Revisiting the evolution of the Hippocratic Oath in obstetrics and gynecology.

Hippocrates, an influential figure in ancient Greek medicine, is best known for his lasting contribution, the Hippocratic Oath, which includes a significant message about obstetrics and gynecology. Given the Oath's status as a widely regarded ethical code for medical practice, it requires critical evaluation. The message of the Oath, as it related to obstetrics and gynecology, is expressed in ancient Greek by the phrase "οὐδὲ γυναικὶ πεσσὸν φθόριον δώσω" which translates directly to "I will not give to any woman a harming pessary." The words fetus and abortion were not present in the original Greek text of the Oath. Yet, this message of the Hippocratic Oath has been interpreted often as a prohibition against abortion. In this article, we present a critical linguistic and historical analysis and argue against the notion that the Hippocratic Oath was prohibiting abortion. We provide evidence that the words "foetum" (fetus) and "abortu" (abortion) were inserted in the Latin translations of the Oath, which then carried on in subsequent English versions. The addition of the words "fetus" and "abortion" in the Latin translations significantly altered the Oath's original meaning. Unfortunately, these alterations in the translation of the Hippocratic Oath have been accepted over the years because of cultural, religious, and social reasons. We assert that because the original Hippocratic Oath did not contain language related to abortion, it should not be construed as prohibiting it. The interpretation of the Oath should be based on precise and rigorous translation and speculative interpretations should be avoided.

From Embryotomy to Cesarean: Changes in Obstetric Operatory Techniques in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Urban Brazil.

This article traces the historical processes by which Brazil became a world leader in cesarean sections. It demonstrates that physicians changed their position toward and use of different obstetric surgeries, in particular embryotomies and cesarean sections, over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The authors demonstrate that Catholic obstetricians, building upon both advancements in cesarean section techniques and new civil legislation that gave some personhood to fetuses, began arguing that fetal life was on par with its maternal counterpart in the early twentieth century, a shift that had a lasting impact on obstetric practice for decades to come. In the second half of the twentieth century, cesarean sections proliferated in clinical practice, but abortions remained illegal. Most importantly, women remained patients to be worked on rather than active participants in their reproductive lives.

[Modelled Development. Practices of Human Embryology at Göttingen University in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century]. / Modellierte Individualentwicklung. Humanembryologische Praktiken an der Universität Göttingen in der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts.

The Human Embryology Collection at the Centre of Anatomy Göttingen, created between 1942 and 1970, represents a unique interrelation of histological sectional series of human embryos and large-format physical models open to the public based on them. The collection was established long after the heyday of human embryology. It is also remarkable in another aspect: while usually models within the discipline are considered research objects, Göttingen embryologist Erich Blechschmidt (1904-1992) based his understanding on a pedagogical impetus. The article highlights the distinctive and unconventional features of Blechschmidt's undertaking against its disciplinary background. My focus lies on the two practices that are central to human embryology-collecting and modelling-, as well as the derived collection stocks. The special tension between individuality and universality that already characterized the process of their creation is also reflected in the later use of the collection. This tension allowed Blechschmidt to utilize the models in embryological research and anatomical teaching as well as in the broad social debate on abortion and the ethical status of human embryos.

"A Revolution in Favor of Reproduction"? Gynecology and Obstetrics in the "Third Reich".

During the "Third Reich," the majority of German gynecologists and obstetricians did not hesitate to put themselves at the service of those in power. In 1933, many gynecologists initially only focused on the fact that the biopolitical objectives of the National Socialists matched their own long-standing demands for population policy measures and the early detection and prevention of cancer. In addition, cooperating with the Nazis promised the political advancement of the profession, personal advantages, and the honorary title of Volksgesundheitsführer (national health leaders). As a result, gynecologists exchanged resources with the regime and thus contributed significantly to the implementation of the criminal racial policies of the Nazis. At the congresses of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie (German Society of Gynecology) "non-Aryan" members, mostly of Jewish descent, were excluded, the law on forced sterilization of 1933 (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses/Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases) was scientifically legitimized, its implementation was propagated, and relevant surgical techniques were discussed with regard to their "certainty of success." In the course of these forced sterilizations, existing pregnancies were also terminated and the victims were misused for illegal scientific examinations or experiments. Drawing upon racial and utilitarian considerations, gynecologists did not even shy away from carrying out late abortions on forced laborers from the East during the Second World War, which were strictly prohibited even under the laws of the time. Some gynecologists carried out cruel experiments on humans in concentration camps, which primarily served their own careers and the biopolitical goals of those in power. The few times gynecologists did protest or resist was when the very interests of their profession seemed threatened, as in the dispute over home births and the rights of midwives. Social gynecological initiatives from the Weimar Republic, which were mainly supported and carried out by gynecologists persecuted for their Jewish descent since 1933, were either converted into National Socialist "education programs" or simply came to an end due to the exclusion of their initiators. German gynecologists had hoped for a large-scale promotion of the early detection of malignant diseases of the uterus and breasts, to which they had already made important contributions since the beginning of the 20th century. But even though the fight against cancer was allegedly one of the priorities of the Nazis, no comprehensive measures were taken. Still, a few locally limited initiatives to this end proved to be successful until well into the Second World War. In addition, German gynecologists established the modern concept of prenatal care and continued to advance endocrinological research and sterility therapy. After the end of the Nazi dictatorship, the historical guilt piled up during this period was suppressed and denied for decades. Its revision and processing only began in the 1990s.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson: A story of metanoia.

