Intended and unintended consequences of abortion law reform: perspectives of abortion experts in Victoria, Australia

L. Keogh, D. Newton, C. Bayly, K. McNamee, Ann-Marie Hardiman, A. Webster, M. Bismark
{"title":"Intended and unintended consequences of abortion law reform: perspectives of abortion experts in Victoria, Australia","authors":"L. Keogh, D. Newton, C. Bayly, K. McNamee, Ann-Marie Hardiman, A. Webster, M. Bismark","doi":"10.1136/jfprhc-2016-101541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction In Victoria, Australia, abortion was decriminalised in October 2008, bringing the law in line with clinical practice and community attitudes. We describe how experts in abortion service provision perceived the intent and subsequent impact of the 2008 Victorian abortion law reform. Methods Experts in abortion provision in Victoria were recruited for a qualitative semi-structured interview about the 2008 law reform and its perceived impact, until saturation was reached. Nineteen experts from a range of health care settings and geographic locations were interviewed in 2014/2015. Thematic analysis was conducted to summarise participants' views. Results Abortion law reform, while a positive event, was perceived to have changed little about the provision of abortion. The views of participants can be categorised into: (1) goals that law reform was intended to address and that have been achieved; (2) intent or hopes of law reform that have not been achieved; (3) unintended consequences; (4) coincidences; and (5) unfinished business. All agreed that law reform had repositioned abortion as a health rather than legal issue, had shifted the power in decision making from doctors to women, and had increased clarity and safety for doctors. However, all described outstanding concerns; limited public provision of surgical abortion; reduced access to abortion after 20 weeks; ongoing stigma; lack of a state-wide strategy for equitable abortion provision; and an unsustainable workforce. Conclusion Law reform, while positive, has failed to address a number of significant issues in abortion service provision, and may have even resulted in a ‘lull’ in action.","PeriodicalId":15734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care","volume":"117 1","pages":"18 - 24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/jfprhc-2016-101541","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2016-101541","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Introduction In Victoria, Australia, abortion was decriminalised in October 2008, bringing the law in line with clinical practice and community attitudes. We describe how experts in abortion service provision perceived the intent and subsequent impact of the 2008 Victorian abortion law reform. Methods Experts in abortion provision in Victoria were recruited for a qualitative semi-structured interview about the 2008 law reform and its perceived impact, until saturation was reached. Nineteen experts from a range of health care settings and geographic locations were interviewed in 2014/2015. Thematic analysis was conducted to summarise participants' views. Results Abortion law reform, while a positive event, was perceived to have changed little about the provision of abortion. The views of participants can be categorised into: (1) goals that law reform was intended to address and that have been achieved; (2) intent or hopes of law reform that have not been achieved; (3) unintended consequences; (4) coincidences; and (5) unfinished business. All agreed that law reform had repositioned abortion as a health rather than legal issue, had shifted the power in decision making from doctors to women, and had increased clarity and safety for doctors. However, all described outstanding concerns; limited public provision of surgical abortion; reduced access to abortion after 20 weeks; ongoing stigma; lack of a state-wide strategy for equitable abortion provision; and an unsustainable workforce. Conclusion Law reform, while positive, has failed to address a number of significant issues in abortion service provision, and may have even resulted in a ‘lull’ in action.
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
堕胎法改革的预期和意外后果:澳大利亚维多利亚州堕胎专家的观点
在澳大利亚的维多利亚州,堕胎在2008年10月被合法化,使法律与临床实践和社区态度保持一致。我们描述了堕胎服务提供的专家如何感知2008年维多利亚州堕胎法改革的意图和后续影响。方法招募维多利亚州堕胎规定的专家,对2008年法律改革及其感知影响进行定性半结构化访谈,直到达到饱和。2014/2015年期间,对来自各种卫生保健机构和地理位置的19名专家进行了访谈。进行专题分析,总结与会者的意见。结果堕胎法改革虽然是一个积极的事件,但被认为对堕胎的提供改变不大。与会者的意见可分为以下几类:(1)法律改革旨在解决的目标和已经实现的目标;(二)法律改革的意图或者希望未实现的;(3)意外后果;(4)巧合;(5)未竟事业。所有人都同意,法律改革将堕胎重新定位为一个健康问题,而不是法律问题,将决策权从医生转移到妇女,并增加了医生的清晰度和安全性。然而,他们都描述了悬而未决的问题;有限的公共手术流产;减少20周后堕胎的机会;持续的耻辱;缺乏全州范围内的公平堕胎提供战略;以及不可持续的劳动力。法律改革虽然是积极的,但未能解决堕胎服务提供中的一些重大问题,甚至可能导致行动的“停顿”。
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
0.84
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The trading of Professional, Managerial & Healthcare Publications Ltd has been transferred to its parent company, Keyways Publishing Ltd.
期刊最新文献
The Case of Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (Abt-Letterer-Siwe Disease) in Twin Girls Multifetal Gestations Planning Methods in Ecuador’s Indigenous People Reproductive Health and Family Planning Services in Africa: Looking beyond Individual and Household Factors The Role of Information Technologies in Natural Family Planning
×
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