[The court on tubal sterilization in 1985].

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.