Reproductive Justice: Inequalities in the Global South

IF 0.9 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Developing World Bioethics Pub Date : 2023-05-17 DOI:10.1111/dewb.12404
Ilana Ambrogi MD, PhD, Gabriela Arguedas-Ramírez PharmD, MSc, PhD
{"title":"Reproductive Justice: Inequalities in the Global South","authors":"Ilana Ambrogi MD, PhD,&nbsp;Gabriela Arguedas-Ramírez PharmD, MSc, PhD","doi":"10.1111/dewb.12404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this special issue on <i>Reproductive Justice: Inequalities in the Global South</i> we hope to promote academic discussions that shift the focus towards a plurality of global South perspectives on issues related to reproductive justice (RJ). The goal is at least two-fold: to promote a space for counterhegemonic analyses and to expand the dialogue on reproductive justice. This special issue covers a wide range of themes and research questions, as well as a diverse participation of scholars working in the intersection between bioethics, reproduction, healthcare, pandemics and epidemics, and public policy. We hope that the concept of reproductive justice, itself, will continue to promote academic and activist conversations and debates that de-normalize and de-naturalize hegemonic power structures and practices in science, healthcare and academia. It is in that spirit that the papers in this special issue contribute, in one way or another, to the task of asking questions from counterhegemonic, anti-racist and feminist perspectives.</p><p>The concept of reproductive justice is known to have been coined in 1994 by a group of black women and women of color in Chicago as they prepared for the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo.1 As bioethicists from the global South, we would like to draw attention that other black women led movements around the same time that were happening elsewhere (in Brazil, for instance) and invite all to wonder about how knowledge is produced and promoted and how ideas coalesce in different ways depending on the circumstances.</p><p>In August 1993, also in preparation for the Cairo conference, a group of Brazilian black women convened for the National Seminar on Politics and Reproductive Rights of Black Women [English translation].2 This meeting resulted in the “Declaração de Itapecirica da Serra das Mulheres Negras Brasileiras”,3 - in English, the “Declaration of Itapecerica da Serra of Black Brazilian Women”.4 At this meeting they stated that: ““<i>We, black women, consider that the State has the task of guaranteeing the necessary conditions so that Brazilians, women, <b>and in particular black Brazilian women, can exercise their sexuality and their reproductive rights, controlling their own fertility, to have or not to have the children they want, guaranteeing access to good quality health services, care for pregnancy, childbirth and abortion</b></i>.” [English translation].5 They also made it clear that “<i><b>The guarantee of reproductive rights presupposes the guarantee of broad citizenship rights…</b></i>” [English translation]6 which included employment, housing, education and safety, ethical and interdisciplinary education and training for healthcare providers, and democratization on information access among other public policy demands.</p><p>As we rarely hear, or do not hear at all, about how Brazilian black women might have, or not, contributed to the concept of reproductive justice, this declaration, its timing and content makes us reflect on the importance epistemic justice regarding the geopolitics of knowledge production, the global circulation of ideas and the multiplicity of obstacles women, particularly racialized women, in the global South encounter as epistemic subjects. We, as guest editors of this special issue, and as feminist bioethicists, hope to promote a reading of these debates through an intersectional lens.7 This declaration is a relevant indication of how experiences of oppression create commonalities and shared desires of emancipation. Hegemonic powers work to disrupt the possibility of a collective understanding, community formation and action. We do not know how many other groups or people have come up with similar ideas and concepts, in different locations and time, but this should certainly make us think critically about the need to create spaces for epistemic reparations and to promote practices of epistemic justice in bioethics.8</p><p>It has been more than 40 years since Audre Lorde exposed the arrogance to assume that any significant change could come from analysis and discussions that exclude “…poor women, Black and Third World women, and lesbians.”9 In 1993, this organized group of Brazilian black women raised the need of ethical approaches to healthcare that included their perspectives and particularities. They also emphasized that in order to overcome reproductive injustice, black women's participation in the universities and knowledge production was indispensable.10 The Brazilian black womens’ movement along with the RJ movement in the USA, marked the essentiality of inclusion of their experiences when formulating public policy and thinking about health and justice. Inspired by and learning from these marginalized, racialized women, we invite scholars, practitioners and activists to read this special issue. Convinced that reproductive justice has and should continue to provoke reflections that pays close attention to the structures and distribution of power; placing at the center of discussions and ensuring space and power to those who have been historically excluded. Our purpose is to stimulate ethical discussions in a way that promotes inquisitive dialogues and challenges hegemonic frameworks which instead of nurturing often suffocate critical thinking. In this special issue the reader will find different methodological and theoretical approaches to issues that include, among others, the analysis of abortion access in the context of the pandemic, research ethics during epidemics, the global political strategies for criminalizing abortion, assisted reproduction technologies and kinship, surrogacy and autonomy, and the intersection between obstetric violence and immigration status.</p><p>Thirty years after the explicit alerts and demands made by these impressive women in Brazil and the USA, it is still difficult to center ethical discussions and research related to reproductive issues in a way that respond to the context and particular experiences of racialized, excluded and oppressed women, LGBTQIAP+ people, and people with disabilities, particularly in the global South. Even more worrisome, the fight for reproductive justice is now encountering new and more menacing threats. The 2022 Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court of the United States serves as an example of the powerful reactionary forces organized with the objective to make reproductive justice impossible to achieve. Therefore, we call for bioethicists across the world to prioritize intervention and research in reproductive justice, strengthening dialogue and collaborative work across disciplines and locations.</p><p>Finally, we thank the co-editors of Developing World Bioethics for the opportunity to put together this special issue, in an effort to maintain the attention on reproductive justice issues that are, if not more, at least as relevant today as they were three decades ago.</p><p>None to declare.</p>","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":"23 2","pages":"91-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dewb.12404","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developing World Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dewb.12404","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this special issue on Reproductive Justice: Inequalities in the Global South we hope to promote academic discussions that shift the focus towards a plurality of global South perspectives on issues related to reproductive justice (RJ). The goal is at least two-fold: to promote a space for counterhegemonic analyses and to expand the dialogue on reproductive justice. This special issue covers a wide range of themes and research questions, as well as a diverse participation of scholars working in the intersection between bioethics, reproduction, healthcare, pandemics and epidemics, and public policy. We hope that the concept of reproductive justice, itself, will continue to promote academic and activist conversations and debates that de-normalize and de-naturalize hegemonic power structures and practices in science, healthcare and academia. It is in that spirit that the papers in this special issue contribute, in one way or another, to the task of asking questions from counterhegemonic, anti-racist and feminist perspectives.

