Is Vasectomy a Women’s Issue?

Smith, Dedra | June 14, 2018 | Leave a Comment Download as PDF

IMG_5837

Around the world, about 33% of married women opt for tubal ligation as their best guarantee of having no future births. It’s a solution that means the woman is protected regardless of partner. There’s a lot to love about it, because it protects the woman directly.

On the other hand, there are some disturbing statistics about tubal ligation. The risk of failure goes up after the first year, and of those failures, 15 to 20% are likely to be ectopic pregnancies. An ectopic pregnancy is dangerous because the embryo attaches to the fallopian tube rather than inside the uterus, and as it grows, it can cause the tube to burst and lead to life-threatening internal bleeding. It’s estimated that between 10 and 20 million women experience ectopic pregnancies each year.

In the developed world, ectopic pregnancy that is detected early rarely leads to maternal death, but in the  developing world, the risk to the mother is far higher. The consequences to the family are catastrophic, because without mothers to care for the children, the fathers are compromised in their ability to work, or the children’s futures are jeopardized.

No one can forget the images of the distraught father on his knees crying, “Why?” in Chhattisgarh, India in 2014 when the terrible tragedy occurred at a female sterilization camp, killing 12 women. This poor man held his head and asked how he was to care for his small children.

There is another option for some families: vasectomy. As a procedure, it’s safer, cheaper, more effective, has an extremely low failure rate even over time, and when it does fail, results in a healthy pregnancy rather than an ectopic one.  It’s also a way for a man to take responsibility for his own seed, rather than relying on women to do this for him.

Women on average are fertile for 45 years. They take chemicals or have IUDs inserted in their uteruses to prevent pregnancy when they are still thinking of having children. They endure pregnancy and birth for their families. But for women who are in monogamous relationships and have the number of children they want, why are they having major abdominal surgery when the alternative is a 10 to 20 minute procedure on an easily accessed part of the body, with a painless test to make sure it worked, and that statistically is not only safer but more effective?

James & Leah Maina
James & Leah Maina “When James explained to my that a vasectomy was a permanent family planning method and I had already put off having children, I trusted him that this was the best methos.” —Leah Maina

The tides may be turning. For the first time this year, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s International Conference on Family Planning, which is the largest family planning conference in the world, will include a track on male contraception. Countries like Kenya, Haiti, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Indonesia and many more are either starting or enlarging their vasectomy outreach, doctor training, and vasectomy programs.

The hurdles are high; demystifying vasectomy for populations of men who rarely see doctors, are often working, and who don’t necessarily share contraception information with other men makes it hard to target information to them. However, when they are given accurate information and the offer of a procedure using modern no scalpel methods, men are increasingly eager to have vasectomies. They understand the role of a smaller family size in giving their children better lives, and many welcome the chance to take the burden off their partners.

Leah Wamboi "Men have a misconception about family planning and yet we need them in planning for the families."
Leah Wamboi “Men have a misconception about family planning and yet we need them in planning for the families.”

Assuming that publicity efforts are successful and demand increases, having highly trained doctors that also have had enough practice and sufficient ongoing experience to give quality vasectomies can be an issue. Even though the procedure is a simple surgery, it has some variables that require attention and practice.

Men can be uncomfortable going to family planning clinics to sit with women awaiting services, and can also find working with women health workers to be embarrassing. It can work the other way too, where men are reluctant to have another man touch their genitals.

In the US, permanent contraception is available under the Affordable Care Act for women, but not for men, automatically making it more practical financially for the woman to get the surgery, even though the actual costs are much higher.

Beyond these obstacles, the fact is that there is no profit in vasectomy. There are no pharmaceutical companies that can sell pills or injections or other commodities (other than condoms) to men, so there’s very little sponsorship or funding for vasectomy programs.

When men are ignored by the family planning community, however, the consequences are often faced by women. They bear the pregnancies,  the abortions, the tubal ligations, and the risks.  There are limited paths for men to become more enlightened about family planning, couples’ communication, gender equity or their own health.

World Vasectomy Day and other organizations are trying to tackle this issue, understand its causes and consequences, and change not only the way family planning organizations include this method, but how governments and international bodies adopt programs that inform, educate, publicize and provide services.