Bernard A. Nathanson (1926-2011), was a professionally well-recognized and successful New York obstetrician and gynecologist. An avowed atheist as a young man through his middle age, Nathanson was a co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, whose activities are credited with hastening the liberalization of abortion law in New York State. Intent on increasing the accessibility and promoting the acceptance of abortion on demand, Dr. Nathanson taught and published journal articles on the operative techniques and on the results from large numbers of these procures. During his tenure as director of the largest abortion clinic in the Western World, Nathanson presided over 60,000 abortions, and he performed more than 1,500 in his own practice. His studies of embryology and evidence from emerging technologies to monitor and examine intrauterine fetal development led Nathanson to question the morality of voluntarily interrupting pregnancy, thence to rejecting abortion procedures from his own clinical practice altogether, and eventually to become involved in anti-abortion, pro-life activities. An influential writer, speaker and film maker, these experiences and witnessing the love and prayer of other pro-life supporters turned Nathanson to notions of God, and finally reading and personal prayer guided him from secular atheism to Christianity.

Political Institutions and the Comparative Medicalization of Abortion.

Comparative-historical research on medicalization is rare and, perhaps for that reason, largely ignores political institutions, which tend to vary more across countries than within them. This article proposes a political-institutional theory of medicalization in which health care policy legacies, political decentralization, and constitutionalism shape the preferences, discourses, strategies, and influence of actors that seek or resist medicalization. The theory helps explain why abortion has been more medicalized in Britain than the United States. The analysis finds that the American medical profession, unlike its British counterpart, focused on defending private medicine rather than protecting its power to "diagnose" the medical necessity of abortions; that American political decentralization aided the establishment of abortion on request by encouraging strategic innovation and learning that shaped social movement strategies, medical issue avoidance, and the growth of nonhospital clinics; and finally, that constitutionalism promoted rights discourses that partially crowded out medical ones.

Who Was Afraid of Pregnancy Tests? Gestational Information and Reproduction Policies in France (1920-50).

Though resulting from a long-term process, the need to manage pregnancies both medically and bureaucratically became a state concern, especially from the 1920s onwards. A woman's official obligation to notify the state of her pregnancy (and therefore to know it on time) goes beyond a matter of biopolicies and poses a range of contradictions. 'Pregnant or not?' - as an issue of knowledge - is a powerful tool for apprehending the tensions between individual freedom, privacy, institutional requirements and professional powers.In order to better understand the historical meaning of pregnancy diagnostics in mid-twentieth-century France, this paper combines three dimensions: uncertainty and its management; the informational asymmetry between institutional agents and women; and the diachronic dimension of gestation. Writing this history sheds more light on an apparent paradox: while knowing and notifying one's own pregnancy became a duty, the tools that could help women eliminate some doubt right from the first months of their pregnancy - in particular the innovation of laboratory diagnosis - was seen as a danger. When, in 1938, private laboratories began publishing advertisements for the laboratory test in the most widely-read newspapers, tending to reframe it as a commercial service, the anti-abortion crusade was increasing its propaganda and its political pressure. This crusade's legal victory proved incomplete, but for a long time some of the most conservative physicians recommended great parsimony in prescribing testing. Combined with reducing the legal time limit for notification, this conflict shows how the state injunctions towards women could look like a 'double bind'.

The Right to Know? The Politics of Information about Contraception in France (1950s-80s).

