:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:2012年人工流產修法爭議之分析
書刊名:臺灣公共衛生雜誌
作者:成令方
作者(外文):Cheng, Ling-fang
出版日期:2015
卷期:34:1
頁次:頁21-35
主題關鍵詞:人工流產強制輔導諮商強制思考期醫師同意權性別AbortionMandatory counselingMandatory waiting periodsConsent from doctorsGender
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:78
  • 點閱點閱:756
目標:2012年有四個人工流產修法版本交付立法院。其中楊麗環立委提案,提出「強制思考期6天」、「強制輔導諮商」,賴士葆立委提出「需經過二位醫師同意權」,均希冀降低墮胎率,提升生育率。政院版則主張「強制醫療諮詢」、「強制思考期3天」。吳宜蓁立委提出「醫療機構應提供人工流產資訊」、「各級地方政府應提供民眾生育健康諮詢」。故本文針對修法之爭辯論述進行分析。方法:本文採取三種研究法分析三類資料:(1)以論述分析分析國內外學術文獻、國際組織、政府統計數據與媒體新聞資料。(2)以描述性統計(descriptivestatistics)分析2007及2008年分別對婦女和婦產醫師進行「強制思考期」、「強制輔導諮商」之調查結果。(3)以文本分析方式分析婦女和醫師回答調查問卷中開放性的問題。結果:楊版與政院版提出的「強制思考期」,與實情不符。本研究調查,孕婦從知道非預期懷孕到決定人工流產,再到實際求醫都已經等待、思考超過一週甚至一個月。楊版與政院版提出的「強制輔導諮商」則是違反人權公約與諮商專業倫理。賴版的「二位醫師同意」,對婦女就醫造成困難,受到婦產科醫師的反對。結論:在2012年修法爭議中浮現二種論述,其中「嚴格管控論述」缺乏學術研究支持,與本研究提出的婦女與醫師的調查結果不符合,也不合乎心理諮商專業倫理原則。眾多研究也顯示「強制思考期」與墮胎率高低無顯著關連。「婦女中心論述」合乎婦女的實際現狀的需求,而本研究中婦產科醫師提出的「病患為中心」論述的倫理實踐,則可作為支持「婦女中心論述」的依據。至於有效降低墮胎率,政策制訂者應重視避孕措施的普及,改善經濟與社福大環境,促使婦女願意保留非預期懷孕之胎兒。
Objectives: Four revised versions of Taiwan's abortion legislation were proposed in 2012 and raised controversy. Legislators led by Li-huan Yang proposed a six-day 'mandatory waiting periods' coupled with 'mandatory counseling'. Legislators led by Shi-bao Lai proposed 'consent from two doctors'. Both of these aimed to reduce the abortion rate and increase the birth rate. The Administrative Yuan for its part proposed a 'mandatory waiting period' of three days plus 'mandatory counseling'. And finally, legislators led by Yi-chen Wu proposed that medical institutions should provide all kinds of information related to abortion', and that local government 'should provide birth counseling to citizens'. This paper aims at analyzing the controversy. Methods: Three methods are adopted. (1) Discourse analysis is applied on documents collected from legal and medical research papers, government data and news reports. (2) Descriptive statistics is applied on two surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008 on women and obgynecologists nationwide respectively. (3) Text analysis is applied to the written texts provided by women and ob-gynecologists on some open-ended questions in the survey. Results: The 'Mandatory waiting periods' as proposed by Yang and the Administrative Yuan is found to lack consideration of reality, as our survey shows that most women considering the terminating of an unplanned pregnancy have already been thinking much longer than the stipulated period, typically having already done this for periods ranging from over one week to a whole month. As regards 'mandatory counseling', this is found to be in violation of human rights and professional ethics. As to 'consent from two doctors', this is found to create difficulties for women, and is opposed by a majority of ob-gynecologists. Conclusions: Two types of discourse appear in the controversy, the 'restrictive and controlling discourse' receives little support from academic research, or in surveys of women and physicians, and also runs counter to the professional ethics of counseling. Many research findings have shown that 'Mandatory waiting periods' do not contribute to the reduction of the abortion rate. The 'women centered discourse' reflects the women's needs and practice on the matter, and the 'patient centered discourse' practiced by ob-gynecologists can give support to 'women centered discourse'. As for an effective reduction of abortion rate, the paper finds that policy makers would achieve greater success by promoting greater use of contraceptives, and improving economic and social welfare, thus enabling women to consider keeping unplanned fetuses.
