Chilean Medical and Midwifery Faculty's Views on Conscientious Objection for Abortion Services.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 Social Sciences International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2020-12-14 DOI:10.1363/46e0620
Lidia Casas, Lori Freedman, Alejandra Ramm, Sara Correa, C Finley Baba, M Antonia Biggs
{"title":"Chilean Medical and Midwifery Faculty's Views on Conscientious Objection for Abortion Services.","authors":"Lidia Casas,&nbsp;Lori Freedman,&nbsp;Alejandra Ramm,&nbsp;Sara Correa,&nbsp;C Finley Baba,&nbsp;M Antonia Biggs","doi":"10.1363/46e0620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>In 2017, Chile reformed its abortion law to allow the procedure under limited circumstances. Exploring the views of Chilean medical and midwifery faculty regarding abortion and the use of conscientious objection (CO) at the time of reform can inform how these topics are being taught to the country's future health care providers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between March and September 2017, 30 medical and midwifery school faculty from universities in Santiago, Chile were interviewed; 20 of the faculty taught at secular universities and 10 taught at religiously affiliated universities. Faculty perspectives on CO and abortion, the scope of CO, and teaching about CO and abortion were analyzed using a grounded theory approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most faculty at secular and religiously affiliated universities supported the rights of clinicians to refuse to provide abortion care. Secular-university faculty generally thought that CO should be limited to specific providers and rejected the idea of institutional CO, whereas religious-university faculty strongly supported the use of CO by a broad range of providers and at the institutional level. Only secular-university faculty endorsed the idea that CO should be regulated so that it does not hinder access to abortion care.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The broader support for CO in abortion among religious-university faculty raises concerns about whether students are being taught their ethical responsibility to put the needs of their patients above their own. Future research should monitor whether Chile's CO regulations and practices are guaranteeing people's access to abortion care.</p>","PeriodicalId":46940,"journal":{"name":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":"46 Suppl 1","pages":"25-34"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1363/46e0620","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Context: In 2017, Chile reformed its abortion law to allow the procedure under limited circumstances. Exploring the views of Chilean medical and midwifery faculty regarding abortion and the use of conscientious objection (CO) at the time of reform can inform how these topics are being taught to the country's future health care providers.

Methods: Between March and September 2017, 30 medical and midwifery school faculty from universities in Santiago, Chile were interviewed; 20 of the faculty taught at secular universities and 10 taught at religiously affiliated universities. Faculty perspectives on CO and abortion, the scope of CO, and teaching about CO and abortion were analyzed using a grounded theory approach.

Results: Most faculty at secular and religiously affiliated universities supported the rights of clinicians to refuse to provide abortion care. Secular-university faculty generally thought that CO should be limited to specific providers and rejected the idea of institutional CO, whereas religious-university faculty strongly supported the use of CO by a broad range of providers and at the institutional level. Only secular-university faculty endorsed the idea that CO should be regulated so that it does not hinder access to abortion care.

Conclusions: The broader support for CO in abortion among religious-university faculty raises concerns about whether students are being taught their ethical responsibility to put the needs of their patients above their own. Future research should monitor whether Chile's CO regulations and practices are guaranteeing people's access to abortion care.

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
智利医疗和助产学院对堕胎服务良心拒服兵役的看法。
背景:2017年,智利改革了堕胎法,允许在有限的情况下进行堕胎。探索智利医疗和助产教师在改革时期对堕胎和良心拒服兵役的看法,可以了解如何向该国未来的卫生保健提供者教授这些主题。方法:2017年3月至9月,对智利圣地亚哥大学的30名医学和助产学校教师进行访谈;其中20人在世俗大学任教,10人在宗教附属大学任教。运用扎根理论的方法分析了教师对CO和流产的看法、CO的范围以及CO和流产的教学。结果:大多数非宗教院校的教师支持临床医生拒绝提供堕胎护理的权利。世俗大学的教师普遍认为,CO应限于特定的提供者,并拒绝机构CO的想法,而宗教大学的教师则强烈支持广泛的提供者和机构一级使用CO。只有非宗教大学的教师支持这样的观点,即应该对同性婚姻进行监管,这样它就不会妨碍人们获得堕胎护理。结论:在宗教大学的教师中,对堕胎的CO的广泛支持引起了人们的关注,即学生是否被教导他们的道德责任,将患者的需求置于自己的需求之上。未来的研究应该监测智利的CO法规和实践是否保证了人们获得堕胎护理。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Women's Perspectives on Contraceptive-Induced Amenorrhea in Burkina Faso and Uganda. Provider and Women Characteristics as Risk Factors for Postpartum Copper IUD Expulsion and Discontinuation in Nepal. Assessing Readiness to Provide Comprehensive Abortion Care in the Democratic Republic of the Congo After Passage of the Maputo Protocol. An Application of the List Experiment to Estimate Abortion Prevalence in Karachi, Pakistan. Chilean Medical and Midwifery Faculty's Views on Conscientious Objection for Abortion Services.
×
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