Pub Date : 2018-01-01Epub Date: 2018-08-28DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2018.1502020
Ernest T Maya, Kwame Adu-Bonsaffoh, Phyllis Dako-Gyeke, Caroline Badzi, Joshua P Vogel, Meghan A Bohren, Richard Adanu
Mistreatment of women during childbirth at health facilities violates their human rights and autonomy and may be associated with preventable maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity. In this paper, we explore women's perspectives on mistreatment during facility-based childbirth as part of a bigger World Health Organization (WHO) multi-country study for developing consensus definitions, and validating indicators and tools for measuring the burden of the phenomenon. Focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) were used to explore experiences of mistreatment from women who have ever given birth in a health facility in Koforidua and Nsawam, Ghana. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematic analysis conducted. A total of 39 IDIs and 10 FGDs involving 110 women in total were conducted. The major types of mistreatment identified were: verbal abuse (shouting, insults, and derogatory remarks), physical abuse (pinching, slapping) and abandonment and lack of support. Mistreatment was commonly experienced during the second stage of labour, especially amongst adolescents. Inability to push well during the second stage, disobedience to instructions from birth attendants, and not bringing prescribed items for childbirth (mama kit) often preceded mistreatment. Most women indicated that slapping and pinching were acceptable means to "correct" disobedient behaviours and encourage pushing. Women may avoid giving birth in health facilities in the future because of their own experiences of mistreatment, or hearing about another woman's experience of mistreatment. Consensus definitions, validated indicators and tools for measuring mistreatment are needed to measure prevalence and identify drivers and potential entry points to minimise the phenomenon and improve respectful care during childbirth.
{"title":"Women's perspectives of mistreatment during childbirth at health facilities in Ghana: findings from a qualitative study.","authors":"Ernest T Maya, Kwame Adu-Bonsaffoh, Phyllis Dako-Gyeke, Caroline Badzi, Joshua P Vogel, Meghan A Bohren, Richard Adanu","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1502020","DOIUrl":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1502020","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mistreatment of women during childbirth at health facilities violates their human rights and autonomy and may be associated with preventable maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity. In this paper, we explore women's perspectives on mistreatment during facility-based childbirth as part of a bigger World Health Organization (WHO) multi-country study for developing consensus definitions, and validating indicators and tools for measuring the burden of the phenomenon. Focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) were used to explore experiences of mistreatment from women who have ever given birth in a health facility in Koforidua and Nsawam, Ghana. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematic analysis conducted. A total of 39 IDIs and 10 FGDs involving 110 women in total were conducted. The major types of mistreatment identified were: verbal abuse (shouting, insults, and derogatory remarks), physical abuse (pinching, slapping) and abandonment and lack of support. Mistreatment was commonly experienced during the second stage of labour, especially amongst adolescents. Inability to push well during the second stage, disobedience to instructions from birth attendants, and not bringing prescribed items for childbirth (mama kit) often preceded mistreatment. Most women indicated that slapping and pinching were acceptable means to \"correct\" disobedient behaviours and encourage pushing. Women may avoid giving birth in health facilities in the future because of their own experiences of mistreatment, or hearing about another woman's experience of mistreatment. Consensus definitions, validated indicators and tools for measuring mistreatment are needed to measure prevalence and identify drivers and potential entry points to minimise the phenomenon and improve respectful care during childbirth.</p>","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"26 53","pages":"70-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36433626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01Epub Date: 2018-08-14DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2018.1502019
Carmen Simone Grilo Diniz, Daphne Rattner, Ana Flávia Pires Lucas d'Oliveira, Janaína Marques de Aguiar, Denise Yoshie Niy
Brazil is a middle-income country with universal maternity care, mostly by doctors. The experience of normal birth often includes rigid routines, aggressive interventions, and abusive, disrespectful treatment. In Brazil, this has been referred to as dehumanised care and, more recently, as obstetric violence. Since the early 1990s, social movements (SM) have struggled to change practices, public policies and provider training. The aim of this paper is to describe and analyse the role of SM in promoting change in maternity care, and in provider training. In this integrative review using a gender-oriented approach, we searched the Scielo database and the Ministry of Health's (MofH) publications and edicts for institutional and research papers on SM initiatives addressing disrespect and abuse in the last 25 years (1993-2018) in Brazil, and their impact on public policies and training programmes. We analyse these groups of interrelated initiatives: (1) political actions of SM resulting in changes in public policies and legislation; (2) events organised by SM for diffusion of information to the public; (3) MofH policies to humanise childbirth with participation of SM; and (4) initiatives to change providers' training, including legal actions based on obstetric violence reports. To promote real change in maternity care, the progression of policies and enabling environment of laws, regulations, and broad dissemination of information, need to go hand in hand with changes in all health providers' training - including a solid base in ethics, gender and human rights.
