[Abortion in Melilla: barriers to ocean and frontier]. / Aborto en Melilla: barreras de océano y frontera.

OBJECTIVE: To provide insights into the challenges faced by women seeking abortion services in Melilla, Spain. It seeks to describe the journey these women undertake and to identify and analyze the barriers they encounter in accessing abortion care. METHOD: A qualitative research approach was employed, involving a series of eight semi-structured interviews during 2022. Three interviews were conducted with national experts in the field of abortion, while five interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals from the Melilla Health Area who are directly involved in providing abortion services and supporting women throughout the process. The study was guided by a theoretical framework that focuses on barriers to abortion access and sexual and reproductive rights. The collected data was analyzed using content analysis and categorized based on key dimensions of the study. RESULTS: The study identified several significant barriers to abortion care access in Melilla. These include conscientious objection among healthcare providers, the geographical remoteness of Melilla, the legal challenges faced by Moroccan women due to their irregular status, and the requirement of parental consent for minors aged 16 and 17. Consequently, women seeking abortion services are forced to travel to mainland Spain, continue with undesired pregnancies, or resort to unsafe clandestine abortions in Morocco, thereby endangering their lives in the worst cases. CONCLUSIONS: The barriers to abortion access identified in this study represent a violation of women's reproductive rights in Melilla. Urgent action is required to review the current process, ensuring that access is improved and the right to safe abortion is guaranteed for all women residing in Melilla.

Aborto en Melilla: barreras de océano y frontera / Abortion in Melilla: barriers to ocean and frontier

Objetivo: Describir el recorrido que realizan las mujeres para abortar en Melilla, así como identificar y analizar las barreras para su acceso. Método: Investigación cualitativa con un total de ocho entrevistas semiestructuradas realizadas durante 2022 a tres personas referentes en el tema del aborto de ámbito nacional y a cinco profesionales del Área de Salud de Melilla implicadas tanto en la prestación como en el recorrido que hacen las mujeres para poder abortar. El marco teórico que se siguió fueron las barreras de acceso al aborto y los derechos sexuales y reproductivos. Se realizó un análisis temático del contenido y por categorías según las dimensiones del estudio. Resultados: Se han identificado varias barreras de acceso al aborto en Melilla, entre las que destacan la objeción de conciencia, la localización geográfica de Melilla, la situación irregular de las mujeres marroquíes y la necesidad de consentimiento en las menores de 16 y 17 años. Estos obstáculos obligan a las mujeres que quieran abortar a trasladarse a la Península para conseguir el procedimiento, a continuar con un embarazo no deseado o, en el peor de los casos, a someterse a un aborto clandestino en Marruecos poniendo en riesgo su vida. Conclusiones: Las barreras de acceso descritas suponen una vulneración y una violación del derecho al aborto en Melilla. Se debe revisar el recorrido que se ven obligadas a hacer las mujeres de forma que se facilite el acceso y se garantice el derecho a un aborto seguro a todas las mujeres residentes en Melilla.(AU)

Objective: To provide insights into the challenges faced by women seeking abortion services in Melilla, Spain. It seeks to describe the journey these women undertake and to identify and analyze the barriers they encounter in accessing abortion care. Method: A qualitative research approach was employed, involving a series of eight semi-structured interviews during 2022. Three interviews were conducted with national experts in the field of abortion, while five interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals from the Melilla Health Area who are directly involved in providing abortion services and supporting women throughout the process. The study was guided by a theoretical framework that focuses on barriers to abortion access and sexual and reproductive rights. The collected data was analyzed using content analysis and categorized based on key dimensions of the study. Results: The study identified several significant barriers to abortion care access in Melilla. These include conscientious objection among healthcare providers, the geographical remoteness of Melilla, the legal challenges faced by Moroccan women due to their irregular status, and the requirement of parental consent for minors aged 16 and 17. Consequently, women seeking abortion services are forced to travel to mainland Spain, continue with undesired pregnancies, or resort to unsafe clandestine abortions in Morocco, thereby endangering their lives in the worst cases. Conclusions: The barriers to abortion access identified in this study represent a violation of women's reproductive rights in Melilla. Urgent action is required to review the current process, ensuring that access is improved and the right to safe abortion is guaranteed for all women residing in Melilla.(AU)

[History repeats itself: an ethic for two pandemics.] / La historia se repite: una ética para dos pandemias.