In 1920 in France, a law was passed prohibiting abortion, the sale of contraceptives and 'anti-conception propaganda'. While contraception was legalised in 1967 and abortion in 1975, 'anti-natalist propaganda' remained forbidden. This article takes seriously the aim of the French state to prevent the circulation of information for demographic reasons. Drawing from government archives, social movement archives and media coverage, the article focuses on the way the propaganda ban contributed to shaping the public debate on contraception as well as lastingly impacting the ability of the state to communicate on the subject. It first shows how birth control activists challenged the legal interdiction against communicating about contraception (1956-67) without questioning the natalist obligation. It then shows how, after 1968, communication on contraception became a power struggle carried out by various actors (sexologists and feminist and leftist activists) and how the dissemination of information about contraception was thought of as a way to challenge moral and social values. Finally, the article describes the change of state communication policies in the mid-1970s, leading to the first national campaign on contraception launched in 1981, which defined information as a task that women should take on.

[Key arenas in the struggle for abortion rights in Argentina]. / Escenas claves de la lucha por el derecho al aborto en Argentina.

The huge mobilization seen in 2018 around the right to legal abortion in Argentina is the crowning point of a struggle that has been going on for many years, and that like any emancipatory movement has had different milestones as well as victories and setbacks, but that has never been abandoned. This article considers some of the actions that have marked that history, beginning with the pioneering women of the seventies, and continuing with the Commission for the Right to Abortion [Comisión por el Derecho al Aborto] after the restoration of democracy in the 1980s, followed by the experiences of Women Coming Together for the Right to Choose [Mujeres Autoconvocacadas por el Derecho a Decidir], the Assembly for the Right to Abortion [Asamblea por el Derecho al Aborto], and the present Campaign for the Right to Legal, Safe and Free Abortion [Campaña por el Derecho al Aborto Legal, Seguro y Gratuito], which succeeded in getting the bill that decriminalizes and legalizes abortion treated in the National Congress.

La enorme movilización por el derecho al aborto legal, que se produjo en 2018 en Argentina, es la coronación de una lucha de muchos años que tuvo sus hitos, como todo movimiento emancipatorio y también sus marchas y contramarchas, pero nunca fue abandonada. En este artículo recorremos algunas de las acciones que jalonaron esa historia, que comienza con las pioneras de los años setenta, para continuar con las luchas después de la recuperación de la democracia, con la Comisión por el Derecho al Aborto; luego con las experiencias de Mujeres Autoconvocadas por el Derecho a Decidir, y la Asamblea por el Derecho al Aborto, hasta llegar a la actual Campaña por el Derecho al Aborto Legal, Seguro y Gratuito, que logró en 2018, que el proyecto de ley que despenaliza y legaliza el aborto llegara al Congreso de la Nación.

Escenas claves de la lucha por el derecho al aborto en Argentina / Key arenas in the struggle for abortion rights in Argentina

RESUMEN La enorme movilización por el derecho al aborto legal, que se produjo en 2018 en Argentina, es la coronación de una lucha de muchos años que tuvo sus hitos, como todo movimiento emancipatorio y también sus marchas y contramarchas, pero nunca fue abandonada. En este artículo recorremos algunas de las acciones que jalonaron esa historia, que comienza con las pioneras de los años setenta, para continuar con las luchas después de la recuperación de la democracia, con la Comisión por el Derecho al Aborto; luego con las experiencias de Mujeres Autoconvocadas por el Derecho a Decidir, y la Asamblea por el Derecho al Aborto, hasta llegar a la actual Campaña por el Derecho al Aborto Legal, Seguro y Gratuito, que logró en 2018, que el proyecto de ley que despenaliza y legaliza el aborto llegara al Congreso de la Nación.

ABSTRACT The huge mobilization seen in 2018 around the right to legal abortion in Argentina is the crowning point of a struggle that has been going on for many years, and that like any emancipatory movement has had different milestones as well as victories and setbacks, but that has never been abandoned. This article considers some of the actions that have marked that history, beginning with the pioneering women of the seventies, and continuing with the Commission for the Right to Abortion [Comisión por el Derecho al Aborto] after the restoration of democracy in the 1980s, followed by the experiences of Women Coming Together for the Right to Choose [Mujeres Autoconvocacadas por el Derecho a Decidir], the Assembly for the Right to Abortion [Asamblea por el Derecho al Aborto], and the present Campaign for the Right to Legal, Safe and Free Abortion [Campaña por el Derecho al Aborto Legal, Seguro y Gratuito], which succeeded in getting the bill that decriminalizes and legalizes abortion treated in the National Congress.

