Trans health and the risks of inappropriate curiosity

BMJ, September 9, 2019

Care providers need to be aware of the damage of inappropriate curiosity when working with people who are transgender, say Adam Shepherd, Benjamin Hanckel, and Andy Guise.

Encountering inappropriate curiosity is a common experience among people who identify as LGBT. This kind of behaviour shouldn’t happen in a healthcare facility, yet recent reports from Stonewall and the government’s Equalities Office confirm that this is a problem in healthcare and that it particularly affects people who are transgender.

What do we mean when we say that a healthcare provider is showing “inappropriate curiosity?” Researchers provided insight into what this is in a study where they describe trans participants being asked intrusive questions about their personal lives and being subjected to invasive physical examinations. Participants felt that these were irrelevant to why they had sought out medical care, and that their only purpose was to satisfy the personal interest of the healthcare practitioner. Imagine, for example, going to your GP for a chronic cough and being asked what genitals you have, or going for a foot X-ray and the radiographer making comments about your breasts.

Blueprint for Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice

Asia Pacific Alliance for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, Bangkok: July 2019

The resource “Blueprint for  Sexual and Reproductive  Health, Rights, and Justice” has just been released by Asia Pacific Alliance for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, and endorsed by multiple international organisations. 

While it focuses on US policy environ, it is more broadly applicable: in particular the focus on sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice – as well as the intersections with numerous other issues such as  gender equity, racial equity, economic justice, environmental justice, the right to community safety, immigrants’ rights, indigenous people’s rights, LGBTQ+ liberation, young people’s rights, and the rights of people with disabilities.

Because sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice intersect with numerous other issues, policy solutions must also seek to further gender equity, racial equity, economic justice, environmental justice, the right to community safety, immigrants’
rights, indigenous people’s rights, LGBTQ+ liberation, young people’s rights, and the rights of people with disabilities.

  • Principle 1: Ensure that Sexual and Reproductive Health Care is Accessible to All People
  • Principle 2: Ensure Discriminatory Barriers in Health Care are Eliminated
  • Principle 3: Ensure that Research and Innovation Advance Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice Now and in the Future
  • Principle 4: Ensure Health, Rights, Justice, and Wellness for All Communities
  • Principle 5: Ensure Judges and Executive Officials Advance Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice

Sexual and reproductive health, rights and justice are essential for sustainable economic development, are intrinsically linked to equity and well-being, and are
critical to maternal, newborn, child, adolescent, family, and community health.
Health care cannot truly be comprehensive if it does not include sexual and reproductive health

Adelaide abortion clinic calls for safe access from protesters

InDaily,  31/5/19

Staff at an Adelaide abortion clinic have called for safe access zone laws due to pro-life supporters they claim stand near the centre, holding placards and photographing and filming people entering and leaving.

Unlike New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and Victoria, South Australia has no safe access zone laws that restrict protests and other activities outside abortion clinics.

 

Disrupting gender norms in health systems: making the case for change

The Lancet, Gender Equality, Norms, and Health Steering Committee, Published May 30, 2019

Summary

Restrictive gender norms and gender inequalities are replicated and reinforced in health systems, contributing to gender inequalities in health.
In this Series paper, we explore how to address all three through recognition and then with disruptive solutions.
We used intersectional feminist theory to guide our systematic reviews, qualitative case studies based on lived experiences, and quantitative analyses based on cross-sectional and evaluation research.
We found that health systems reinforce patients’ traditional gender roles and neglect gender inequalities in health, health system models and clinic-based programmes are rarely gender responsive, and women have less authority as health workers than men and are often devalued and abused.
With regard to potential for disruption, we found that gender equality policies are associated with greater representation of female physicians, which in turn is associated with better health outcomes, but that gender parity is insufficient to achieve gender equality. We found that institutional support and respect of nurses improves quality of care, and that women’s empowerment collectives can increase health-care access and provider responsiveness.
We see promise from social movements in supporting women’s reproductive rights and policies. Our findings suggest we must view gender as a fundamental factor that predetermines and shapes health systems and outcomes. Without addressing the role of restrictive gender norms and gender inequalities within and outside health systems, we will not reach our collective ambitions of universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals. We propose action to systematically identify and address restrictive gender norms and gender inequalities in health systems.

SHINE SA and FPAA condemn Alabama law to ban abortions (media release)

On 17 May 2019, Family Planning Alliance Australia (FPAA) released a statement condemning a new law in Alabama which makes abortion a crime in almost all cases. This is the most restrictive abortion law in the United States and follows a wave of anti-abortion laws in 2019¹.

FPAA state:

“The restrictive and extreme abortion ban violates women’s reproductive rights and penalises health care practitioners for providing basic health care. As an organisation committed to empowering reproductive choice and improving access to health care, we find this law disturbing and unjust.”

Natasha Miliotis, SHINE SA’s Chief Executive Officer said that:

“SHINE SA supports the FPAA statement and recognises that access to safe abortion services reduces the mortality and morbidity that occurs as a result of dangerous and illegal abortion. This is evidenced by a higher frequency of abortion-related deaths in countries with restrictive abortion laws than in countries with less restrictive laws².

SHINE SA, a member of FPAA, advocates for reproductive freedom and for provision of legal, safe, affordable and accessible abortion in Australia and worldwide. We recognise that trans, gender diverse and intersex people may also need access to abortion, but also that measures such as this disproportionately affect women.

SHINE SA believes that both medical and surgical abortion are safe and effective health interventions and that abortion is a private medical decision that should not be politicised.”

To read the FPAA statement visit this link. For further information contact Tracey Hutt, Director Workforce Education and Development via email. 

 

¹ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/17/we-have-to-fight-alabamas-extreme-abortion-ban-sparks-wave-of-activism

² https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26677181_Unsafe_Abortion_Unnecessary_Maternal_Mortality

It’s time to lift the restrictions on medical abortion in Australia – Professor Caroline de Costa

The Conversation, April 1, 2019 6.13am AEDT

Over the past thirteen years, many Australian women have used the drug mifepristone (RU486) to bring about a medical abortion.

Rather than undergoing a surgical abortion in a clinic or hospital operating theatre, a medical abortion is induced by taking drugs prescribed by a doctor.

But while mifepristone has been available in Australia since 2006, only some women, in some parts of the country, are able to access it. Professor Caroline de Costa argues in the Medical Journal of Australia that this needs to change.