The emergence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the 1980s brought ethical conflicts that meant a bioethics challenge. Among others, issues of confidentiality, stigmatization, justice, duty of care and investigation arose. Bioethical reflection had been focused on conflicts involving respect for individual autonomy, nevertheless HIV highlighted the needs of the community. Almost four decades later, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought the ethical conflicts typical of public health back to the bioethical scene. Quarantines, various restrictions on mobility, the obligation of masks, poorly protected health care, rationing of scarce resources, rushed research, the vaccines allocation, stigmatization and discrimination, the immune passport, or the moralization of infectious disease have highlighted the need for an ethical framework that helps to reflect and justify public health decisions. In this article we review and analyze the ethical conflicts that arose with HIV and how they have reappeared and been reinterpreted with the COVID-19 pandemic.

La irrupción del virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH) en la década de los 80 trajo consigo conflictos éticos que supusieron un desafío para la Bioética. Surgieron, entre otros, problemas de confidencialidad, estigmatización, justicia, deber de asistencia y de investigación. Si hasta entonces la reflexión bioética había estado centrada en los conflictos protagonizados por el respeto a la autonomía individual, el VIH puso el acento en las necesidades de la comunidad. Casi cuatro décadas después, la pandemia de COVID-19 ha devuelto a la actualidad bioética los conflictos éticos propios de la salud pública. Las cuarentenas, las diversas restricciones a la movilidad, la imposición de mascarillas, la asistencia sanitaria con protección deficiente, el racionamiento de recursos escasos, la investigación con prisas, el reparto de la vacuna, la estigmatización y la discriminación, el pasaporte inmunitario o la moralización de la enfermedad infecciosa han subrayado la necesidad de un marco ético que ayude a reflexionar y justificar las decisiones de salud pública. En este artículo revisamos y analizamos los conflictos éticos que surgieron con el VIH y cómo han reaparecido y se han reinterpretado con la pandemia de la COVID-19.

La historia se repite: una ética para dos pandemias / History repeats itself: an ethic for two pandemics

La irrupción del virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH) en la década de los 80 trajo consigo conflictos éticos que supusieron un desafío para la Bioética. Surgieron, entre otros, problemas de confidencialidad, estigmatización, justicia, deber de asistencia y de investigación. Si hasta entonces la reflexión bioética había estado centrada en los conflictos protagonizados por el respeto a la autonomía individual, el VIH puso el acento en las necesidades de la comunidad. Casi cuatro décadas después, la pandemia de COVID-19 ha devuelto a la actualidad bioética los conflictos éticos propios de la salud pública. Las cuarentenas, las diversas restricciones a la movilidad, la imposición de mascarillas, la asistencia sanitaria con protección deficiente, el racionamiento de recursos escasos, la investigación con prisas, el reparto de la vacuna, la estigmatización y la discriminación, el pasaporte inmunitario o la moralización de la enfermedad infecciosa han subrayado la necesidad de un marco ético que ayude a reflexionar y justificar las decisiones de salud pública. En este artículo revisamos y analizamos los conflictos éticos que surgieron con el VIH y cómo han reaparecido y se han reinterpretado con la pandemia de la COVID-19.(AU)

The emergence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the 1980s brought ethical conflicts that meant a bioethics challenge. Among others, issues of confidentiality, stigmatization, justice, duty of care and investigation arose. Bioethical reflection had been focused on conflicts involving respect for individual autonomy, nevertheless HIV highlighted the needs of the community. Almost four decades later, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought the ethical conflicts typical of public health back to the bioethical scene. Quarantines, various restrictions on mobility, the obligation of masks, poorly protected health care, rationing of scarce resources, rushed research, the vaccines allocation, stigmatization and discrimination, the immune passport, or the moralization of infectious disease have highlighted the need for an ethical framework that helps to reflect and justify public health decisions. In this article we review and analyze the ethical conflicts that arose with HIV and how they have reappeared and been reinterpreted with the COVID-19 pandemic.(AU)

Public Perception of Organ Donation and Transplantation Policies in Southern Spain.

BACKGROUND: This research explores how public awareness and attitudes toward donation and transplantation policies may contribute to Spain's success in cadaveric organ donation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A representative sample of 813 people residing in Andalusia (Southern Spain) were surveyed by telephone or via Internet between October and December 2018. RESULTS: Most participants trust Spain's donation and transplantation system (93%) and wish to donate their organs after death (76%). Among donors, a majority have expressed their consent (59%), and few nondonors have expressed their refusal (14%). Only a minority are aware of the presumed consent system in force (28%) and feel sufficiently informed regarding the requirements needed to be an organ donor (16%). Participants mainly consider that relatives should represent the deceased's preferences and be consulted when the deceased's wishes are unknown, as is the case in Spain. CONCLUSION: Public trust in the transplant system may contribute to Spain's high performance in organ donation. High levels of societal support toward organ donation and transplantation do not correspond with similar levels of public awareness of donation and transplantation policies in Spain.

La eficiencia no basta. Análisis ético y recomendaciones para la distribución de recursos escasos en situación de pandemia / Efficiency is not enough. Ethical analysis and recommendations for the allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic situation

Objetivo: Elaborar una herramienta de apoyo que ayude a tomar decisiones en el marco de la pandemia de COVID19. Método: Se parte de una búsqueda de diferentes recomendaciones éticas surgidas en España sobre priorización de recursos sanitarios escasos en la pandemia de COVID19, así como de una revisión narrativa de modelos teóricos sobre distribución en pandemias para definir una fundamentación ética. Finalmente, se extraen recomendaciones para su posible aplicación en distintos ámbitos asistenciales. Resultados: Se identifican tres principios, igualdad estricta, equidad y eficiencia, que se sustancian en criterios de distribución específicos. Conclusiones: Se propone un modelo de distribución de recursos sanitarios escasos en situación de pandemia que parte de un procedimiento de toma de decisiones y adapta los criterios de distribución a los escenarios de la atención sanitaria: atención primaria, residencias sociosanitarias y atención hospitalaria. (AU)

Objective: To develop a support tool to decision-making in the framework of the COVID19 pandemic. Method: Different ethical recommendations that emerged in Spain on prioritizing scarce health resources in the COVID19 pandemic first wave were searched; it was conducted a narrative review of theoretical models on distribution in pandemics to define an ethical foundation. Finally, recommendations are drawn to be applied in different healthcare settings. Results: Three principles are identified; strict equality, equity and efficiency, which are substantiated in specific distribution criteria. Conclusions: A model for the distribution of scarce health resources in a pandemic situation is proposed, starting with a decision-making procedure and adapting the distribution criteria to different healthcare scenarios: primary care settings, nursing homes and hospitals. (AU)

[Efficiency is not enough. Ethical analysis and recommendations for the allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic situation]. / La eficiencia no basta. Análisis ético y recomendaciones para la distribución de recursos escasos en situación de pandemia.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a support tool to decision-making in the framework of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Different ethical recommendations that emerged in Spain on prioritizing scarce health resources in the COVID-19 pandemic first wave were searched; it was conducted a narrative review of theoretical models on distribution in pandemics to define an ethical foundation. Finally, recommendations are drawn to be applied in different healthcare settings. RESULTS: Three principles are identified; strict equality, equity and efficiency, which are substantiated in specific distribution criteria. CONCLUSIONS: A model for the distribution of scarce health resources in a pandemic situation is proposed, starting with a decision-making procedure and adapting the distribution criteria to different healthcare scenarios: primary care settings, nursing homes and hospitals.

