Abortion policies at the bedside: incorporating an ethical framework in the analysis and development of abortion legislation

Author:

Hersey Alicia EORCID,Potter-Rutledge Jai-Me,Brown Benjamin P

Abstract

About 6% of women in the world live in countries that ban all abortions, and 34% in countries that only allow abortion to preserve maternal life or health. In the USA, over the last decades—even before Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the federal right to abortion—various states have sought to restrict abortion access. Often times, this legislation has been advanced based on legislators’ personal moral values. At the bedside, in contrast, provision of abortion care should adhere to the normative principles of medical ethics and reproductive justice, centreing patients and their individual reproductive intentions and desires. Abortion regulations, through their influence on patients and providers, may facilitate or impede such ethical care at the bedside. In this paper, we present a framework to model how abortion legislation should fit into the patient–provider relationship and to clarify the dynamics by which legislation may affect healthcare encounters. Our proposed framework serves as a tool to analyse the ethical impact of abortion regulations. We propose a model for assessing abortion policies based not on legislators’ or advocates’ individual moral claims, but on the shared, normative framework of clinical medical ethics. Through contrasting case studies, we demonstrate how a robust normative ethical framework can recentre patients and their reproductive needs. Our model is one way to account for—and safeguard—patients’ diverse viewpoints and needs in the development of abortion policy, and it can serve to ground narratives for advocacy by healthcare workers and their professional organisations.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Health Policy,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)

Reference25 articles.

1. UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) . General Comment No. 36, article 6 (right to life), 2019. Available: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5e5e75e04.html [Accessed 12/5/2022].

2. 2022 State Legislative Sessions: Abortion Bans and Restrictions on Medication Abortion Dominate, 2022. Available: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/03/2022-state-legislative-sessions-abortion-bans-and-restrictions-medication-abortion

3. Basic documents . 48 ED: World Health organization, 2014.

4. Beauchamp TL , Childress JF . Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

5. Ross LJ . Understanding reproductive justice: SisterSong women of color reproductive health collective, 2006.

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Being ethical in difficult times;Journal of Medical Ethics;2023-12-14

2. Reproductive Justice as a Framework for Abortion Care;Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology;2023-09-18

3. Abortion policies at the bedside: a response;Journal of Medical Ethics;2023-04-12

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3