Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:29:33.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Male sterilization in Thailand: a follow-up study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Robert G. Burnight ,
Verasing Muangmun  and
Michael J. Cook
Robert G. Burnight
Affiliation:
Carolina Population Centre, Bangkok, Thailand
Verasing Muangmun
Affiliation:
Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
Michael J. Cook
Affiliation:
Institute for Population and Social Research, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A retrospective study of 185 Thai males who had been vasectomized at Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, between January 1970 and March 1973 was conducted during the period May–July 1973. At the time of the vasectomy the mean age of the men was 33·5 years and the mean age of their wives was 29·9 years; they had a mean of 3·7 living children. The motivation for seeking a permanent method of fertility control was a combination of adverse economic pressures, a degree of rationality in family building, and worry over additional pregnancies. Only a few of the men experienced any medical complications as a result of the operation, and the most significant factor associated with health was fatigue. Few changes in mental health, social relationships, or personal habits occurred as a result of the operation. Post-vasectomy changes in sexual relations were found to be minimal; if occurring at all, such changes were usually improvements. Taking into consideration the age of husband and wife, duration of marriage, and number of living children, the demographic impact of vasectomies in Thailand seems to be greater than that in other developing countries where comparisons can be made.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1975 , pp. 377 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bhatnagar, S.N.K. (1964) Vasectomy—a study of effects and reactions. J. Fam. Welfare, 11, No. 2, 1.Google Scholar
Cowgill, D.O., Keovichit, S., Burnight, R.G., Udry, J.R. & Yamarat, C. (1971) Sterilization: a case of extensive practice in a developing nation. Milbank meml Fund Q. Bull. 49, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferber, A.S., Tietze, C.R. & Lewit, S. (1967) Men with vasectomies: a study of medical, sexual and psychosocial changes. Psychosomat. Med. 29, 354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldsmith, A., Goldberg, R. & Echeverria, G. (1973) An in-depth study of vasectomized men in Latin America—a preliminary report. J. Reprod. Med. 10, 150.Google ScholarPubMed
Goldstein, S. (1972) The Demography of Bangkok: A Case Study of Differentials between Big City and Rural Populations. Research Report No. 7, Institute of Population Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok.Google Scholar
Knodel, J. & Pitaktepsombati, P. (1973) Thailand: fertility and family planning among rural and urban women. Stud. Fam. Plann. 4, 229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knodel, J. & Prachuabmoh, V. (1973) Desired family size in Thailand: are the responses meaningful? Demography, 10, 619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, H.Y. (1970) Effects of vasectomy on medical and psychosocial aspects. J. popul. Stud. 11, 145.Google Scholar
Poffenberger, S. & Sheth, D.L. (1962) Reactions of urban employees to vasectomy operations. J. Fam. Welfare, 10, 1.Google Scholar
Rodgers, D.A., Ziegler, F.J., Altrocchi, J. & Levy, N. (1965) A longitudinal study of the psycho-social effects of vasectomy. J. Marr. & Fam. 27, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfield, A.G., Asavasena, W. & Mikhanorn, J. (1973) Person-to-person communication in Thailand. Stud. Fam. Plann. 4, 149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saksena, D.N. (1974) Follow-up study of rural vasectomy acceptors in Uttar Pradesh. Stud. Fam. Plann. 5, 50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed