Mother of all misleading headlines... the doctors received the approval of the patients. They didn't receive state approval.
However, to me, the methods of coercion are entirely relevant here, and make all the difference. From what these doctors weren't holding lengthened sentences or reduced meal quality over these women... I would describe it more as "convincing" than "coercing". Perhaps they were too persistent in seeking approval, but that is something that is subject to individual interpretation.
Regardless, even if what they were doing was clearly deplorable coercion, the headline is clearly misleading. I went from "What century is this!?!" to "eeeh..." in record time...
"Since then, it's been illegal to pressure anyone to be sterilized or ask for consent during labor or childbirth."
Moreover, it has been documented in the article that at least some of the "approval" was given while patients were under sedation, which cannot be taken as approval in any ethical way, given the nature of the procedure. That is basically enough for an unethical doctor to cover his or her ass, but it is not appropriate for a journalist to refer to that as approval.
At any rate, it's good that you're asking why this is going on in this century. Just a shame you seem to be concern trolling about a very valid headline instead of addressing the issue at hand.
If they were getting approval after drugging up their patients or while their patients were in labor then that is clearly an issue; an issue that deserves an accurate headline.
What you're arguing is much like arguing that if a woman had sex while drunk (under the influence of a drug that impedes judgement), then no headline should call it rape. In that context, the error should, I hope, be quite clear.
"What you're arguing is much like arguing that if a woman had sex while drunk (under the influence of a drug that impedes judgement), then no headline should call it rape."
HELL NO what I am arguing is not like that. I am not okay with doctors pressuring drugged up patients. As I said: "If they were getting approval after drugging up their patients or while their patients were in labor then that is clearly an issue"
Holy hell... Do try to be more careful when you accuse somebody of being like a rape apologist...
The headline matches only a subset of the articles content. A subset that it mentions only very briefly, almost as an aside. That particular incident was clear coercion, but if the other incidents involved similar coercion then the article fails to say so.
Instead the article focuses on the failure of the doctors to seek state approval. It is a poor headline.