The concept of reproductive justice is known to have been coined in 1994 by a group of black women and women of color in Chicago as they prepared for the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo.1 As bioethicists from the global South, we would like to draw attention that other black women led movements around the same time that were happening elsewhere (in Brazil, for instance) and invite all to wonder about how knowledge is produced and promoted and how ideas coalesce in different ways depending on the circumstances.

In August 1993, also in preparation for the Cairo conference, a group of Brazilian black women convened for the National Seminar on Politics and Reproductive Rights of Black Women [English translation].2 This meeting resulted in the “Declaração de Itapecirica da Serra das Mulheres Negras Brasileiras”,3 - in English, the “Declaration of Itapecerica da Serra of Black Brazilian Women”.4 At this meeting they stated that: ““We, black women, consider that the State has the task of guaranteeing the necessary conditions so that Brazilians, women, and in particular black Brazilian women, can exercise their sexuality and their reproductive rights, controlling their own fertility, to have or not to have the children they want, guaranteeing access to good quality health services, care for pregnancy, childbirth and abortion.” [English translation].5 They also made it clear that “The guarantee of reproductive rights presupposes the guarantee of broad citizenship rights…” [English translation]6 which included employment, housing, education and safety, ethical and interdisciplinary education and training for healthcare providers, and democratization on information access among other public policy demands.