{"title":"Disrespect and abuse in childbirth in Brazil: social activism, public policies and providers' training.","authors":"Carmen Simone Grilo Diniz, Daphne Rattner, Ana Flávia Pires Lucas d'Oliveira, Janaína Marques de Aguiar, Denise Yoshie Niy","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1502019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1502019","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Brazil is a middle-income country with universal maternity care, mostly by doctors. The experience of normal birth often includes rigid routines, aggressive interventions, and abusive, disrespectful treatment. In Brazil, this has been referred to as dehumanised care and, more recently, as obstetric violence. Since the early 1990s, social movements (SM) have struggled to change practices, public policies and provider training. The aim of this paper is to describe and analyse the role of SM in promoting change in maternity care, and in provider training. In this integrative review using a gender-oriented approach, we searched the Scielo database and the Ministry of Health's (MofH) publications and edicts for institutional and research papers on SM initiatives addressing disrespect and abuse in the last 25 years (1993-2018) in Brazil, and their impact on public policies and training programmes. We analyse these groups of interrelated initiatives: (1) political actions of SM resulting in changes in public policies and legislation; (2) events organised by SM for diffusion of information to the public; (3) MofH policies to humanise childbirth with participation of SM; and (4) initiatives to change providers' training, including legal actions based on obstetric violence reports. To promote real change in maternity care, the progression of policies and enabling environment of laws, regulations, and broad dissemination of information, need to go hand in hand with changes in all health providers' training - including a solid base in ethics, gender and human rights.</p>","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"26 53","pages":"19-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1502019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36392538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01Epub Date: 2018-09-10DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2018.1502024
Lynn P Freedman, Stephanie A Kujawski, Selemani Mbuyita, August Kuwawenaruwa, Margaret E Kruk, Kate Ramsey, Godfrey Mbaruku
Human rights has been a vital tool in the global movement to reduce maternal mortality and to expose the disrespect and abuse that women experience during childbirth in facilities around the world. Yet to truly transform the relationship between women and providers, human rights-based approaches (HRBAs) will need to go beyond articulation, dissemination and even legal enforcement of formal norms of respectful maternity care. HRBAs must also develop a deeper, more nuanced understanding of how power operates in health systems under particular social, cultural and political conditions, if they are to effectively challenge settled patterns of behaviour and health systems structures that marginalise and abuse. In this paper, we report results from a mixed methods study in two hospitals in the Tanga region of Tanzania, comparing the prevalence of disrespect and abuse during childbirth as measured through observation by trained nurses stationed in maternity wards to prevalence as measured by the self-report upon discharge of the same women who had been observed. The huge disparity between these two measures (baseline: 69.83% observation vs. 9.91% self-report; endline: 32.91% observation vs. 7.59% self-report) suggests that disrespect and abuse is both internalised and normalised by users and providers alike. Building on qualitative research conducted in the study sites, we explore the mechanisms by which hidden and invisible power enforces internalisation and normalisation, and describe the implications for the development of HRBAs in maternal health.
{"title":"Eye of the beholder? Observation versus self-report in the measurement of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth.","authors":"Lynn P Freedman, Stephanie A Kujawski, Selemani Mbuyita, August Kuwawenaruwa, Margaret E Kruk, Kate Ramsey, Godfrey Mbaruku","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1502024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1502024","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Human rights has been a vital tool in the global movement to reduce maternal mortality and to expose the disrespect and abuse that women experience during childbirth in facilities around the world. Yet to truly transform the relationship between women and providers, human rights-based approaches (HRBAs) will need to go beyond articulation, dissemination and even legal enforcement of formal norms of respectful maternity care. HRBAs must also develop a deeper, more nuanced understanding of how power operates in health systems under particular social, cultural and political conditions, if they are to effectively challenge settled patterns of behaviour and health systems structures that marginalise and abuse. In this paper, we report results from a mixed methods study in two hospitals in the Tanga region of Tanzania, comparing the prevalence of disrespect and abuse during childbirth as measured through observation by trained nurses stationed in maternity wards to prevalence as measured by the self-report upon discharge of the same women who had been observed. The huge disparity between these two measures (baseline: 69.83% observation vs. 9.91% self-report; endline: 32.91% observation vs. 7.59% self-report) suggests that disrespect and abuse is both internalised and normalised by users and providers alike. Building on qualitative research conducted in the study sites, we explore the mechanisms by which hidden and invisible power enforces internalisation and normalisation, and describe the implications for the development of HRBAs in maternal health.</p>","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"26 53","pages":"107-122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1502024","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36477329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2018.1543991
Veronica Birga, L. Cabal, Lucinda O'Hanlon, C. Zampas
Criminal law is one of the most powerful tools that a State can use to exert control over individuals. It provides a means by which the State may legitimately restrict individual conduct, so as to prevent harm or address harms that have already occurred. In some areas, however, the criminal law itself can be harmful and, for this reason, must be carefully regarded to ensure that it is not employed in ways which are unjust or undermining of human rights, including the right to the highest attainable standard of health and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). In the areas of consensual sexual conduct, including adultery, sex work and samesex relations; drug use; HIV exposure and transmission; abortion and other sexual and reproductive health and rights, human rights bodies as well as international, regional and national courts have expressed concerns about the impact of criminal law on the enjoyment of human rights, including on gender equality and the right to health.
{"title":"Criminal law and the risk of harm: a commentary on the impact of criminal laws on sexual and reproductive health, sexual conduct and key populations","authors":"Veronica Birga, L. Cabal, Lucinda O'Hanlon, C. Zampas","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1543991","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1543991","url":null,"abstract":"Criminal law is one of the most powerful tools that a State can use to exert control over individuals. It provides a means by which the State may legitimately restrict individual conduct, so as to prevent harm or address harms that have already occurred. In some areas, however, the criminal law itself can be harmful and, for this reason, must be carefully regarded to ensure that it is not employed in ways which are unjust or undermining of human rights, including the right to the highest attainable standard of health and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). In the areas of consensual sexual conduct, including adultery, sex work and samesex relations; drug use; HIV exposure and transmission; abortion and other sexual and reproductive health and rights, human rights bodies as well as international, regional and national courts have expressed concerns about the impact of criminal law on the enjoyment of human rights, including on gender equality and the right to health.","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"26 1","pages":"33 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1543991","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48426346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2018.1501199
J. Hussein
{"title":"July at RHM","authors":"J. Hussein","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1501199","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1501199","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"193 ","pages":"19 - 20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1501199","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41275307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01Epub Date: 2018-09-13DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2018.1502018