In direct contradiction of the stereotype, results so far have shown that men, who want the best for their partners and children, are very willing to accept vasectomy when given the correct information. They don’t want more children than they can afford, and appreciate being able to control that. World Vasectomy Day has also found that men can be profoundly grateful for help, and that the majority do it as an act of love for their partners and children.


The MAHB Blog is a venture of the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere. Questions should be directed to joan@mahbonline.org

MAHB Blog: https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/vasectomy-womens-issue/

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedIn
The views and opinions expressed through the MAHB Website are those of the contributing authors and do not necessarily reflect an official position of the MAHB. The MAHB aims to share a range of perspectives and welcomes the discussions that they prompt.
  • Tubal ligation is one of the best protections for women and it is the safest side for every women. And it is not harmful for the parents also.

  • Jason G. Brent

    This comment, if it is published, will cause an outburst beyond anything ever published by MAHB. And I do not care. Those that care about the future of our species will condemn what I will write below because it will permit those who have no understanding of the coming extinction to attack everything about family planning and the concerns of intelligent people. Religious fools and fanatics will use what I will write below to show that everyone who is concerned about the future is nothing more than a crazy hateful person.

    Humanity has reached the point in time when it must make a choice between executing for crimes against humanity, stupidity and arrogance almost every cleric on the face of the earth or the extinction of the human species. Why? Orthodox rabbis demand that their followers have children beyond counting, the Catholic Church will never change its positions about birth control and abortion, most Mormons have at least four or five children, many Protestant pastors oppose abortion and have convinced their flocks to do all in their power to prevent abortion, and leaders of Islam have openly stated more than once that Islam will conquer Western Civilization by their exploding population.

    While we can debate what portion of their followers will follow the religion’s position on birth control and abortion, humanity cannot and must not make that gamble. Without the best means of birth control (the words “family planning” are just plain stupid– we must have birth control and not family planning) and without the availability of abortion at little or no cost available to all of humanity the human population will continue to grow until civilization collapses.. In 1950 population about 2.5 billion, today population about 7.6 billion, latest medium variant estimate by the U’s demographers ( and if they are not the best demographers on the planet, they are among the best and to the best of my knowledge no reputable demographers disagree with their estimate) is that the human population will attempt to reach 11.2 billion by the year 2100. The gain in population in just 150 (2100-1950= 150) equals 8.7 billion That potential gain in population demands that every aspect of human morality be examined and most likely changed.

    According to the Global Footprint Network humanity is in overshoot using the resources of 1.7 planets while humanity only has the resource of one plant. If humanity remains in overshoot for even a short period of time a violent, horrible and substantial reduction in population must and will occur.jbrent6179@aol.com

  • Dan Costello

    It would be rather gauche of MAHB to allow this article to stand alone, without either a clear prologue or clear epilogue detailing that the described author, Dedra Smith, is a paid media producer at World Vasectomy Day, Inc. listed at the website http://www.worldvasectomyday.org/what-is-wvd/

    The facebook information appears to list WVD as a community or nonprofit organization, while the “Inc“ label in the title clearly indicates incorporation. Which is it, as the organization cannot be both, and requires registration with fixed address for either designation under US law.

    There is no listed office address for the WVD Inc. as the lInkedin page lists “headquarters are in different countries every year.“ The reasonable common law terms of “Inc“ or incorporation generally requires an official listed address and registration with a licensing or permitting authority. I find these descriptor conflicts between community or non-profit versus incorporation clearly questionable and quite grey.

    Again, I find it quite gauche for a female author to be making any advice or presumptions about male reproductive issues, without being a male. It does not seem genuine or compassionate to men, for any organization to promote such messaging on male health or sexual matters by sending a female. In the interests of equality, men ought to be writing such articles, not women. And as the woman concerned is not a practicing medical doctor, but a paid media producer, the messaging is not appropriate for such a sensitive topic to be left to a producer, publisher or non-profit manager.

    Imagine the reaction if a man without medical qualifications came here to this forum to lecture women on their menstrual cycle or menses or family planning. In closing, the article is gauche.