Reticencia vacunal: análisis del discurso de madres y padres con rechazo total o parcial a las vacunas / Vaccine hesitancy: discourse analysis of parents who have not fully or partially vaccinated their children

Objetivo: Analizar y comprender los discursos reticentes a la vacunación, particularmente los de las personas que han decidido no vacunar a sus hijos/as. Métodos: Estudio cualitativo con cinco entrevistas individuales y dos grupos focales con personas que optaron por no vacunar a su hijos/as en la provincia de Granada. Resultados: Padres y madres manifiestan un sistema de creencias en salud diferente al paradigma biomédico. Desde el punto de vista ético, justifican su posición a partir del derecho a la autonomía y la responsabilidad de sus decisiones. Como argumentos concretos, dudan de la administración de varias vacunas simultáneamente en edades muy tempranas de manera sistemática y sin individualizar cada caso, temen efectos adversos y no entienden la variabilidad en el calendario vacunal. Conclusiones: Los discursos reticentes responden al conflicto de individualidad vs. colectividad: padres y madres, en defensa de su derecho a una crianza sin interferencias del Estado, centran su responsabilidad en el bienestar individual de sus hijos/as independientemente de las consecuencias que su acción u omisión conlleve a la colectividad. En su gestión de los riesgos, elevan los derivados de vacunar por encima de las consecuencias individuales y colectivas de no hacerlo. Las vacunas que más dudas generan son aquellas con mayor controversia en el ámbito científico. La transparencia en la comunicación de efectos adversos, el respeto de las autoridades a otros conceptos de salud/enfermedad, el destierro del término «antivacunas» del lenguaje mediático y científico, y el desarrollo de espacios de diálogo son puentes por construir

Objective: To analyse and understand vaccination hesitancy discourses, particularly those of people who have decided not to vaccinate their sons and daughters. Methods: Qualitative study of five individual interviews and two focus groups with people who chose not to vaccinate their children in the province of Granada (Spain). Results: Mothers and fathers manifest a system of health beliefs different to the biomedical paradigm. From an ethical point of view, they justify their position based on the right to autonomy and responsibility for their decisions. Alleged specific reasons: they doubt administration of several vaccines simultaneously at an early age in a systematic way and without individualising each case; they fear adverse effects and do not understand the variations of the vaccination schedule. Conclusions: These vaccination hesitancy discourses respond to the individual vs collective conflict; parents defend their right to bring up their children without any interference from the state and focus their responsibility on the individual welfare of their sons and daughters, regardless of the consequences that their actions might have on the collective. In their management of risks, they consider those derived from vaccination more relevant than the individual or collective consequences of not doing so. The vaccines generating most doubts are the more controversial ones within the scientific world. Transparency in communication of adverse effects; authorities respect for other health/disease concepts; banishment of the term "anti-vaccines" from the media and scientific vocabulary, and developing spaces for dialogue are bridges to be built

[Vaccine hesitancy: discourse analysis of parents who have not fully or partially vaccinated their children]. / Reticencia vacunal: análisis del discurso de madres y padres con rechazo total o parcial a las vacunas.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse and understand vaccination hesitancy discourses, particularly those of people who have decided not to vaccinate their sons and daughters. METHODS: Qualitative study of five individual interviews and two focus groups with people who chose not to vaccinate their children in the province of Granada (Spain). RESULTS: Mothers and fathers manifest a system of health beliefs different to the biomedical paradigm. From an ethical point of view, they justify their position based on the right to autonomy and responsibility for their decisions. Alleged specific reasons: they doubt administration of several vaccines simultaneously at an early age in a systematic way and without individualising each case; they fear adverse effects and do not understand the variations of the vaccination schedule. CONCLUSIONS: These vaccination hesitancy discourses respond to the individual vs collective conflict; parents defend their right to bring up their children without any interference from the state and focus their responsibility on the individual welfare of their sons and daughters, regardless of the consequences that their actions might have on the collective. In their management of risks, they consider those derived from vaccination more relevant than the individual or collective consequences of not doing so. The vaccines generating most doubts are the more controversial ones within the scientific world. Transparency in communication of adverse effects; authorities respect for other health/disease concepts; banishment of the term "anti-vaccines" from the media and scientific vocabulary, and developing spaces for dialogue are bridges to be built.