Timothy Abuya, Pooja Sripad, Julie Ritter, Charity Ndwiga, Charlotte E Warren
Measuring mistreatment and quality of care during childbirth is important in promoting respectful maternity care. We describe these dimensions throughout the birthing process from admission, delivery and immediate postpartum care. We observed 677 client-provider interactions and conducted 13 facility assessments in Kenya. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression model to illustrate how mistreatment and clinical process of care vary through the birthing process. During admission, the prevalence of verbal abuse was 18%, lack of informed consent 59%, and lack of privacy 67%. Women with higher parity were more likely to be verbally abused [AOR: 1.69; (95% CI 1.03,2.77)]. During delivery, low levels of verbal and physical abuse were observed, but lack of privacy and unhygienic practices were prevalent during delivery and postpartum (>65%). Women were less likely to be verbally abused [AOR: 0.88 (95% CI 0.78, 0.99)] or experience unhygienic practices, [AOR: 0.87 (95% CI 0.78, 0.97)] in better-equipped facilities. During admission, providers were observed creating rapport (52%), taking medical history (82%), conducting physical assessments (5%). Women's likelihood to receive a physical assessment increased with higher infrastructural scores during admission [AOR: 2.52; (95% CI 2.03, 3.21)] and immediately postpartum [AOR 2.18; (95% CI 1.24, 3.82)]. Night-time deliveries were associated with lower likelihood of physical assessment and rapport creation [AOR; 0.58; (95% CI 0.41,0.86)]. The variability of mistreatment and clinical quality of maternity along the birthing process suggests health system drivers that influence provider behaviour and health facility environment should be considered for quality improvement and reduction of mistreatment.
衡量分娩期间的虐待和护理质量对于促进尊重产妇护理非常重要。我们描述这些维度在整个分娩过程中,从入院,分娩和立即产后护理。我们在肯尼亚观察了677次客户与供应商的互动,并进行了13次设施评估。我们使用描述性统计和逻辑回归模型来说明在分娩过程中虐待和临床护理过程是如何变化的。入院期间,言语虐待的发生率为18%,缺乏知情同意的发生率为59%,缺乏隐私的发生率为67%。性别平等程度高的女性更容易受到言语虐待[AOR: 1.69;(95% ci 1.03,2.77)]。在分娩期间,观察到的言语和身体虐待程度较低,但在分娩和产后缺乏隐私和不卫生行为普遍存在(>65%)。在设备较好的设施中,妇女受到言语虐待的可能性较小[AOR: 0.88 (95% CI 0.78, 0.99)]或经历不卫生行为的可能性较小[AOR: 0.87 (95% CI 0.78, 0.97)]。在入院期间,观察到医护人员建立融洽关系(52%),询问病史(82%),进行身体评估(5%)。入院时基础设施评分越高,接受体格检查的可能性越大[AOR: 2.52;(95% CI 2.03, 3.21)]和产后立即[AOR 2.18;(95% ci 1.24, 3.82)]。夜间分娩与身体评估和建立融洽关系的可能性较低有关[AOR;0.58;(95% ci 0.41,0.86)]。在分娩过程中,虐待和产妇临床质量的可变性表明,应考虑影响提供者行为和卫生设施环境的卫生系统驱动因素,以提高质量和减少虐待。
{"title":"Measuring mistreatment of women throughout the birthing process: implications for quality of care assessments.","authors":"Timothy Abuya, Pooja Sripad, Julie Ritter, Charity Ndwiga, Charlotte E Warren","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1502018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1502018","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Measuring mistreatment and quality of care during childbirth is important in promoting respectful maternity care. We describe these dimensions throughout the birthing process from admission, delivery and immediate postpartum care. We observed 677 client-provider interactions and conducted 13 facility assessments in Kenya. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression model to illustrate how mistreatment and clinical process of care vary through the birthing process. During admission, the prevalence of verbal abuse was 18%, lack of informed consent 59%, and lack of privacy 67%. Women with higher parity were more likely to be verbally abused [AOR: 1.69; (95% CI 1.03,2.77)]. During delivery, low levels of verbal and physical abuse were observed, but lack of privacy and unhygienic practices were prevalent during delivery and postpartum (>65%). Women were less likely to be verbally abused [AOR: 0.88 (95% CI 0.78, 0.99)] or experience unhygienic practices, [AOR: 0.87 (95% CI 0.78, 0.97)] in better-equipped facilities. During admission, providers were observed creating rapport (52%), taking medical history (82%), conducting physical assessments (5%). Women's likelihood to receive a physical assessment increased with higher infrastructural scores during admission [AOR: 2.52; (95% CI 2.03, 3.21)] and immediately postpartum [AOR 2.18; (95% CI 1.24, 3.82)]. Night-time deliveries were associated with lower likelihood of physical assessment and rapport creation [AOR; 0.58; (95% CI 0.41,0.86)]. The variability of mistreatment and clinical quality of maternity along the birthing process suggests health system drivers that influence provider behaviour and health facility environment should be considered for quality improvement and reduction of mistreatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"26 53","pages":"48-61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1502018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36484485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2018.1555422
R. Grant, T. Shoham
