远程生殖权利。

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW
Rachel Rebouché
{"title":"远程生殖权利。","authors":"Rachel Rebouché","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In July 2020, a federal district court lifted the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) restriction requiring patients to pick up the first drug of a medication abortion—mifepristone—at a healthcare facility. Soon after, an ongoing experiment with remote care for abortion expanded, as telemedicine did in other areas, and virtual clinics began offering no-touch abortions. Growth of virtual care stalled in January 2021 when the Supreme Court stayed a district court’s order pending the appeals process. But in April 2022, persuaded by the evidence of remote abortion’s safety and efficacy, the FDA suspended enforcement of the in-person rule for the course of the pandemic. On December 16, 2021, the FDA lifted the requirement that patients pick up mifepristone at a healthcare facility, clearing the way for supervised mail delivery and pharmacy dispensation. The expansion of virtual clinics, however, is not without significant limitations. First, questions remain about how to implement the new FDA regulation, specifically regarding certified pharmacies, and several FDA restrictions on mifepristone remain in place. Second, about half the country prohibits telehealth for abortion by either banning all abortion or by requiring the physical presence of a healthcare professional. Third, participation in telemedicine depends on various forms of privilege. Patients must have a stable internet connection or smartphone as well as an uncomplicated pregnancy, which, in part because of U.S. health disparities, is more likely for wealthier and white people. Even with the expansion of remote care, the need for clinical spaces will not disappear; in fact, it will come under increasing pressure. This Article maps the emergence of virtual abortion care and analyzes the potential trajectory of medication abortion access, given that the Supreme Court has overturned constitutional protections for abortion. It considers the limits of telehealth for abortion—who telehealth can reach and who it cannot. Those living in states that permit abortion will have new options for ending early pregnancies. Those residing in states hostile to abortion will have to seek cross-border care, carry pregnancies to term, or find other avenues to end pregnancies. But the portability of abortion pills, when mailed by prescribers or dispensed by certified pharmacies, will test how closely states officials (or anyone else) can police or impede access to medication abortion.","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 2-3","pages":"244-255"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remote Reproductive Rights.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Rebouché\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/amj.2022.29\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In July 2020, a federal district court lifted the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) restriction requiring patients to pick up the first drug of a medication abortion—mifepristone—at a healthcare facility. Soon after, an ongoing experiment with remote care for abortion expanded, as telemedicine did in other areas, and virtual clinics began offering no-touch abortions. Growth of virtual care stalled in January 2021 when the Supreme Court stayed a district court’s order pending the appeals process. But in April 2022, persuaded by the evidence of remote abortion’s safety and efficacy, the FDA suspended enforcement of the in-person rule for the course of the pandemic. On December 16, 2021, the FDA lifted the requirement that patients pick up mifepristone at a healthcare facility, clearing the way for supervised mail delivery and pharmacy dispensation. The expansion of virtual clinics, however, is not without significant limitations. First, questions remain about how to implement the new FDA regulation, specifically regarding certified pharmacies, and several FDA restrictions on mifepristone remain in place. Second, about half the country prohibits telehealth for abortion by either banning all abortion or by requiring the physical presence of a healthcare professional. Third, participation in telemedicine depends on various forms of privilege. Patients must have a stable internet connection or smartphone as well as an uncomplicated pregnancy, which, in part because of U.S. health disparities, is more likely for wealthier and white people. Even with the expansion of remote care, the