Institutional objection to abortion care in Australia: Exploring the perspectives and experiences of key interest-holders

IF 2.5 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
SSM. Qualitative research in health Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-19 DOI:10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100685
Casey M. Haining , Bronwen Merner , Lindy Willmott , Louise A. Keogh , Julian Savulescu
{"title":"Institutional objection to abortion care in Australia: Exploring the perspectives and experiences of key interest-holders","authors":"Casey M. Haining ,&nbsp;Bronwen Merner ,&nbsp;Lindy Willmott ,&nbsp;Louise A. Keogh ,&nbsp;Julian Savulescu","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Each Australian jurisdiction has decriminalised abortion. Despite this, abortion-seekers face multiple barriers to access, among them is encountering objection by individual health practitioners (conscientious objection) or institutions (institutional objection). This article reports on a qualitative interview study that examined 41 key interest-holders’ perspectives and experiences of institutional objection to abortion. Framework analysis resulted in the generation of four themes: (1) institutional variation in different aspects of abortion care; (2) impacts of institutional objection affected multiple interest-holders; (3) attitudes towards accommodating institutional objection; and (4) suggestions for reimagining institutional objection regulation. Our findings suggest that institutional objection manifests in different ways across settings and results in harm to both patients and health practitioners. Consequently, current approaches to regulating institutional objection should be revisited. Such approaches should consider minimum levels of transparency, information provision, and explore other opportunities for service provision and de-stigmatisation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100685"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321525001635","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Each Australian jurisdiction has decriminalised abortion. Despite this, abortion-seekers face multiple barriers to access, among them is encountering objection by individual health practitioners (conscientious objection) or institutions (institutional objection). This article reports on a qualitative interview study that examined 41 key interest-holders’ perspectives and experiences of institutional objection to abortion. Framework analysis resulted in the generation of four themes: (1) institutional variation in different aspects of abortion care; (2) impacts of institutional objection affected multiple interest-holders; (3) attitudes towards accommodating institutional objection; and (4) suggestions for reimagining institutional objection regulation. Our findings suggest that institutional objection manifests in different ways across settings and results in harm to both patients and health practitioners. Consequently, current approaches to regulating institutional objection should be revisited. Such approaches should consider minimum levels of transparency, information provision, and explore other opportunities for service provision and de-stigmatisation.
制度反对堕胎护理在澳大利亚:探索的观点和经验的关键利益相关者
澳大利亚的每个司法管辖区都将堕胎合法化。尽管如此,寻求堕胎的人在获得堕胎服务方面面临多重障碍,其中之一是遇到保健从业人员个人(出于良心反对)或机构(机构反对)的反对。本文报告了一项定性访谈研究,研究了41个关键利益相关者的观点和制度反对堕胎的经验。框架分析产生了四个主题:(1)堕胎护理不同方面的制度差异;(2)制度反对的影响影响了多个利益相关者;(3)对容纳制度异议的态度;(4)重构机构异议监管的建议。我们的研究结果表明,制度上的反对在不同的环境中以不同的方式表现出来,并对患者和卫生从业人员造成伤害。因此,应该重新审视目前管制机构反对的方法。这种方法应考虑最低限度的透明度、信息提供,并探索提供服务和消除污名化的其他机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书