Abstract Despite some international and national efforts in recent decades, Madagascar continues to make poor progress towards key sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) indicators. There are persistent cultural, social, political and economic barriers to accessing good quality SRHR knowledge and services globally, but particularly in regions with limited international geo-political influence, such as Madagascar. The political crisis in 2009 resulted in a stagnation and regression of SRHR services, due to the cessation of international funding, leaving youth-based services inadequate and insufficient. This paper aims to critically examine the social determinants and external factors that may influence and impact the roll-out of a national SRHR educational curriculum in Madagascar over the coming years. From the perspective of two SRHR specialists working in this context, this paper serves as a call for further action from the national and international community to address the still unmet SRHR needs of youth in Madagascar.
{"title":"A critical examination of the barriers and social determinants of health impacting the implementation of a national sexual and reproductive health rights curriculum in Madagascar","authors":"R. Grant, T. Shoham","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1555422","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1555422","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite some international and national efforts in recent decades, Madagascar continues to make poor progress towards key sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR) indicators. There are persistent cultural, social, political and economic barriers to accessing good quality SRHR knowledge and services globally, but particularly in regions with limited international geo-political influence, such as Madagascar. The political crisis in 2009 resulted in a stagnation and regression of SRHR services, due to the cessation of international funding, leaving youth-based services inadequate and insufficient. This paper aims to critically examine the social determinants and external factors that may influence and impact the roll-out of a national SRHR educational curriculum in Madagascar over the coming years. From the perspective of two SRHR specialists working in this context, this paper serves as a call for further action from the national and international community to address the still unmet SRHR needs of youth in Madagascar.","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"26 1","pages":"62 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1555422","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41358565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2018.1542915
S. Sadinsky, Susheela Singh, Cynthia Summers
In March 2018, the Democratic Republic of Congo moved to enact the Maputo Protocol, under which signatory states agree to authorise legal access to abortion in a range of circumstances. Two months later, voters in Ireland delivered a decisive victory for reproductive rights, choosing overwhelmingly to repeal the country’s near-total ban on abortion. The following month, Argentina’s lower house of Congress voted in favour of a draft bill that would permit abortion up to 14 weeks; although the upper house narrowly rejected the legislation, this was the closest the country ever came to legalising abortion. While progress remains uneven, these developments speak to a shifting consensus on abortion rights around the world and unfold alongside mounting efforts of advocates to position safe and legal abortion as a human right. The seeds of this shift were planted in Cairo in 1994. Until the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) that year, there had not been a global agreement that created common language on sexual and reproductive health, or on the rights people have when it comes to making reproductive decisions. The Programme of Action that emerged from ICPD mapped out the linkages between social and economic growth, sustainable development, and individual and collective wellbeing. It also identified key components of sexual and reproductive health care, which included the provision of safe abortion services in settings where such care is not against the law. Since 1994, more than 30 countries, many in the developing world, have amended their laws to expand access to safe and legal abortion. Nonetheless, abortion is often viewed as a separate domain entirely, rather than as a core component of sexual and reproductive health care. This lack of integration makes it much easier to neglect, and in some cases exclude, abortion care in both programming and policy-making. In recognition of the value of taking a more holistic approach to sexual and reproductive health and rights, the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights convened in 2016. Composed of 16 experts with multidisciplinary experience from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North and South America, the Commission set out to gather the most current evidence on sexual and reproductive health and rights at the global level, with the aim of driving transformational change, through an evidence-based agenda, focused on policy and political action. Its resulting report, released inMay 2018, reveals enormous gaps in sexual and reproductive health and rights worldwide, and quantifies the toll those gaps take on individuals, countries and regions as a whole. The Commission’s report presents a new, comprehensive definition of sexual and reproductive health and rights, which integrates the full range of people’s sexual and reproductive health needs. Drawing on international and regional agreements of the past 25 years, this new definition highl
