CEDAW/C/73/D/102/2016
The investigation by the Ombudsperson confirmed that the doctors had acted
unlawfully because they did not obtain her informed consent for the sterilization; the
case was referred to the police, who did not carry out a full investigation.
2.3 B. had two children when she became pregnant in 1981. In the fifth month of
her pregnancy, the sterilization committee invited her for a meeting and offered her
the possibility of sterilization as if it were a reversible, temporary method of
contraception. She did not agree. Her twins were born by natural childbirth on
27 March 1982, without complications. Two months later, her doctor informed her
that tumours discovered during the birth needed to be removed immediately. Shortly
before the surgery and while she was under the influence of medication, she was given
a consent form for sterilization; she does not remember what she signed. B. was
sterilized during the surgery. After the operation, no doctor mentioned the tumours
and she did not have any follow-up medical interventions. She was 22 years old. She
learned of the sterilization many years later during a medical check-up. In 1982, she
received a benefit of 2,000 crowns, probably for the sterilization. At the time she
thought it was a social benefit connected to the birth. It is clear from the
documentation of her general practitioner that she had been sterilized. However, there
is no documentation of the surgery; the hospital claims that it had to be shredded
because it was destroyed in a flood.
2.4 F. was 27 years old when she gave birth to her fourth child, on 16 March 1987.
Shortly thereafter, social workers offered her the possibility of sterilization, described
as a reversible procedure, and a related benefit. She initially refused, but later
reconsidered given that she was not planning to have children in the near future. She
agreed to the sterilization only on the basis of the information that she could conceive
again in the future. When admitted to the hospital in Most, none of the medical staff
referred to her sterilization, nor did she sign a consent form. Shortly after the
procedure, she experienced pain during breastfeeding. Subsequently, she received the
sterilization benefit. The hospital told F. that it had lost the medical documentation
on the surgery, except for an undated document from a sterilization committee
granting permission for her to undergo the procedure, which appears to have been
written after 10 December 1966.
2.5 M. had four children when a social worker suggested the possibility of
sterilization, describing it as a temporary, reversible procedure that would last three
or four years. M. refused, but the social worker threatened her with increased
supervision and the loss of her children to State care. She was admitted to the hospital
in Most for the surgery. No information was provided, she did not meet any
committee, nor did she sign a consent form. When she returned home, M. received
the promised financial benefit from the social worker. She waited for her first
menstrual cycle following the procedure, after which she was to visit the hospital for
a check-up. When her periods did not come, she visited her gynaecologist, who
initially did not believe that M. could be pregnant, because of the sterilization, but
confirmed the pregnancy after an examination. M. was pregnant at the time of the
sterilization, but had not been examined beforehand. She cannot provide medical
documentation on the surgery because the hospital told her that it had lost it. The only
document the hospital claims to have found is the undated approval from the
sterilization committee, which appears to have been written after 10 December 1966.
2.6 C. gave birth to her third child on 5 November 1986. When a social worker
visited to offer her the possibility of sterilization, she was interested in the financial
benefit and did not plan to have other children for the time being. Her decision to sign
the consent form was based on the information that the procedure was reversible. She
was admitted to the hospital in Krnov on 8 February 1989 and shortly after the
sterilization, she received the benefit. Approximately seven years later, she wished to
19-15443
3/18