Gender, maternal health and the perinatal paradox
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19921Keywords:
gender, sexual and reproductive health, evidence-based care, SUS, maternal health, humanizationAbstract
In the last 20 years there was an improvement in access to services and in almost all maternal health indicators in Brazil. Paradoxically, there is no evidence of improvement in maternal mortality. This paper aims to help to understand this paradox, by analyzing the typical models of care in childbirth in public (SUS) and private sectors; the proposals for change based on evidence and on women's rights; and the conflicts of interest and resistance to change. We review the gender biases in research and in programming, especially the overestimation of the benefits of technology, and the underestimation, or the denial, of adverse effects and discomforts of interventions. Beliefs based in sexual culture are often accepted as 'scientific' explanations of the body, sexuality and the birth physiology, and are reflected in the imposition of unnecessary risk and suffering, in practices that are harmful for genital integrity, and in the denial of the right to companions in delivery. This 'pessimization of birth' is instrumental to promote, comparatively, the model of routine section. Finally we describe how the use of gender as analytical category can contribute to promote rights and cultural changes, as in the case of companions in childbirth.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Downloads
Published
2009-08-01
Issue
Section
Original Research
License
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL PUBLISHERS
Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:
- Follow this code, and encourage the editors they work with to follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Edi- tors (http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf)
- Ensure the editors and journals they work with are aware of what their membership of COPE provides and en- tails
- Provide reasonable practical support to editors so that they can follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/New_Code.pdf_)
Publishers should:
- Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
- Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
- Protect intellectual property and copyright
- Foster editorial independence
Publishers should work with journal editors to:
- Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:
– Editorial independence
– Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research
– Authorship
– Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards
– Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor
– Appeals and complaints
- Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
- Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
- Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
- Maintain the integrity of the academic record
- Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
- Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
- Publish content on a timely basis