56 provide complete, objective information that is neither manipulative nor inductive, avoiding frightening the patient, because this could mean that the consent is not truly free. Uninformed consent is not a free decision. 185. The Court underscores that a woman’s freedom to decide and to take responsible decisions with regard to her body and her reproductive health, especially in cases of sterilization, can be undermined by discrimination in access to health care; by the differences in power relationships with the husband, the family, the community and the medical personnel; 234 by the existence of additional factors of vulnerability,235 and of gender and other stereotypes among health care providers 236 (infra para. 187). Factors such as race, disability and socio-economic status cannot be used as grounds to limit the patient’s freedom of choice with regard to sterilization, or to circumvent obtaining her consent.237 186. The Court recognizes that the physician-patient power dynamic may be increased by the unequal power relations that have historically characterized relationships between men and women, as well as by the socially dominant and persistent gender stereotypes that, consciously or unconsciously, constitute the basis for practices that reinforce the position of women as dependents and subordinates.238 In this regard, the Court has recognized that the obligation to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women incorporates the obligation to eliminate discrimination based on gender stereotypes.239 187. Gender stereotypes refer to a preconception of the attributes, conducts or characteristics of men and women and the respective roles they play or should play. 240 In the health care sector, gender stereotypes may result in distinctions, exclusions or restrictions that impair or annul the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and, specifically, the sexual and reproductive rights of women, based on their condition as such. In particular, the Court notes that negative or prejudicial gender stereotypes may have an impact on and affect a woman’s access to information on sexual and reproductive health, as well as the way in which her consent is obtained. A woman in 2007, pp. 166 and 167 (2003), pp. 316 to 318 (2012) and pp. 399 to 401 (2015). Cf. UN, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Anand Grover, A/64/272, August 10, 2009, para. 17, and WHO, Female sterilization: a guide to provision of services, 1993 (evidence file, volume XIII, annex 3 to the State’s final arguments, folio 5520). 234 Cf. UN, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Anand Grover, A/64/272, August 10, 2009, paras. 54 and 55. Similarly, article 8 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights establishes that “[i]n applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies […] individuals and groups of special vulnerability should be protected and the personal integrity of such individuals respected.” 235 Cf. United Nations Interagency Statement “Eliminating forced, coercive and otherwise involuntary sterilization,” adopted by OHCHR, UN Women, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and WHO, 2014 (evidence file, volume VIII, annex 25 to the brief with motions, pleadings and evidence, folios 2453 and 2455). 236 Cf. FIGO, Recommendations on ethics issues in obstetrics and gynecology by the FIGO Committee for the Study of Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health of November 2003, October 2012 and October 2015, which include the 2011 Ethical recommendations on female sterilization, pp. 436 to 440 (2012) and pp. 537 to 541 (2015). 237 Cf. FIGO, Recommendations on ethics issues in obstetrics and gynecology by the FIGO Committee for the Study of Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health of October 2012 and October 2015, which include the Recommendations on the human rights impact of gender stereotyping in the context of reproductive health care of 2011, pp. 332 to 336 (2012) and pp. 418 to 422 (2015). 238 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 401, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 268. 239 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 401, and Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307, para. 180. 240