期刊論文
1.官曉薇(20100300)。溝通行動與立法言談--臺灣人工流產法制之立法及修法歷程分析。中研院法學期刊,6,61-128。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.陳昭如(20140900)。打造墮胎權:解嚴前墮胎合法化的婦運法律動員與權利構框。中研院法學期刊,15,1-76。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.Fiala, Christian(2005)。Abortion in Europe: are the laws and practices patient centred?。Entre Nous,59,23-25。  new window
4.Steinberg, J. R.(2011)。Later abortions and mental health psychological experiences of women having later abortions-a critical review of research。Womens Health Issues,21(3 Suppl),S44-S48。  new window
5.Najman, Jake M.、Morrison, John、Williams, Gail M.、Andersen, Margaret J.、Keeping, J. Douglas(1991)。The mental health of women 6 months after they give birth to an unwanted baby: a longitudinal study。Social Science and Medicine,32(3),241-247。  new window
6.Ketting, E.、Visser, A. P.(1994)。Contraception The Netherlands: the low abortion rate explained。Patient Educ Couns,23,161-171。  new window
7.Sedgh, Gilda、Henshaw, Stanley、Singh, Susheela、Ahman, Elisabeth、Shah, Iqbal H.(2007)。Induced abortion: estimated rates and trends worldwide。Lancet,370,1338-1345。  new window
8.Gillespie, D.(2004)。Making abortion rare and safe。Lancet,363,74。  new window
9.Gillespie, D. G.(2004)。Whatever happened to family planning and, for that matter, reproductive health?。Int Fam Plan Perspect,30,34-38。  new window
10.Gostin, Lawrence O.(2007)。Abortion politics: clinical freedom, trust in the judiciary, and the autonomy of women。JAMA,298(13),1562-1564。  new window
11.李玉嬋(20110400)。從人工流產醫療決策難題反思醫病關係的影響力。應用倫理評論,50,91-105。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.林家興(19990100)。心理諮商師的專業倫理守則。應用倫理研究通訊,9,8-11。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.王皇玉(20081100)。墮胎罪同意問題之研究--兼評「生育保健法」草案關於人工流產相關規定。月旦法學,162,41-62。new window  延伸查詢new window
會議論文
1.成令方(2007)。墮胎法案爭議與女人的聲音。「家庭與工作:變遷現象與多元想像」研討會。高雄:台灣女性學學會。  延伸查詢new window
2.成令方(2010)。婦產科醫師處理人工流產的觀點。高雄:國立中山大學社會所。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.American Psychological Association(2008)。Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion。Washington DC:APA Public Interest Government Relations Office Mental Health and Abortion。  new window
2.Imamura, M.、Tucker, J.、Hannaford, P.(2006)。REPROSTAT 2: A systematic review of factors associated with teenage pregnancy in the European Union Final report。Aberdeen, UK:University of Aberdeen。  new window
3.邱文達(2012)。婦產科醫師荒原因及解決方案專案報告。台北:衛生福利部。  延伸查詢new window
4.張紉、林萬億、王永慈、內政部(2003)。世界各國社會工作專業制度之比較及國內社工人力需求、運用、困境因應之調查評估研究。台北:內政部:台灣社會工作專業人員協會。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Ferree, M. M.、Gamson, W. A.、Gerhards, J.、Rucht, D.(2002)。Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States。Cambridge University Press。  new window
2.衛生福利部國民健康署(2011)。第十次家庭與生育力調查報告。臺北市:衛生福利部國民健康署。  延伸查詢new window
3.WHO(2003)。Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems。Geneva:WHO。  new window
4.Cannold, L.(2000)。Abortion Myth: Feminism, Morality, and the Hard Choices Women Make。Middletown, CT:Wesleyan University Press。  new window
5.Silber, K.、Speedlin, P.(1998)。Dear, Birth mother。San Antonio, TX:Corona Publishing。  new window
6.衛生福利部國民健康署(2002)。台灣地區國民健康促進知識、態度與行為調查。台北市:衛生福利部國民健康署。  延伸查詢new window
7.劉仲冬(19980000)。女性醫療社會學。臺北:女書文化。new window  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.台灣婦產科醫學會,中華民國基層醫療協會,台北市醫師公會,新北市醫師公會。醫界對「優生保健法部分條文修正草案」之建議,http://www.drkao.com/3rd_site/3_2/0204.htm, 2014/05/01。  延伸查詢new window
2.林倖妃,蔡慧貞。抗議墮胎考慮期3天三女權領袖怒辭,http://gsrat.net/news/newsclipDetail.php?ncdata_id=6585, 2014/05/01。  延伸查詢new window
3.Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Netherlands。Q&A abortion in the Netherlands,http://www.minbuza.nl/binaries/content/assets/minbuza/en/import/en/you_and_the_netherlands/about_the_netherlands/ethical_issues/qa-abortus-en-2011.pdf., 2014/09/15。  new window
4.Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations。Abortion policies: a global review,http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/, 2014/09/24。  new window
5.Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations。World abortion policies 2013,http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/policy/world-abortion-policies-2013.shtml, 2014/09/15。  new window
6.Abortion statistics and other data,http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion, 2015/02/03。  new window
7.Center for Reproductive Rights。The World's Abortion Laws,http://worldabortionlaws.com/map/, 2015/02/03。  new window
8.婦女新知基金會(2006)。2006年度執行報告書,台北:婦女新知基金會。  延伸查詢new window
9.Guttmacher Institute。Facts on induced abortion worldwide,http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html., 2014/05/01。  new window
10.聯合國。消除對婦女一切形式歧視公約一般性建議,http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm, 2014/05/01。  延伸查詢new window
11.執登證照專區,http://www.atcp.org.tw/certificate, 2014/09/24。  new window
12.財團法人國家政策研究基金會。「多元觀點探討優生保健法修正案」座談會實錄,http://old.npf.org.tw/Symposium/s91/911231-IA.htm, 2014/09/24。  延伸查詢new window
13.The Department of Health。Abortion statistics, England and Wales: 2012,https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211790/2012_Abortion_Statistics.pdf., 2014/05/01。  new window
14.Abortion,http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx., 2014/05/01。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE