Soutoul J H, Pierre F
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1985;14(5):551-60.
The gynaecologist and the surgeon undertake unknown risks because the law as far as sterilisation is concerned is poor in case history and for this reason more to be feared. There is, apart from Penal Code 309-310-316 on voluntary infliction of injury, on mutilation and on castration and on procedures that are sometimes dangerous to body and soul, silence in the low. This may appear to be favourable to the performance of male or female sterilisation for medical and social reasons. This approach clarifies the question of sterilisation which is more useful at a time when there is an increase in attempts to sue doctors for indemnity; and it is possible to fear that there will be an increase in cases of such legal action, because of the increase in the number of case histories that are referred for expert medical opinions in gynaecology and obstetrics, in case law and for the civil courts. It is not denied that there has been a tacit agreement to give indications for sterilisation during operations, and that this has been respected by the law because the medico-social situation of the patients is a very special one. On the other hand it is wise, and it will prevent medico-legal risks in cases where tubal or vas sterilisation has been carried out, if there are full medical and surgical notes prepared with detailed information and informed consent often given by the patient in writing and sometimes later, if necessary, the preparation of full defensive explanations of why the procedure was carried out. Paradoxically, this operation is not strictly legal in spite of the vague outlines of the concessions that have been made by the Conseil National de l'Ordre and by the National Academy of Medicine, whose attitude is still a very theoretical one. This is also the case with the European Commission, whose deliberations are so far no better than those that apply to French law.
妇科医生和外科医生承担着未知的风险，因为就绝育而言，相关法律在病史记录方面存在不足，正因如此，这种风险更令人担忧。除了刑法典中关于故意伤害、致残、阉割以及有时对身体和精神有危险的程序的第309 - 310 - 316条外，法律对此保持沉默。这可能看似有利于出于医学和社会原因进行男性或女性绝育。这种做法澄清了绝育问题，在因绝育手术引发医生赔偿诉讼不断增加的当下，这一问题显得更为重要；而且由于妇科和产科、判例法以及民事法庭中提交专家医学意见的病史记录数量增加，人们可能担心此类法律诉讼案件会增多。不可否认，在手术过程中给予绝育指征已达成默契，且法律也认可这一点，因为患者的医疗社会状况非常特殊。另一方面，如果能准备完整的医疗和手术记录，包含详细信息，并且患者通常以书面形式给予知情同意，必要时还能就手术原因准备充分的辩护解释，那么在进行输卵管或输精管绝育手术时，这将有助于防范医疗法律风险。矛盾的是，尽管国家医师委员会和国家医学科学院做出了一些模糊的让步，但其态度仍非常理论化，所以这种手术严格来说并不合法。欧盟委员会的情况也是如此，其审议至今并不比法国法律的情况好多少。
