The Association Between Self-Managed versus Clinician-Managed Abortion and Self-Reported Abortion Complications: A Cross-Sectional Analysis in India

Purpose

To examine the association between self-managed abortion and the self-reported experience of abortion complications in India, a country with a high incidence of self-managed abortion.

Patients and Methods

The study used a cross-sectional multivariable logistic regression analysis of data from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) of 2015-2016 to compare the odds of self-reported complications experienced during abortion between self-managed and clinician-managed abortions in India.

Results

On average, self-managed abortions occurred earlier in gestation than clinician-managed abortions, 7.8 weeks and 11.3 weeks, respectively (p < 0.001). Self-managed abortion was associated with fewer self-reported abortion-related complications than clinician-managed abortions when adjusted for covariates not including gestational age (Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69, 0.97). However, once adjusted for gestational age, there was no longer a clinically meaningful or statistically significant difference in the odds of self-reported complications between self-managed and clinician-managed abortions (aOR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.81, 1.18).

Conclusion

These findings suggest that people in India are using safe methods to self-manage abortions and support the hypothesis that self-managed abortion can improve access to abortion and reproductive choice without increasing risk.

Food Insecurity: A Barrier to Reproductive Justice Globally

Objective: Reproductive Justice identifies three core reproductive rights for all people: (1) the right to not have a child; (2) the right to have a child; and (3) the right to parent children in safe and healthy environments. We aim to illustrate that food insecurity infringes upon on all three of these rights and so is a pressing issue for reproductive justice and for sexual and reproductive health more broadly. Methods: Using a phenomenological approach, we outline potential pathways between food insecurity and reproductive justice. Results: There are numerous potential pathways between food insecurity and reproductive justice, including entry into sexual relationships for material support, links to sexually transmitted infections and infertility, structural violence, prioritization and spending tradeoffs between food and other basic necessities, biological impacts of malnutrition, restricted reproductive choices, population control measures, and social stigma and exclusion. Marginalized people are disproportionately impacted by food insecurity and its consequences, with implications for sexual health and pleasure and for reproductive justice. Conclusions:Meaningful and equitable collaboration between people with lived experience of food insecurity, human rights and reproductive justice activists, and academics is critical to sensitively contextualize this work and mobilize broader social change.

Protecting Health after Dobbs

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court eliminated the long-standing federal constitutional right to abortion. Discussions of Dobbs tend to emphasize the loss of protection for reproductive choice. But Dobbs also eroded protection for a related yet distinctly important interest that served under Roe v. Wade as a check on government regulation of reproduction: the preservation of health. This erasure has opened the door to increasingly restrictive and punitive abortion bans, which are causing providers to deny or delay care that is necessary to prevent harm to both pregnant and nonpregnant patients. Federal regulatory attempts to prevent these harms will have limited impact, partially due to Congress's own history of exceptionalizing abortion in ways that devalue health. Only federal legislation can ensure adequate and enduring protection for the health of women, trans men, and other patients targeted for reproductive control because of their capacity for pregnancy.

First, do no harm: Generalized procreative non-maleficence

New reproductive technologies allow parents some choice over their children. Various moral principles have been suggested to regulate such choices. This article starts from a discussion of Julian Savulescu's Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PPB), according to which parents ought to choose the child expected to have the best quality of life, before combining two previously separate lines of attack against this principle. First, it is suggested that the appropriate moral principles of guiding reproductive choices ought to focus on general wellbeing rather than prioritizing that of the child and, second, that they ought to be non-maximizing (e.g. seeking the 'good enough' or to avoid harm). Though neither of these suggestions is entirely novel, combining them results in a new, and arguably more plausible, principle to regulate procreative choices, which I call the Principle of Generalized Procreative Non-Maleficence (PGPNM). According to this principle, the primary obligation on parents is not to cause harm to other people through their reproductive choices.

Reproductive choice, enhancement, and the moral continuum argument

It is often argued that it does not matter morally whether biomedical interventions treat or prevent diseases or enhance nondisease traits; what matters is whether and how much they promote well-being. Therapy and enhancement both promote well-being, the argument goes, so they are not morally distinct but instead continuous. I provide three reasons why this argument should be rejected when it is applied to choices concerning the genetic makeup of future people. First, it rests on too simple a conception of the badness of disease. Second, it wrongly assumes that disease avoidance and enhancement can proceed with similar accuracy. Third, it overlooks that disease avoidance tends to be more urgent than enhancement from the point of view of distributive justice. Although none of these reasons establishes a firm therapy-enhancement distinction, they show that a continuum model is not an attractive alternative.

A case study of haemoglobinopathy screening in the Netherlands: witnessing the past, lessons for the future

OBJECTIVES

In 2007 neonatal screening (NNS) was expanded to include screening for sickle cell disease (SCD) and beta-thalassaemia. Up until that year no formal recommendations for haemoglobinopathy (carrier) screening existed in the Netherlands. Although it has been subject to debate in the past, preconceptional and prenatal haemoglobinopathy carrier screening are not part of routine healthcare in the Netherlands. This study aimed to explore the decision-making process of the past: why was the introduction of a screening programme for haemoglobinopathy considered to be untimely, and did ethnicity play a role given the history in other countries surrounding the introduction of haemoglobinopathy screening?

DESIGN

A witness seminar was organised, inviting key figures to discuss the decision-making process concerning haemoglobinopathy screening in the Netherlands, thereby adding new perspectives on past events. The transcript was content-analysed.

RESULTS

The subject of haemoglobinopathy screening first appeared in the 1970s. As opposed to a long history of neglect of African-American health in the United States, the heritage of the Second World War influenced the decision-making process in the Netherlands. As a consequence, registration of ethnicity surfaced as an impeding factor. However, overall, official Dutch screening policy was restrained regarding reproductive issues caused by fear of eugenics. In the 1990s haemoglobinopathy screening was found to be 'not opportune' due to low prevalence, lack of knowledge and fear of stigmatisation. Currently the registration of ethnicity remains on the political agenda, but still proves to be a sensitive subject.

DISCUSSION

Carrier screening in general never appeared high on the policy agenda. Registration of ethnicity remains sensitive caused by the current political climate. Complexities related to carrier screening are a challenge in Dutch healthcare. Whether carrier screening will be considered a valuable complementary strategy in the Netherlands, depends partly on participation of representatives of high-risk groups in policy making.