Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘unsafe abortion’

On Sunday, the New York Times ran an Op-Ed by Nicholas Kristof about the use of Misoprostol for medical abortion. In his column, Another Pill That Could Cause a Revolution, Nick explains that Misoprostol is a safe and cheap method for ending a pregnancy. It is also difficult to regulate because the drug was originally intended to prevent stomach ulcers–and is also used to treat postpartum hemorrhage.

Excerpt from the column:

“Could the decades-long global impasse over abortion worldwide be overcome — by little white pills costing less than $1 each?

That seems possible, for these pills are beginning to revolutionize abortion around the world, especially in poor countries. One result may be tens of thousands of women’s lives saved each year.

Five-sixths of abortions take place in developing countries, where poor sterilization and training often make the procedure dangerous. Up to 70,000 women die a year from complications of abortions, according to the World Health Organization.

But researchers are finding an alternative that is safe, cheap and very difficult for governments to restrict — misoprostol, a medication originally intended to prevent stomach ulcers…”

Read the full story here.

Click here to learn about a recent initiative organized by Gynuity Health Projects to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of sublingual misoprostol to treat postpartum hemorrhage.

Read Full Post »

An editorial published in the Globe and Mail on Monday calls on Canadians to “abandon posturing over funding abortion overseas,” and turn to a new focus for their plans to improve maternal health abroad: a new facility focused entirely on maternal and child health at the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The idea is that this model would allow recipients of funds to decide on the interventions that work in their particular countries, in their specific social contexts.

The Globe and Mail

“…The recent political debate on maternal mortality has focused on unsafe abortions, but this is a distraction. Unsafe abortions do account for some of these pregnancy-related deaths and the reality of abortion services in Africa is a horror. But given that abortion is highly restricted for 90 per cent of Africans, and wholly illegal in 14 countries, the G8 would accomplish little by focusing on the issue. The bigger task – and one where the G8 can actually make a difference – is empowering women to have more control over their sexual lives, by increasing access to family planning and ensuring that pregnant women have access to care when they are ready to deliver…”

Read the full editorial, When it comes to maternal health, let Africans decide.

Be sure to take a look at the comments section of the editorial.

For more coverage of the G8/G20 in the Globe and Mail, click here.

Read Full Post »

On April 13th 2010, the New York Times published an article,  Maternal Deaths Decline Sharply Across the Globe, about the recent findings published in the Lancet that suggest a dramatic reduction in global maternal mortality. Since then, the paper has published a series of Letters to the Editor. These letters come  from leaders of organizations working on reproductive and maternal health and from health professionals working on maternal health on the ground in countries where maternal mortality continues to be a major problem.

The New York Times

A variety of opinions and sentiments are expressed in these letters that certainly add depth to the initial story published in the Times. Two themes pound through the letters: a new sense of hope that improvements in maternal health are possible and a sense of urgency that this battle has not yet been won–that now, more than ever, is the time for the maternal health community to stick together (despite squabbles among advocates over whether or not the Lancet should have published the paper when they did) and engage in concerted efforts (that include emergency obstetric care, HIV services, and expanded access to family planning) to achieve MDG5.

A careful look at these letters will stimulate a much more robust understanding of the myriad of factors contibuting to global maternal mortality—as well as the potential implications of the findings of the Lancet paper and necessary next steps towards achieving MDG5.

Some authors express cautious excitment that investments are (or might be depending on the author) paying off while simultaneously declaring that it is not yet time to celebrate; far too many women are still dying of pregnancy-related causes!  Joanne Jorissen Chiwaula, director of the African Mothers Health Initiative describes her frustration with Chris Murray (one of the authors of the Lancet paper) for downplaying the importance of emergency obstetric care services in favor of playing up the importance of HIV services, when a comprehensive approach is really what is needed. Mary Robinson, president of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, calls attention to the relationship between maternal health and discimination against women, lack of reproductive choices for women, child marriage, sexual violence, unsafe abortions and inability to own property. She emphasizes the importance of considering maternal health in the context of human rights—and also points out the need to focus on strengthening entire health systems. 

Take a look at a group of Letters to the Editor published on April 18th, and more on April 19th.

For readers comments on the initial story in the Times, click here.

And for Nicholas Kristof’s take on the new maternal mortality estimates, click here.

Read Full Post »