Hardon Anita
Medical Anthropology Unit, University of Amsterdam, Oudezijds Achterburgwal 185, 1012 DK Amsterdam.
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Feb;62(3):614-27. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.035. Epub 2005 Jul 22.
The article describes how the merging of Southern and Northern women's health groups resulted in a powerful transnational movement, with a collective oppositional identity based on shared solidarity in campaigns for reproductive rights and against state coercion in reproductive matters. It focuses on the ways in which the movement framed issues of rights and safety and pointed to the possible abuse potential of two new longer-acting contraceptive technologies, Norplant and the anti-fertility vaccines. The contestations by women's health advocates resulted in the emergence of a strong commitment among scientists to involve women's health advocates in the development and introduction of new contraceptive technologies. By engaging in the construction of safety and efficacy claims, and by outlining conditions for the introduction of the new technologies (so-called introduction scripts) women's health advocates were able to reinscribe the technologies with representations of bodily integrity and reproductive rights, rather than population control. I argue that a split within the women's health movement on the need to ban the new technologies did not weaken its impact, but, in fact, enhanced this success. I describe, in detailed case studies on the Norplant and Anti-fertility vaccine controversies, how both strands of women's health advocacy claim to be able to represent the interest of users, but that their representations of users differ. The 'no-to-Norplant' and 'no-to-anti-fertility' vaccines strands see users as victims of a state-led medical establishment enabled power, which is inscribed in the technology. The more moderate strand of activism argue that women's interests and needs differ from one setting to another, and that they are best met by making available to women a range of contraceptive options which allow for a free and informed choice.
这篇文章描述了南北妇女健康组织的合并如何促成了一场强大的跨国运动，该运动基于在生殖权利运动中的共同团结以及反对生殖事务中的国家强制行为，形成了一种集体对立身份。文章重点关注了该运动构建权利与安全问题的方式，并指出了两种新型长效避孕技术——诺普兰（Norplant）和抗生育疫苗——可能存在的滥用风险。妇女健康倡导者的抗争促使科学家们坚定地承诺让妇女健康倡导者参与新型避孕技术的研发和引进。通过参与安全性和有效性声明的构建，以及勾勒新技术引进的条件（即所谓的引进脚本），妇女健康倡导者能够用身体完整性和生殖权利的表述来重新诠释这些技术，而非人口控制。我认为，妇女健康运动内部在是否禁止新技术问题上的分歧并未削弱其影响力，事实上反而增强了这一成功。在关于诺普兰和抗生育疫苗争议的详细案例研究中，我描述了妇女健康倡导的两个派别如何都声称能够代表使用者的利益，但它们对使用者的表述却有所不同。“反对诺普兰”和“反对抗生育疫苗”派别将使用者视为国家主导的医疗体系权力的受害者，这种权力体现在技术之中。较为温和的激进派别则认为，不同环境下妇女的利益和需求各不相同，通过为妇女提供一系列避孕选择，让她们能够自由且明智地做出选择，才能最好地满足她们的需求。
