Post-abortion care: Ethical and legal duties.
Abortion
Conscientious objection
Induced abortion
Lawful abortion
Post-abortion care
Spontaneous abortion
State responsibility
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
31
8
2019
medline:
4
12
2019
entrez:
31
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Women who experience complications from abortion, whether unlawful or lawful, induced or spontaneous, need immediate post-abortion care. Delay in providing care might cause women's avoidable disability, lost childbearing capacity, or death. Rendering care is not an abortion procedure nor illegal, and does not justify conscientious objection. Harm reduction strategies to reduce effects of unsafe abortion may legitimately inform women who might consider resort to abortifacient interventions of their rights to professional post-abortion care. Healthcare practitioners' refusal or failure to provide available care might constitute ethical misconduct and attract legal liability, for instance for negligence. States are responsible to ensure healthcare practitioners' and facilities' provision of post-abortion care, including both medical care and psychological support, delivered with compassion and respect for dignity, and to suppress stigmatization of patients and/or caregivers. Mandatory reporting of patients suspected of criminal abortion violates professional confidentiality. States' failures of indicated care might constitute human rights violations.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
273-278Informations de copyright
© 2019 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Références
FIGO Ethical and Professional Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women's Health Committee. FIGO Committee Statement: Ethical responsibilities in post-abortion care. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;146:269-270.
Singh S, Remez L, Sedgh G, Kwok L, Tsuyoshi O. Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2018:28.
Raymond EG, Grimes DA. The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstet Gy necol. 2012;119(2 Pt 1):215-219.
Hanschmidt F, Linde K, Hilbert A, Riedel-Heller SG, Kersting A. Abortion stigma: A systematic review. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016;48:169-177.
Cook RJ, Dickens BM. Reducing stigma in reproductive health. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2014;125:89-92.
The Lancet Commissions. Accelerate progress-sexual and reproductive health and rights for all: Report of the Guttmacher-Lancet Commission. Lancet. 2018;391:2642-2692, 2662.
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Report of an enquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under Article 8 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Geneva: CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/1; 2017.
Zureick A, Khan A, Chen A, Reyes A. Physicians’ challenges under El Salvador's criminal abortion prohibition. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;143:121-126.
World Health Organization. Why we Need to Talk About Losing a Baby. Geneva: WHO; 2019.
World Health Organization. Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems, 2nd edn [WHO website]. Geneva: WHO; 2012. https://www.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe…abortion/9789241548434/en/. Accessed June 27, 2019.
Geneva Convention I, 1949, Art.12 para.2.
Ministerio de Salud Publica y Bienestar Social. Normas de Atencion Humanizada Post Aborto. Asuncion, Paraguay, 2012.
Merry A. Merry and McCall Smith's Errors, Medicine and the Law, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017.
Dickens BM. The Right to Conscience. In Cook RJ, Erdman JN, Dickens BM. Transnational Perspectives on Abortion Law: Cases and Controversies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2014:210-238, 425-429.
Lynch HF. Conflicts of Interest in Health Care: An Institutional Compromise. Cambridge MA: MIT Press; 2008.
Wicclair MR. Conscientious Objection in Health Care: An Ethical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
Schuklenk U, Smalling R. Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies. J Med Ethics. 2017;43:234-240.
Dickens BM. Legal protection and limits of conscientious objection: When conscientious objection is unethical. Med Law. 2009;28:337-347.
Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan [2014] UKSC 68.
Foot P. The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Oxford: Blackwell; 1985.
Briozzo L, Vidiella G, Rodriguez F, Gorgoroso M, Faundes A, Pons JE. A risk reduction strategy to prevent maternal deaths associated with unsafe abortion. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2006;95:221-226.
Erdman JN. Harm reduction, human rights and access to information on safer abortion. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2012;118:83-86.
Upreti M, Jacob J. The Philippines new post-abortion policy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;141:268-275.
Upreti M, Jacob J. The Philippines rolls back recent advancements in postabortion care policy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;142:255-256.
De La Cruz Flores v. Peru, Int. Amer. Ct of H.R., Judgment of 18 November, 2004.
Cook RJ, Cusak S, Dickens BM. Unethical female stereotyping in reproductive health. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2010;109:255-258.
O'Connell C, Zampas C. The human rights impact of gender stereotyping in the context of reproductive health care. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;144:116-121.
RR v Poland, Case No 27617/04, Judgment of 26 May, 2011(European Court of Human Rights) para. 206.
Owolabi OO, Biddlecom A, Whitehead HS. Health systems’ capacity to provide post-abortion care: A multicountry analysis using signal functions. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7:e110-, e110.
Dickens BM. Management of intersex newborns: Legal and ethical developments. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;143:255-259.
Mellet v. Ireland. Communication No. 2324/2013(Human Rights Committee).
Whelan v. Ireland. Communication No. 2425/2014(Human Rights Committee).