Nursing and Hospital Abortions in the United States, 1967-1973.

Before elective abortion was legalized nationally in 1973 with the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, seventeen states and the District of Columbia liberalized their abortion statutes. While scholars have examined the history of physicians who had performed abortions before and after it was legal and of feminists' work to expand the range of healthcare choices available to women, we know relatively little about nurses' work with abortion. By focusing on the history of nursing in those states that liberalized their abortion laws before Roe, this article reveals how women who sought greater control over their lives by choosing abortion encountered medical professionals who were only just beginning to question the gendered conventions that framed labor roles in American hospitals. Nurses, whose workloads increased exponentially when abortion laws were liberalized, were rarely given sufficient training to care for abortion patients. Many nurses directed their frustrations to the women patients who sought the procedure. This essay considers how the expansion of women's right to abortion prompted nurses to question the gendered conventions that had shaped their work experiences.

Legacies of 1917 in Contemporary Russian Public Health: Addiction, HIV, and Abortion.

I examine the legacies of Soviet public health policy and the socialist health care system and trace how the Soviet past figures in contemporary Russian policymaking and debates about drug use, HIV, and abortion. Drug policies and mainstream views of HIV reflect continuities with key aspects of Soviet-era policies, although political leaders do not acknowledge these continuities in justifying their policies. In abortion policy, by contrast, which is highly debated in the public realm, advocates represent themselves as differing from Soviet-era policies to justify their positions. Yet abortion activists' views of the past differ tremendously, reminding us that the Soviet past is symbolically productive for arguments about Russia's present and future. I describe key aspects of the Soviet approach to health and compare how current drug policy (and the related management of HIV/AIDS) and abortion policies are discursively shaped in relation to the Soviet historical and cultural legacy.

Regulating cinematic stories about reproduction: pregnancy, childbirth, abortion and movie censorship in the US, 1930-1958.

In the mid-twentieth century film studios sent their screenplays to Hollywood's official censorship body, the Production Code Administration (PCA), and to the Catholic Church's Legion of Decency for approval and recommendations for revision. This article examines the negotiations between filmmakers and censorship groups in order to show the stories that censors did, and did not, want told about pregnancy, childbirth and abortion, as well as how studios fought to tell their own stories about human reproduction. I find that censors considered pregnancy to be a state of grace and a holy obligation that was restricted to married women. For censors, human reproduction was not only a private matter, it was also an unpleasant biological process whose entertainment value was questionable. They worried that realistic portrayals of pregnancy and childbirth would scare young women away from pursuing motherhood. In addition, I demonstrate how filmmakers overcame censors' strict prohibitions against abortion by utilizing ambiguity in their storytelling. Ultimately, I argue that censors believed that pregnancy and childbirth should be celebrated but not seen. But if pregnancy and childbirth were required then censors preferred mythic versions of motherhood instead of what they believed to be the sacred but horrific biological reality of human reproduction.

Screening Out Controversy: Human Genetics, Emerging Techniques of Diagnosis, and the Origins of the Social Issues Committee of the American Society of Human Genetics, 1964-1973.

In the years following World War II, and increasingly during the 1960s and 1970s, professional scientific societies developed internal sub-committees to address the social implications of their scientific expertise (Moore, Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945-1975. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). This article explores the early years of one such committee, the American Society of Human Genetics' "Social Issues Committee," founded in 1967. Although the committee's name might suggest it was founded to increase the ASHG's public and policy engagement, exploration of the committee's early years reveals a more complicated reality. Affronted by legislators' recent unwillingness to seek the expert advice of human geneticists before adopting widespread neonatal screening programs for phenylketonuria (PKU), and feeling pressed to establish their relevance in an increasingly resource-scarce funding environment, committee members sought to increase the discipline's expert authority. Painfully aware of controversy over abortion rights and haunted by the taint of the discipline's eugenic past, however, the committee proceeded with great caution. Seeking to harness interest in and assert professional control over emerging techniques of genetic diagnosis, the committee strove to protect the society's image by relegating ethical and policy questions about their use to the individual consciences of member scientists. It was not until 1973, after the committee's modest success in organizing support for a retrospective public health study of PKU screening and following the legalization of abortion on demand, that the committee decided to take a more publicly engaged stance.