The Role of Medicine in Protecting the Vulnerable: between Sexual Violence and Conscientious Objection - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2020;42(11):687-689
The reasons raised by the referral center in the southeastern region for not having an abortion were that they followed the Ministry of Health guidelines that allow humanized abortion up to twenty-two weeks of pregnancy and the fetus’ weight of up to five hundred grams. The law does not establish these limits. In this case, the fetus exceeded the estimated five hundred grams by thirty-seven grams. Because of this difference, the first referral center failed to comply with the court order. After all, is medicine an exact science? To what extent can a single argument like this be useful for medical decision making? Once abortion is permitted in specific cases, as provided by law, it is necessary to investigate if care centers accredited for this purpose are fulfilling their role.
In an article published in this issue of RBGO entitled “Conscientious objection to legal abortion in Minas Gerais State” the authors clearly revealed the imperfections of the program created by the National Health System (Brazilian SUS) to assist patients in carrying out abortions provided for by law and involving as complex situations as the case above. In the referred work, data were collected from institutions accredited by the Health Department of the state of Minas Gerais (SES/MG) to assist sexual violence victims in the state (87 institutions). According to the results presented, although the services were accredited for this purpose, 11% of them do not have doctors to provide legal abortion and 31% do not provide specific training for this type of care. About 83% of patients willing to have a legal abortion who sought these services did not have their request responded. Of the reasons alleged for not having an abortion, the main one was the religious conscientious objection on the part of doctors working at the institution (57%).
[…]
Search
Search in:
Search
Search in:
The reasons raised by the referral center in the southeastern region for not having an abortion were that they followed the Ministry of Health guidelines that allow humanized abortion up to twenty-two weeks of pregnancy and the fetus' weight of up to five hundred grams. The law does not establish these limits. In this case, the fetus exceeded the estimated five hundred grams by thirty-seven grams. Because of this difference, the first referral center failed to comply with the court order. After all, is medicine an exact science? To what extent can a single argument like this be useful for medical decision making? Once abortion is permitted in specific cases, as provided by law, it is necessary to investigate if care centers accredited for this purpose are fulfilling their role.
In an article published in this issue of RBGO entitled “Conscientious objection to legal abortion in Minas Gerais State” the authors clearly revealed the imperfections of the program created by the National Health System (Brazilian SUS) to assist patients in carrying out abortions provided for by law and involving as complex situations as the case above. In the referred work, data were collected from institutions accredited by the Health Department of the state of Minas Gerais (SES/MG) to assist sexual violence victims in the state (87 institutions). According to the results presented, although the services were accredited for this purpose, 11% of them do not have doctors to provide legal abortion and 31% do not provide specific training for this type of care. About 83% of patients willing to have a legal abortion who sought these services did not have their request responded. Of the reasons alleged for not having an abortion, the main one was the religious conscientious objection on the part of doctors working at the institution (57%).
[...]
Comments