Department of Anthropology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Anthropology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Public Health Res Pract. 2021 Sep 8;31(3):30342011. doi: 10.17061/phrp30342011.
Nine different sets of laws govern abortion in Australia, and the criteria for an abortion to be considered lawful varies considerably by jurisdiction. We explored how the criminal status of abortion affected patients' experiences in accessing care in a country where abortion services are widely available.
We conducted qualitative, in-depth interviews with 22 people who had an abortion in Australia since 2009 across a variety of legal contexts. We audio-recorded all interviews and transcribed them in their entirety. We carried out content and thematic analyses of the interviews using deductive and inductive techniques.
At the time of their procedures, more than half of our participants (n = 13) obtained their abortion in a state or territory that had criminal sanctions associated with procuring an abortion and required abortion seekers to meet strict legal requirements to access care. In general, participants reported confusion about the legal status of abortion. Participants who had an abortion in criminalised settings described significant negative emotional impacts that were directly linked to the law. They were often required to fit their abortion story into a state-mandated narrative. Further, the criminalisation of abortion meant that some participants felt they could not be honest with clinicians for fear of being denied care. The participants were overwhelmingly in support of decriminalisation of abortion and increased consistency of the legal status of the procedure across Australia.
The criminalisation of abortion in some Australian states negatively impacts patients' emotional wellbeing, undermines the patient-clinician relationship, and perpetuates abortion stigma. In the absence of legislative reform, training for clinicians - including abortion providers and general practitioners - to explain the implications of the legal status to their patients appears warranted. Patient-centred resources, such as a website with state-specific information, could fill an important knowledge gap for the public.
在澳大利亚，有九套不同的法律来规范堕胎，而堕胎被视为合法的标准在司法管辖区之间有很大的差异。我们探讨了在一个堕胎服务广泛可及的国家，堕胎的刑事地位如何影响患者获得护理的体验。
我们对 2009 年以来在澳大利亚进行过堕胎的 22 人进行了定性、深入的访谈，这些人来自不同的法律背景。我们对所有访谈进行了录音，并完整地转录了访谈内容。我们采用演绎和归纳技术对访谈进行了内容和主题分析。
在进行手术时，我们的参与者中有一半以上（n=13）在一个有堕胎罪的州或地区获得了堕胎，这些州或地区与寻求堕胎的人必须满足严格的法律要求才能获得护理有关。一般来说，参与者报告对堕胎的法律地位感到困惑。在刑事化环境中进行堕胎的参与者描述了直接与法律相关的重大负面情绪影响。他们通常需要将自己的堕胎故事纳入州规定的叙述中。此外，堕胎的刑事化意味着一些参与者担心被拒绝护理而不敢对临床医生说实话。参与者强烈支持堕胎非刑事化，并增加澳大利亚各地堕胎程序法律地位的一致性。
在一些澳大利亚州，堕胎的刑事化对患者的情感健康产生负面影响，破坏了医患关系，并延续了堕胎污名。在没有立法改革的情况下，向临床医生（包括堕胎提供者和全科医生）提供培训，以向患者解释法律地位的影响似乎是必要的。以患者为中心的资源，如带有州特定信息的网站，可以填补公众的一个重要知识空白。
