Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Conscientious objection to abortion, the law and its implementation in Victoria, Australia: perspectives of abortion service providers.
Keogh, Louise Anne; Gillam, Lynn; Bismark, Marie; McNamee, Kathleen; Webster, Amy; Bayly, Christine; Newton, Danielle.
Afiliação
  • Keogh LA; Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia. l.keogh@unimelb.edu.au.
  • Gillam L; Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
  • Bismark M; Children's Bioethics Centre, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
  • McNamee K; Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Webster A; Family Planning Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Bayly C; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
  • Newton D; Women's Health Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
BMC Med Ethics ; 20(1): 11, 2019 01 31.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30700292
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

In Victoria, Australia, the law regulating abortion was reformed in 2008, and a clause ('Section 8') was introduced requiring doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion to refer women to another provider. This study reports the views of abortion experts on the operation of Section 8 of the Abortion Law Reform Act in Victoria.

METHODS:

Nineteen semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with purposively selected Victorian abortion experts in 2015. Interviews explored the impact of abortion law reform on service provision, including the understanding and implementation of Section 8. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

RESULTS:

The majority of participants described Section 8 as a mechanism to protect women's right to abortion, rather than a mechanism to protect doctors' rights. All agreed that most doctors would not let moral or religious beliefs impact on their patients, and yet all could detail negative experiences related to Section 8. The negative experiences arose because doctors had directly contravened the law by not referring; attempted to make women feel guilty; attempted to delay women's access; or claimed an objection for reasons other than conscience. Use or misuse of conscientious objection by Government telephone staff, pharmacists, institutions, and political groups was also reported.

CONCLUSION:

Some doctors are not complying with Section 8, with adverse effects on access to care for some women. Further research is needed to inform strategies for improving compliance with the law in order to facilitate timely access to abortion services.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Médicos / Direitos da Mulher / Recusa em Tratar / Aborto Induzido / Serviços de Planejamento Familiar Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Pregnancy País como assunto: Oceania Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Médicos / Direitos da Mulher / Recusa em Tratar / Aborto Induzido / Serviços de Planejamento Familiar Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Pregnancy País como assunto: Oceania Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article