PIP: Advances in microsurgical techniques and increased knowledge about the effects of different sterilization methods have led to successful reversals of this procedure in men and women. Reversible sterilizations, therefore, will probably become important as a temporary means of birth control. This medical probability raises the following social and ethical questions about use of the procedure. When used as a means of voluntary birth control, should physicians sterilize the partner in whom reversal is easiest? And should they perform only reversible procedures? Should legislation governing reversible sterilizations be different from that which currently exists? Does use of this method of birth control threaten human rights since reversal is not within the power of an individual to accomplish without a physician? Should welfare recipients be required to undergo the procedure, and if so under what circumstances would reversal be available to them? Are regulations on the sterillization of mentally retarded persons based on the current presumed irreversibility of the procedure, and under what circumstances should retarded persons undergo reversals? Should mentally ill persons be required to undergo sterilization as a prerequisite for return to the community from a sexually segregated institution, and how are the rights of the patients' spouses to procreate considered? What circumstances would govern the use of sterilization as a prerequisite for prisoners to have conjugal visitation or to be incarcerated in co-ed prisons? How would requests for reversals by prisoners be decided? These questions are important when considering the effects of a method of birth control which severely limits an individual's control over the reproductive function of his or her body.