{"title":"Securing the right to safe and legal abortion: perspectives from the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission","authors":"S. Sadinsky, Susheela Singh, Cynthia Summers","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1542915","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1542915","url":null,"abstract":"In March 2018, the Democratic Republic of Congo moved to enact the Maputo Protocol, under which signatory states agree to authorise legal access to abortion in a range of circumstances. Two months later, voters in Ireland delivered a decisive victory for reproductive rights, choosing overwhelmingly to repeal the country’s near-total ban on abortion. The following month, Argentina’s lower house of Congress voted in favour of a draft bill that would permit abortion up to 14 weeks; although the upper house narrowly rejected the legislation, this was the closest the country ever came to legalising abortion. While progress remains uneven, these developments speak to a shifting consensus on abortion rights around the world and unfold alongside mounting efforts of advocates to position safe and legal abortion as a human right. The seeds of this shift were planted in Cairo in 1994. Until the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) that year, there had not been a global agreement that created common language on sexual and reproductive health, or on the rights people have when it comes to making reproductive decisions. The Programme of Action that emerged from ICPD mapped out the linkages between social and economic growth, sustainable development, and individual and collective wellbeing. It also identified key components of sexual and reproductive health care, which included the provision of safe abortion services in settings where such care is not against the law. Since 1994, more than 30 countries, many in the developing world, have amended their laws to expand access to safe and legal abortion. Nonetheless, abortion is often viewed as a separate domain entirely, rather than as a core component of sexual and reproductive health care. This lack of integration makes it much easier to neglect, and in some cases exclude, abortion care in both programming and policy-making. In recognition of the value of taking a more holistic approach to sexual and reproductive health and rights, the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights convened in 2016. Composed of 16 experts with multidisciplinary experience from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North and South America, the Commission set out to gather the most current evidence on sexual and reproductive health and rights at the global level, with the aim of driving transformational change, through an evidence-based agenda, focused on policy and political action. Its resulting report, released inMay 2018, reveals enormous gaps in sexual and reproductive health and rights worldwide, and quantifies the toll those gaps take on individuals, countries and regions as a whole. The Commission’s report presents a new, comprehensive definition of sexual and reproductive health and rights, which integrates the full range of people’s sexual and reproductive health needs. Drawing on international and regional agreements of the past 25 years, this new definition highl","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"26 1","pages":"54 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1542915","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44677057","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2018.1550239
Eszter Kismödi, L. Ferguson
Sexual and reproductive rights are human rights. In 1948, when States proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations, they recognised “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”, civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Most relevant to sexual and reproductive health (SRH), the UDHR recognised the right to non-discrimination, the right to life, liberty and security of person, the right to social security, the right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing, and that “motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance”. The UDHR did not go into details about the areas of life to which these rights are particularly applicable, but reaffirmed the dignity and worth of the human person, the equal rights of women and men and the determination to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Human rights related to sexuality, gender, gender diversity and SRH have been recognised in the treaties which were generated from the UDHR, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These have been expanded upon by the Treaty Monitoring Bodies’ General Recommendations and Comments, which constitute official interpretations of the treaties. The Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, for example, adopted a specific General Comment on the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Health, and the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment on the implementation of the rights of the child during adolescence specifically recognises that “there should be no barriers to commodities, information and counselling on sexual and reproductive health and rights, such as requirements for third-party consent or authorization”. The Human Rights Committee’s latest General Comment provides the international community a much-needed framework to hold governments accountable for the high rates of death and injury which occur when women are forced to seek unsafe abortions, and calls for the provision of comprehensive reproductive health services. Sexual and reproductive rights have received extensive legal recognition at regional and national levels as well over the past decades. The European Court of Human Rights, for example, recognised the right to sexuality education as early as 1976, and most recently issued a similar decision in connection with Switzerland’s legal obligation to provide sexuality education to children, as a clear recognition of the role that sexuality education plays in the global education of children, in the fight against sexual abuse and in the protection of public health. At the national level, there is a major evolution of law reform in relation to decriminalising same-sex sexual conduct, and recognising equal rights regardless of sexual orientation and for same-sex couples, as