Opiniones de menores residentes en Andalucía (España) sobre temas de salud: Aplicación de un cuestionario por Internet / Opinions of minor children residing in Andalusia (Spain) on health-related topics: An online questionnaire

Objetivo: Analizar opiniones de menores sobre el concepto de salud, centros y profesionales sanitarios así como recomendaciones en forma de consejos sobre promoción de salud. Métodos: Estudio transversal con cuestionario online dirigido a menores de 14 años de edad. Se utilizó una versión adaptada del cuestionario Kid's Hospital, el cual contiene preguntas abiertas y cerradas. Resultados: Contestaron al cuestionario 358 menores, de los cuales 225 fueron niñas (61,3%). La edad media global fue de 9,2(DE 2,61). Asocian buena salud con la ausencia de enfermedad (n=165, 46,1%) y estar en forma (n=151, 42,2%) ; sobre experiencias de la última visita al médico, reconocen el papel de ayuda y mediación de estos profesionales (n=233, 65,1%); destacan la ayuda y la recuperación como lo mejor de la atención, y como lo peor los pinchazos y el dolor padecido. De los consejos emitidos para promoción de salud destacan aquellos sobre alimentación (n=233, 62,3%). Conclusiones: Los cuestionarios online a menores, constituyen una forma útil de recolección de información. Así, estas consultas directas permiten la participación de los niños y niñas o de los menores y proporcionan información útil para adecuar las intervenciones de cara a fomentar la promoción entre iguales, así como sobre sus preferencias en el diseño de intervenciones.

Objective: To analyze opinions of minors regarding the concept of health, health centers, and professionals, as well as providing them with recommendations on health promotion in the form of health promotion advice. Methods: A cross-sectional survey with an online questionnaire aimed to kids below 14. An adapted version of Kid's Hospital questionnaire was utilized, which has both open and closed questions. Results: 358 minors answered the questionnaire, 225 of which were girls (61.3%). The mean global age was 9.2 years (SD 2.61). They associated good health with the absence of illnesses (n=165, 46.1%) and being in shape (n=151, 42.2%). Regarding their experiences about their last doctor's appointment, they acknowledged the aiding and mediation role of these professionals as the best features of the assistance (n=233, 65.1%) and the pain suffered and syringe jabs as the worst ones. They also highlighted healthy eating advice from the health promotion advice given (n=233, 62.3%). Discussion: Online questionnaires for minors are a useful data collection tool. These direct queries allow them to participate and provide useful information to adequate medical interventions in order to develop actions for health promotion, as well as taking their opinions into account when designing interventions.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: knowledge, attitudes and experiences of nurses in Andalusia (Spain).

The aim of this study is to assess the knowledge, attitudes and experiences of Spanish nurses in relation to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. In an online questionnaire completed by 390 nurses from Andalusia, 59.1% adequately identified a euthanasia situation and 64.1% a situation involving physician-assisted suicide. Around 69% were aware that both practices were illegal in Spain, while 21.4% had received requests for euthanasia and a further 7.8% for assisted suicide. A total of 22.6% believed that cases of euthanasia had occurred in Spain and 11.4% believed the same for assisted suicide. There was greater support (70%) for legalisation of euthanasia than for assisted suicide (65%), combined with a greater predisposition towards carrying out euthanasia (54%), if it were to be legalised, than participating in assisted suicide (47.3%). Nurses in Andalusia should be offered more education about issues pertaining to the end of life, and extensive research into this area should be undertaken.