need for clinical spaces will not disappear; in fact, it will come under increasing pressure. This Article maps the emergence of virtual abortion care and analyzes the potential trajectory of medication abortion access, given that the Supreme Court has overturned constitutional protections for abortion. It considers the limits of telehealth for abortion—who telehealth can reach and who it cannot. Those living in states that permit abortion will have new options for ending early pregnancies. Those residing in states hostile to abortion will have to seek cross-border care, carry pregnancies to term, or find other avenues to end pregnancies. But the portability of abortion pills, when mailed by prescribers or dispensed by certified pharmacies, will test how closely states officials (or anyone else) can police or impede access to medication abortion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Law & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"48 2-3\",\"pages\":\"244-255\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Law & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.29\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.29","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2020年7月,一家联邦地区法院取消了美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)的限制,该限制要求患者在医疗机构购买流产药物的第一种药物——米非司酮。不久之后,就像远程医疗在其他领域所做的那样,一项正在进行的堕胎远程护理实验扩大了,虚拟诊所开始提供无接触堕胎服务。2021年1月,最高法院暂缓了地区法院的命令,等待上诉程序,虚拟医疗的增长陷入停滞。但在2022年4月,在远程堕胎安全性和有效性的证据说服下,FDA暂停了在大流行期间实施面对面规则的执行。2021年12月16日,FDA取消了患者在医疗机构领取米非司酮的要求,为监督邮件递送和药房分配扫清了道路。然而,虚拟诊所的扩张并非没有明显的限制。首先,关于如何实施FDA新规定的问题仍然存在,特别是关于经过认证的药店,FDA对米非司酮的一些限制仍然存在。其次,大约一半的国家禁止远程堕胎,要么禁止所有堕胎,要么要求医疗保健专业人员亲自到场。第三,参与远程医疗取决于各种形式的特权。患者必须有稳定的互联网连接或智能手机,并且怀孕过程简单,这在一定程度上是因为美国的健康差距,更有可能出现在富裕和白人身上。即使随着远程医疗的扩大,对临床空间的需求也不会消失;事实上,它将面临越来越大的压力。鉴于最高法院推翻了宪法对堕胎的保护,本文描绘了虚拟堕胎护理的出现,并分析了药物堕胎获得的潜在轨迹。它考虑了远程医疗对堕胎的限制——远程医疗可以接触到谁,不能接触到谁。那些生活在允许堕胎州的人将有新的选择来终止早孕。那些居住在反对堕胎的州的人将不得不寻求跨境护理,将怀孕进行到足月,或寻找其他途径终止怀孕。但是,堕胎药的可携带性,无论是由处方医生邮寄还是由认证药房配发,都将考验州政府官员(或其他任何人)能在多大程度上监督或阻止药物流产。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Remote Reproductive Rights.
Abstract In July 2020, a federal district court lifted the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) restriction requiring patients to pick up the first drug of a medication abortion—mifepristone—at a healthcare facility. Soon after, an ongoing experiment with remote care for abortion expanded, as telemedicine did in other areas, and virtual clinics began offering no-touch abortions. Growth of virtual care stalled in January 2021 when the Supreme Court stayed a district court’s order pending the appeals process. But in April 2022, persuaded by the evidence of remote abortion’s safety and efficacy, the FDA suspended enforcement of the in-person rule for the course of the pandemic. On December 16, 2021, the FDA lifted the requirement that patients pick up mifepristone at a healthcare facility, clearing the way for supervised mail delivery and pharmacy dispensation. The expansion of virtual clinics, however, is not without significant limitations. First, questions remain about how to implement the new FDA regulation, specifically regarding certified pharmacies, and several FDA restrictions on mifepristone remain in place. Second, about half the country prohibits telehealth for abortion by either banning all abortion or by requiring the physical presence of a healthcare professional. Third, participation in telemedicine depends on various forms of privilege. Patients must have a stable internet connection or smartphone as well as an uncomplicated pregnancy, which, in part because of U.S. health disparities, is more likely for wealthier and white people. Even with the expansion of remote care, the need for clinical spaces will not disappear; in fact, it will come under increasing pressure. This Article maps the emergence of virtual abortion care and analyzes the potential trajectory of medication abortion access, given that the Supreme Court has overturned constitutional protections for abortion. It considers the limits of telehealth for abortion—who telehealth can reach and who it cannot. Those living in states that permit abortion will have new options for ending early pregnancies. Those residing in states hostile to abortion will have to seek cross-border care, carry pregnancies to term, or find other avenues to end pregnancies. But the portability of abortion pills, when mailed by prescribers or dispensed by certified pharmacies, will test how closely states officials (or anyone else) can police or impede access to medication abortion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信