• Content analysis: a review of perceived barriers to sexual and reproductive health services by young people.

      Bender, Sóley S; Fulbright, Yvonne K; Univ Iceland, Fac Nursing, IS-101 Reykjavik, Iceland, Univ Hosp, Reykjavik, Iceland (Informa Healthcare, 2013-06)
      Barriers to youth sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services have not been researched extensively. The purpose of this content analysis was to explore barriers as perceived by young people.
    • Yes we can! Successful examples of disallowing 'conscientious objection' in reproductive health care.

      Fiala, Christian; Gemzell Danielsson, Kristina; Heikinheimo, Oskari; Guðmundsson, Jens A; Arthur, Joyce; [ 1 ] Gynmed Clin Abort & Family Planning, Mariahilfergurtel 37, A-1150 Vienna, Austria [ 2 ] Karolinska Inst, Karolinska Univ Hosp, Dept Womens & Childrens Hlth, Div Obstet & Gynaecol, Stockholm, Sweden [ 3 ] Univ Helsinki, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Helsinki, Finland [ 4 ] Univ Helsinki, Cent Hosp, Helsinki, Finland [ 5 ] Univ Iceland, Womens Clin, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Reykjavik, Iceland [ 6 ] Landspitali Univ Hosp, Reykjavik, Iceland   Organization-Enhanced Name(s)      Landspitali National University Hospital [ 7 ] Abort Rights Coalit Canada, Vancouver, BC, Canada (Taylor & Francis Ltd, 2016-06)
      Reproductive health care is the only field in medicine where health care professionals (HCPs) are allowed to limit a patient's access to a legal medical treatment - usually abortion or contraception - by citing their 'freedom of conscience.' However, the authors' position is that 'conscientious objection' ('CO') in reproductive health care should be called dishonourable disobedience because it violates medical ethics and the right to lawful health care, and should therefore be disallowed. Three countries - Sweden, Finland, and Iceland - do not generally permit HCPs in the public health care system to refuse to perform a legal medical service for reasons of 'CO' when the service is part of their professional duties. The purpose of investigating the laws and experiences of these countries was to show that disallowing 'CO' is workable and beneficial. It facilitates good access to reproductive health services because it reduces barriers and delays. Other benefits include the prioritisation of evidence-based medicine, rational arguments, and democratic laws over faith-based refusals. Most notably, disallowing 'CO' protects women's basic human rights, avoiding both discrimination and harms to health. Finally, holding HCPs accountable for their professional obligations to patients does not result in negative impacts. Almost all HCPs and medical students in Sweden, Finland, and Iceland who object to abortion or contraception are able to find work in another field of medicine. The key to successfully disallowing 'CO' is a country's strong prior acceptance of women's civil rights, including their right to health care.