{"title":"Celebrating the 70th anniversary of the UDHR, celebrating sexual and reproductive rights","authors":"Eszter Kismödi, L. Ferguson","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1550239","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1550239","url":null,"abstract":"Sexual and reproductive rights are human rights. In 1948, when States proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations, they recognised “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”, civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Most relevant to sexual and reproductive health (SRH), the UDHR recognised the right to non-discrimination, the right to life, liberty and security of person, the right to social security, the right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing, and that “motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance”. The UDHR did not go into details about the areas of life to which these rights are particularly applicable, but reaffirmed the dignity and worth of the human person, the equal rights of women and men and the determination to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Human rights related to sexuality, gender, gender diversity and SRH have been recognised in the treaties which were generated from the UDHR, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These have been expanded upon by the Treaty Monitoring Bodies’ General Recommendations and Comments, which constitute official interpretations of the treaties. The Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, for example, adopted a specific General Comment on the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Health, and the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment on the implementation of the rights of the child during adolescence specifically recognises that “there should be no barriers to commodities, information and counselling on sexual and reproductive health and rights, such as requirements for third-party consent or authorization”. The Human Rights Committee’s latest General Comment provides the international community a much-needed framework to hold governments accountable for the high rates of death and injury which occur when women are forced to seek unsafe abortions, and calls for the provision of comprehensive reproductive health services. Sexual and reproductive rights have received extensive legal recognition at regional and national levels as well over the past decades. The European Court of Human Rights, for example, recognised the right to sexuality education as early as 1976, and most recently issued a similar decision in connection with Switzerland’s legal obligation to provide sexuality education to children, as a clear recognition of the role that sexuality education plays in the global education of children, in the fight against sexual abuse and in the protection of public health. At the national level, there is a major evolution of law reform in relation to decriminalising same-sex sexual conduct, and recognising equal rights regardless of sexual orientation and for same-sex couples, as ","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"26 1","pages":"1 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1550239","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41666643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-01-01DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2018.1509970
Gita Sen, Bhavya Reddy, Aditi Iyer, Shirin Heidari
Global policy attention to maternal health only began in the mid-twentieth century, and has had a controversial past. While the promotion of maternal and child health and welfare was included in the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Constitution (Article 2(l)) in 1948, international cooperation for maternal health began seriously only in the mid-1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s, instrumental rather than intrinsic rationales for maternal health came to the fore. As pointed out in Rosenfield and Maine’s influential paper, “Maternal mortality – a neglected tragedy. Where is the M in MCH?”, child health was the engine driving attention to pregnant women, not women’s own health, let alone human rights. More questionably, family planning programmes in this period typically used prevention of maternal mortality as a key justification for their aggressive expansion and intensification. Even where women’s own health gained intrinsic attention, much of it was technical and medical, focusing, for example, on the relative importance of antenatal versus intrapartum care, the best methods for reducing micronutrient