Pregnant Women and Opioid Use Disorder: Examining the Legal Landscape for Controlling Women's Reproductive Health.

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW American Journal of Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1017/amj.2022.26
Lynn M Madden, Jenn Oliva, Anthony Eller, Elizabeth DiDomizio, Mat Roosa, Lisa Blanchard, Natalie Kil, Frederick L Altice, Kimberly Johnson
{"title":"Pregnant Women and Opioid Use Disorder: Examining the Legal Landscape for Controlling Women's Reproductive Health.","authors":"Lynn M Madden,&nbsp;Jenn Oliva,&nbsp;Anthony Eller,&nbsp;Elizabeth DiDomizio,&nbsp;Mat Roosa,&nbsp;Lisa Blanchard,&nbsp;Natalie Kil,&nbsp;Frederick L Altice,&nbsp;Kimberly Johnson","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Women with opioid use disorder (\"OUD\") are more likely than other women to experience sexual assault, unintentional pregnancy, transactional sex and coercion regarding reproductive health care choices than women without OUD. Laws described as family friendly may be punitive rather than helpful to women and rarely apply to men. Laws regarding reproductive health and OUD are unevenly enforced and therefore biased against poor, minority women. As part of a larger study oriented toward strengthening systems of care related to the intersection of HIV and OUD, we conducted an analysis of state laws related to pregnant and postpartum women with OUD. Data on disparities in child removals and pregnant women's use of evidence-based treatment for OUD by income and race were captured for the five states with the most restrictive laws in both categories. Laws that were purportedly designed to improve reproductive health outcomes for women with OUD and/or their children often have the opposite of the expressed intended outcome. There is a relationship between restrictive reproductive choice and coercive OUD treatment policy for women. Restrictive state regulations for pregnant women with OUD persist despite negative outcomes for maternal and child health. Altering coercive and/or criminalizing regulation and redefining 'family friendly' may improve outcomes for individuals and families.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 2-3","pages":"209-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.26","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Women with opioid use disorder ("OUD") are more likely than other women to experience sexual assault, unintentional pregnancy, transactional sex and coercion regarding reproductive health care choices than women without OUD. Laws described as family friendly may be punitive rather than helpful to women and rarely apply to men. Laws regarding reproductive health and OUD are unevenly enforced and therefore biased against poor, minority women. As part of a larger study oriented toward strengthening systems of care related to the intersection of HIV and OUD, we conducted an analysis of state laws related to pregnant and postpartum women with OUD. Data on disparities in child removals and pregnant women's use of evidence-based treatment for OUD by income and race were captured for the five states with the most restrictive laws in both categories. Laws that were purportedly designed to improve reproductive health outcomes for women with OUD and/or their children often have the opposite of the expressed intended outcome. There is a relationship between restrictive reproductive choice and coercive OUD treatment policy for women. Restrictive state regulations for pregnant women with OUD persist despite negative outcomes for maternal and child health. Altering coercive and/or criminalizing regulation and redefining 'family friendly' may improve outcomes for individuals and families.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
孕妇和阿片类药物使用障碍:检查控制妇女生殖健康的法律环境。
与没有阿片类药物使用障碍的妇女相比,患有阿片类药物使用障碍的妇女比其他妇女更容易遭受性侵犯、意外怀孕、交易性行为和生殖保健选择方面的强迫。被描述为家庭友好的法律可能对女性是惩罚性的,而不是有益的,而且很少适用于男性。有关生殖健康和OUD的法律执行不均衡,因此对贫穷的少数民族妇女有偏见。作为一项旨在加强与HIV和OUD交叉相关的护理系统的大型研究的一部分,我们对与孕妇和产后OUD妇女相关的州法律进行了分析。根据收入和种族,收集了在这两个类别中法律最严格的五个州的儿童移除和孕妇使用循证治疗OUD方面的差异数据。据称旨在改善OUD妇女和/或其子女生殖健康结果的法律往往与所表达的预期结果相反。限制性生育选择与强制性妇女OUD治疗政策之间存在一定的关系。尽管对孕产妇和儿童健康产生负面影响,但国家对患有OUD的孕妇的限制性规定仍然存在。改变强制性和/或刑事化监管,重新定义“家庭友好”,可能会改善个人和家庭的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.
期刊最新文献
A Protected Class, An Unprotected Condition, and A Biomarker - A Method/Formula for Increased Diversity in Clinical Trials for the African American Subject with Benign Ethnic Neutropenia (BEN) - CORRIGENDUM. "The Timeless Explosion of Fantasy's Dream": How State Courts Have Ignored the Supreme Court's Decision in Panetti v. Quarterman - ERRATUM. Mental Health Matters: A Look At Abortion Law Post-Dobbs - ERRATUM. Abortion Access for Women in Custody in the Wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. How The "Great Resignation" and COVID Unemployment Have Eroded the Employer Sponsored Insurance Model and Access to Healthcare.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1