As we rarely hear, or do not hear at all, about how Brazilian black women might have, or not, contributed to the concept of reproductive justice, this declaration, its timing and content makes us reflect on the importance epistemic justice regarding the geopolitics of knowledge production, the global circulation of ideas and the multiplicity of obstacles women, particularly racialized women, in the global South encounter as epistemic subjects. We, as guest editors of this special issue, and as feminist bioethicists, hope to promote a reading of these debates through an intersectional lens.7 This declaration is a relevant indication of how experiences of oppression create commonalities and shared desires of emancipation. Hegemonic powers work to disrupt the possibility of a collective understanding, community formation and action. We do not know how many other groups or people have come up with similar ideas and concepts, in different locations and time, but this should certainly make us think critically about the need to create spaces for epistemic reparations and to promote practices of epistemic justice in bioethics.8

It has been more than 40 years since Audre Lorde exposed the arrogance to assume that any significant change could come from analysis and discussions that exclude “…poor women, Black and Third World women, and lesbians.”9 In 1993, this organized group of Brazilian black women raised the need of ethical approaches to healthcare that included their perspectives and particularities. They also emphasized that in order to overcome reproductive injustice, black women's participation in the universities and knowledge production was indispensable.10 The Brazilian black womens’ movement along with the RJ movement in the USA, marked the essentiality of inclusion of their experiences when formulating public policy and thinking about health and justice. Inspired by and learning from these marginalized, racialized women, we invite scholars, practitioners and activists to read this special issue. Convinced that reproductive justice has and should continue to provoke reflections that pays close attention to the structures and distribution of power; placing at the center of discussions and ensuring space and power to those who have been historically excluded. Our purpose is to stimulate ethical discussions in a way that promotes inquisitive dialogues and challenges hegemonic frameworks which instead of nurturing often suffocate critical thinking. In this special issue the reader will find different methodological and theoretical approaches to issues that include, among others, the analysis of abortion access in the context of the pandemic, research ethics during epidemics, the global political strategies for criminalizing abortion, assisted reproduction technologies and kinship, surrogacy and autonomy, and the intersection between obstetric violence and immigration status.

Thirty years after the explicit alerts and demands made by these impressive women in Brazil and the USA, it is still difficult to center ethical discussions and research related to reproductive issues in a way that respond to the context and particular experiences of racialized, excluded and oppressed women, LGBTQIAP+ people, and people with disabilities, particularly in the global South. Even more worrisome, the fight for reproductive justice is now encountering new and more menacing threats. The 2022 Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court of the United States serves as an example of the powerful reactionary forces organized with the objective to make reproductive justice impossible to achieve. Therefore, we call for bioethicists across the world to prioritize intervention and research in reproductive justice, strengthening dialogue and collaborative work across disciplines and locations.

Finally, we thank the co-editors of Developing World Bioethics for the opportunity to put together this special issue, in an effort to maintain the attention on reproductive justice issues that are, if not more, at least as relevant today as they were three decades ago.

None to declare.

