Supporting the significant other in women undergoing abortion

An ethical issue: nurses' conscientious objection regarding induced abortion in South Korea

Background

The Constitutional Court of South Korea declared that an abortion ban was unconstitutional on April 11, 2019. The National Health Care System will provide abortion care across the country as a formal medical service. Conscientious objection is an issue raised during the construction of legal reforms.

Methods

One hundred sixty-seven perioperative nurses responded to the survey questionnaire. Nurses’ perception about conscientious objection, support of legislation regarding conscientious objection, and intention to object were measured. Logistic regression was used to explore the factors associated with support of the legislation and the intention to conscientiously object.

Results

Only 28.8% of the responding nurses were aware of health care professionals’ conscientious objection. The majority (68.7%) felt that patients’ rights should be prioritized over health care professionals’ conscientious objection. On the other hand, 45.8% supported the legislation on conscientious objection to abortion, and 42.5% indicated a willingness to refuse to participate in an abortion case if conscientious objection was permitted. Religion, awareness of conscientious objection, and prioritizing of nurses’ right to conscientious objection were significantly associated with supporting the legislation. Moreover, religion and prioritizing nurses' rights were significantly associated with the intention to conscientiously object.

Conclusions

This study provides information necessary for further discussion of nurses’ conscientious objection. Nursing leaders, researchers, and educators should appeal to nurses and involve them in making policies that balance a women's right to non-discrimination and to receiving appropriate care with nurses' rights to maintain their moral integrity without compromising their professional obligation.

Supporting Women at the Time of Abortion: A Mixed-Methods Study of Male Partner Experiences and Perspectives

CONTEXT

Although men are commonly viewed as unaware, uninvolved and even obstructive regarding their partner's abortion access, those who accompany women to an abortion appointment may be more supportive. A better understanding of men's motivations could inform clinic policies regarding their involvement.

METHODS

In 2015-2016, data were collected from male partners of women seeking an abortion at two clinics in a large Midwestern city. Twenty-nine interviews were conducted to explore how men wanted to be involved in the abortion and why they accompanied their partners. Thematic content analysis was used to examine these data, and emergent themes informed a survey, completed by 210 men, that focused on perceptions about and reasons for accompaniment. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the survey data.

RESULTS

Four in 10 interviewees were aged 25-34, as were half of survey respondents. Overall, most had at least some college education and were in long-term or committed relationships. Interviewees described providing primarily instrumental (e.g., transportation and financial) and emotional (e.g., companionship and reassurance) support during the abortion process. While 57% of survey respondents would not have chosen to terminate the pregnancy if the decision had been their own, all wanted to support their partners. Notably, 70% viewed the appointment as an opportunity to receive contraceptive counseling.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive narratives regarding men's support for the abortion decisions of their partners provide a counterpoint to commonly held negative narratives. Future research should explore how supportive men who accompany partners at the time of an abortion may improve women's abortion experiences.

Comparing the burden: what can we learn by comparing regulatory frameworks in abortion and fertility services?

In the UK, regulation of clinical services is being restructured. We consider two clinical procedures, abortion and IVF treatment, which have similar ethical and political sensitivities. We consider factors including the law, licensing, inspection, amount of paperwork and reporting requirements, the reception by practitioners and costs, to establish which field has the greater 'regulatory burden'. We test them based on scientific, ethical, social, political factors that might explain differences. We find that regulatory burden borne by IVF services is greater than in abortion, but none of the explanatory theses can provide a justification of this phenomenon. We offer an alternative explanation based on regulatory 'overspill' from research regulation and policy making, conceptualisation of risk regulation and a high public profile that locks a regulator into self-preservation.