazilian family planning policies, using a compulsory sterilisation lawsuit – reported by the media – to illustrate one of the many facets of gender-based violence in Brazil. This article is based on documentary research and uses a qualitative approach, applying content analysis to three selected texts. Only the news report that made the case public directly mentions the Family Planning Law and questions the suppression of reproductive rights. It was clear that conservatism was present in the actions of the judiciary, which appeared to be selective when choosing whose rights should be protected, denying poor women’s reproductive rights and upholding coercive birth control for the most deprived groups in the population.

Trzecia Rzesza wobec Romów i Sinti – w kręgu rasizmu i ludobójstwa

The Third Reich’s policy towards the Sinti and Roma people was based on racist theories claiming the superiority of the German nation over other nations. The rule of the National Socialists in Germany systematically eliminated the Sinti and Roma people from all areas of public life. They were regarded as a socially unassimilated group prone to criminal activity. Consequently, the Roma and Sinti people were refused the right to live and were subject to compulsory sterilisation and systematic extermination during World War II. It was in German-occupied Poland that the extermination was carried out to the greatest extent. Losses among the Roma and Sinti people have not been precisely estimated yet. Approximately at least 250,000 lost their lives in ghettos, concentration camps and outside the camps.

Attitudes of the German public to restrictions on persons with mental illness in 1993 and 2011

Aims.In recent years, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Mental Health Declaration for Europe and other initiatives laid the ground for improving the rights of persons with mental illness. This study aims to explore to what extent these achievements are reflected in changes of public attitudes towards restrictions on mentally ill people.Methods.Data from two population surveys that have been conducted in the ‘new’ States of Germany in 1993 and 2011 are compared with each other.Results.The proportion of respondents accepting compulsory admission of mentally ill persons to a psychiatric hospital remained unchanged in general, but the proportion opposing compulsory admission on grounds not sanctioned by law declined. In contrast, more respondents were opposed to permanently revoking the driver's license and fewer supported abortion and (voluntary) sterilisation in 2011. Concerning the right to vote and compulsory sterilisation, the proportion of those who did not give their views increased most.Conclusions.Two divergent trends in public attitudes towards restrictions on people with mental disorders emerge: While, in general, people's views on patients' rights have become more liberal, the public is also more inclined to restricting patients’ freedom in case of deviant behaviour.