What were the conditions of the birth-control program in Greenland during the 1960s-1990s?
Executive summary
The Greenland birth-control programme was a state-directed, decades-long effort largely run by Danish health authorities that, from the mid-1960s through the 1970s and into the 1980s and early 1990s, involved the widescale insertion of intrauterine devices (IUDs), hormonal injections and other fertility-control measures into Greenlandic Inuit women and girls—often without informed consent—producing documented physical and psychological harm and prompting investigations, legal claims and a formal apology decades later [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Origins and stated purposes: modernization, cost and population-control goals
The campaign began in the 1960s as part of broader Danish-led public‑health and modernization drives in Greenland; official aims reported in investigations and academic reporting framed the measures as attempts to curb what officials saw as rapid population growth, reduce the number of single mothers and lower public childcare costs as infant survival improved under expanded health services [5] [6] [3].
2. Methods and scale: coils, injections, and numbers
The dominant tool was the IUD—then a relatively new, larger plastic model—inserted into thousands of women and girls; Danish authorities later estimated that as many as roughly 4,500 women received IUDs between the 1960s and mid‑1970s, which amounted to a significant share of women of childbearing age in a population that numbered only tens of thousands [7] [8] [3].
3. Coercion, consent and victims’ accounts
Multiple survivors and a formal inquiry documented that many insertions occurred without proper informed consent: school‑based directives, visiting doctors ordering IUD placement, and cases involving adolescents—including girls reported as young as 12—left women describing pain, shame, infertility and lifelong trauma; testimony collected for the investigation documented hundreds of such cases and medical record reviews corroborated numerous complaints [1] [3] [2] [6].
4. Timeline and persistence: from a concentrated campaign to decades of practice
Nationwide implementation accelerated from the late 1960s—some sources note autumn 1967 and a dramatic reduction in birth rates by the early 1970s—but the practices did not end quickly; incidents and related fertility‑control measures persisted into the 1980s and up to the transfer of Greenland’s health authority in 1991–1992, which is why investigations and legal claims cover 1960–1991 [8] [7] [9].
5. Health impacts and clinical context
Contemporary clinicians and later reviewers noted that the IUD types used were often larger and recommended only for women who had given birth, increasing risks of heavy bleeding, pain and infection in nulliparous girls; survivors reported infertility and other lasting health problems, and researchers compiling testimonies and medical records found hundreds of cases reporting health consequences [3] [4] [6].
6. Accountability: inquiries, legal claims, apology and compensation
Public revelation accelerated after investigative reporting and podcasts in the 2020s, prompting a joint Danish‑Greenlandic inquiry, lawsuits by Greenlandic women seeking compensation and, ultimately, a formal apology from Denmark and the creation of a reconciliation/compensation process that opened eligibility for payouts to those who can credibly report coercive contraception between 1960 and 1991 [1] [2] [10] [4].
7. Disputed characterizations and limits of current reporting
There are contested labels and interpretations: some Greenlandic politicians have called the campaign genocide, while some Danish jurists and commentators argue the program was a grave injustice but lacked genocidal intent; reporting and official investigations have focused on documenting scope, mechanisms and harms, but available sources do not settle legal classifications of intent beyond political and legal debate [1] [3]. Available public documentation and scholarship provide testimony, medical records and institutional timelines, but gaps remain about decision‑making chains and every individual case, which is why the formal inquiry and court processes have continued to be important for establishing full accountability [1] [9].