deficiencies in pregnancy, and the role of traditional birth attendants in maternal care. It was the push by feminists for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) at the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994, preceded by almost two decades of mobilisation, that brought women’s human rights to the centre of maternal health. Alongside the technical controversies, there arose political contention about the impact of gendered and intersecting power structures, and the deeper societal roots of sexual and reproductive ill-health, and violations of human rights. Feminist concerns were many. They included, among others, the physical and mental health effects of early marriage, female genital cutting and mutilation, intimate partner violence during pregnancy, maternal ill-health and deaths due to unsafe abortion, and unavailability and inaccessibility of health services, especially for poor marginalised women. Debates at and around ICPD laid the basis for greater attention to sexual and reproductive rights and wrongs, including in the context of pregnancy. Mistreatment, abuse and violations of girls’ and women’s human rights during pregnancy and childbirth are all too common and occur in households, communities, work-places and in health and other institutions. This Special Issue focuses specifically on what happens when pregnant women approach health institutions to deliver babies. Its importance derives from recent policy drives in lowand middle-income countries (LMICs) to increase the number of institutional births. Unfortunately, as the papers in this Special Issue argue, disrespect and abuse of women in the maternal care provided by health institutions is wide-spread. Far too often, and especially if they are poor or otherwise marginalised and oppressed, women suffer violations of their dignity, unnecessary procedures, har
{"title":"Addressing disrespect and abuse during childbirth in facilities.","authors":"Gita Sen, Bhavya Reddy, Aditi Iyer, Shirin Heidari","doi":"10.1080/09688080.2018.1509970","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09688080.2018.1509970","url":null,"abstract":"Global policy attention to maternal health only began in the mid-twentieth century, and has had a controversial past. While the promotion of maternal and child health and welfare was included in the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Constitution (Article 2(l)) in 1948, international cooperation for maternal health began seriously only in the mid-1960s. In the 1970s and 1980s, instrumental rather than intrinsic rationales for maternal health came to the fore. As pointed out in Rosenfield and Maine’s influential paper, “Maternal mortality – a neglected tragedy. Where is the M in MCH?”, child health was the engine driving attention to pregnant women, not women’s own health, let alone human rights. More questionably, family planning programmes in this period typically used prevention of maternal mortality as a key justification for their aggressive expansion and intensification. Even where women’s own health gained intrinsic attention, much of it was technical and medical, focusing, for example, on the relative importance of antenatal versus intrapartum care, the best methods for reducing micronutrient deficiencies in pregnancy, and the role of traditional birth attendants in maternal care. It was the push by feminists for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) at the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994, preceded by almost two decades of mobilisation, that brought women’s human rights to the centre of maternal health. Alongside the technical controversies, there arose political contention about the impact of gendered and intersecting power structures, and the deeper societal roots of sexual and reproductive ill-health, and violations of human rights. Feminist concerns were many. They included, among others, the physical and mental health effects of early marriage, female genital cutting and mutilation, intimate partner violence during pregnancy, maternal ill-health and deaths due to unsafe abortion, and unavailability and inaccessibility of health services, especially for poor marginalised women. Debates at and around ICPD laid the basis for greater attention to sexual and reproductive rights and wrongs, including in the context of pregnancy. Mistreatment, abuse and violations of girls’ and women’s human rights during pregnancy and childbirth are all too common and occur in households, communities, work-places and in health and other institutions. This Special Issue focuses specifically on what happens when pregnant women approach health institutions to deliver babies. Its importance derives from recent policy drives in lowand middle-income countries (LMICs) to increase the number of institutional births. Unfortunately, as the papers in this Special Issue argue, disrespect and abuse of women in the maternal care provided by health institutions is wide-spread. Far too often, and especially if they are poor or otherwise marginalised and oppressed, women suffer violations of their dignity, unnecessary procedures, har","PeriodicalId":32527,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health Matters","volume":"26 53","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09688080.2018.1509970","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36552500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}