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
生殖正义:全球南方的不平等
在本期《生殖正义:全球南方的不平等》特刊中,我们希望促进学术讨论,将重点转向全球南方对生殖正义问题的多元化观点(RJ)。目标至少有两个:促进反霸权分析的空间,扩大关于生殖正义的对话。这期特刊涵盖了广泛的主题和研究问题,以及在生物伦理学、生殖、保健、流行病和流行病以及公共政策之间交叉领域工作的学者的不同参与。我们希望生殖正义的概念本身将继续促进学术和活动家的对话和辩论,使科学、保健和学术界的霸权权力结构和做法去正常化和去自然化。正是本着这种精神,本期特刊的论文以这样或那样的方式,从反霸权、反种族主义和女权主义的角度提出问题。众所周知,生殖正义的概念是1994年由芝加哥的一群黑人妇女和有色人种妇女在为开罗的国际人口与发展会议做准备时提出的。1作为来自全球南方的生物伦理学家,我们想提请注意的是,其他黑人妇女在同一时间领导了其他地方(在巴西,例如),并邀请所有人思考知识是如何产生和促进的,以及思想是如何根据环境以不同的方式融合的。1993年8月,也是为了筹备开罗会议,一组巴西黑人妇女召开了黑人妇女政治和生殖权利全国讨论会[英文翻译]这次会议的结果是通过了《巴西黑人妇女意大利宣言》,英文为《巴西黑人妇女意大利宣言》在这次会议上,她们表示:“我们黑人妇女认为,国家有责任保证必要的条件,使巴西妇女,特别是巴西黑人妇女能够行使其性行为和生殖权利,控制自己的生育能力,生育或不生育自己想要的孩子,保证获得优质的保健服务、怀孕、分娩和堕胎护理。[英译]他们还明确指出,"保障生殖权利的先决条件是保障广泛的公民权。"[英文翻译]6其中包括就业、住房、教育和安全、伦理和跨学科教育以及对保健提供者的培训,以及信息获取民主化等公共政策要求。因为我们很少听到,或者根本没有听到,关于巴西黑人女性可能,或没有,对生殖正义的概念做出贡献,这个宣言,它的时间和内容让我们反思认识正义的重要性,关于知识生产的地缘政治,思想的全球流通以及妇女,特别是种族化的妇女,在全球南方作为认识主体遇到的多种障碍。作为本期特刊的客座编辑,作为女权主义生物伦理学家,我们希望通过交叉视角来促进对这些争论的解读这个宣言是一个相关的迹象,表明压迫的经历如何创造共性和共同的解放愿望。霸权国家致力于破坏集体理解、共同体形成和行动的可能性。我们不知道有多少其他团体或个人在不同的地点和时间提出了类似的想法和概念,但这肯定应该让我们批判性地思考,是否需要为认知补偿创造空间,并促进生物伦理学中认知正义的实践。40多年前,奥德丽·洛德(Audre Lorde)暴露了一种傲慢,即认为任何重大变化都可以来自排除“……贫穷妇女、黑人和第三世界妇女以及女同性恋者”的分析和讨论。" 9 1993年,这个有组织的巴西黑人妇女团体提出,需要采取合乎道德的保健办法,包括她们的观点和特点。他们还强调,为了克服生殖方面的不公正现象,黑人妇女参加大学和知识生产是必不可少的巴西黑人妇女运动和美国的黑人妇女运动标志着在制定公共政策和思考卫生和正义问题时纳入她们的经验的重要性。受到这些被边缘化、种族化的女性的启发和学习,我们邀请学者、从业者和活动家阅读这一期特刊。 深信生殖正义已经并应继续引起密切注意权力结构和分配的思考;将其置于讨论的中心,并确保那些历史上被排除在外的人拥有空间和权力。我们的目的是激发道德讨论,以促进探究性对话和挑战霸权框架,而不是培养经常窒息批判性思维的方式。在本期特刊中,读者将找到不同的方法和理论方法来解决问题,其中包括分析大流行病背景下的堕胎机会、流行病期间的研究伦理、将堕胎定为刑事犯罪的全球政治战略、辅助生殖技术和亲属关系、代孕和自主,以及产科暴力和移民身份之间的交集。在这些令人印象深刻的巴西和美国女性发出明确的警告和要求三十年后,与生殖问题有关的伦理讨论和研究,仍然很难以一种方式回应种族化、被排斥和受压迫的女性、LGBTQIAP+人群和残疾人的背景和特殊经历,特别是在全球南方。更令人担忧的是,争取生殖正义的斗争现在正面临新的、更具威胁性的威胁。2022年美国最高法院对多布斯案的判决是强大的反动势力组织起来的一个例子,其目的是使生殖正义无法实现。因此,我们呼吁世界各地的生物伦理学家优先考虑生殖正义的干预和研究,加强跨学科和跨地区的对话和合作。最后,我们感谢《发展中世界生物伦理学》的共同编辑,感谢他们给我们这个特别的机会,努力保持对生殖正义问题的关注,这些问题即使不是更多,至少与30年前一样重要。不需要申报。
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
Developing World Bioethics
Developing World Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Developing World Bioethics provides long needed case studies, teaching materials, news in brief, and legal backgrounds to bioethics scholars and students in developing and developed countries alike. This companion journal to Bioethics also features high-quality peer reviewed original articles. It is edited by well-known bioethicists who are working in developing countries, yet it will also be open to contributions and commentary from developed countries'' authors. Developing World Bioethics is the only journal in the field dedicated exclusively to developing countries'' bioethics issues. The journal is an essential resource for all those concerned about bioethical issues in the developing world. Members of Ethics Committees in developing countries will highly value a special section dedicated to their work.
期刊最新文献
Adults aged 65 years and older in South Africa have a responsibility to vaccinate against influenza. Revision of a self-assessment tool for research ethics committees in low- and middle-income countries: Incorporation of elements that safeguard participants' rights and welfare. From COVID-19 to mpox vaccine hoarding - Has the Global North learned its global health lessons? Moral challenges and understanding of clinical ethics in Tanzanian hospitals: Perspectives of healthcare professionals. Indigenous Peoples' human genomic sovereignty: Lessons for Africa.
×
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