Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Glossary
- Notes on the authors
- Acknowledgements
- one Introduction
- two Criminalisation
- three The biomedicalisation of abortion
- four Abortion discourses: religion, culture, nation
- five International interventions
- six Activism
- seven Is choice enough? Engaging with reproductive justice
- eight Conclusion
- References
- Index
three - The biomedicalisation of abortion
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 April 2022
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Glossary
- Notes on the authors
- Acknowledgements
- one Introduction
- two Criminalisation
- three The biomedicalisation of abortion
- four Abortion discourses: religion, culture, nation
- five International interventions
- six Activism
- seven Is choice enough? Engaging with reproductive justice
- eight Conclusion
- References
- Index
Summary
Introduction
Well before abortion became a regulated healthcare procedure, a range of methods were used by women and lay practitioners to terminate pregnancy. Many of these methods are unsafe and some continue to be used by women where abortion access is restricted.
Grimes et al (2006: 1911) identified almost 50 individual unsafe abortion methods, ranging from ingestion of toxic substances, to inserting of objects or substances into the vagina, and physical pressure on the uterus area. Safe recommended methods, as advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2012), refer to surgical abortion (aspiration, dilution and curettage) and medical abortion. Medical abortion is defined by WHO (2012: iv) as ‘the use of pharmacological drugs to terminate pregnancy’, while the terms ‘non-surgical abortion’ or ‘medication abortion’ are also used in the literature. WHO clinical guidelines advise that medical abortion can be used throughout differing gestations, with regime and clinical requirements changing at each stage (up to 9 weeks, 9– 12 weeks, 12–24 weeks, 24 weeks plus) (WHO, 2014). The WHO, in its Safe Abortion Guidelines, states that medical abortion is both safe and effective. Specifically, while alternate medications or combinations of medications are available, it recommends the combined use of mifepristone and misoprostol:
The most effective regimens rely on the antiprogestogen, mifepristone, which binds to progesterone receptors, inhibiting the action of progesterone and hence interfering with the continuation of pregnancy. Treatment regimens entail an initial dose of mifepr istone followed by administration of a synthetic prostaglandin analogue, generally misoprostol, which enhances uterine contractions and aids in expelling the products of conception. (WHO, 2012: 42)
Mifepristone followed by misoprostol for medical abortion has been registered in a range of countries: Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, India, Israel, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the People's Republic of China, Romania, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, the UK, Ukraine, the US, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. However, while the combined use of these medications is included on the complementary WHO ‘Model List of Essential Medications’, it is of significance that the Director-General of WHO added a note adjacent to the list stating: ‘Where permitted under national law and where culturally acceptable’ (WHO, 2017a: 46).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Reimagining Global Abortion PoliticsA Social Justice Perspective, pp. 31 - 50Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2018