This preprint is under consideration at BMC Medical Ethics. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Demelash Bezabih Ewnetu
St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Ethiopia’s 2005 abortion law improved access to legal abortion. In this study we examine the experiences of abortion providers with the revised abortion law, including how they view and resolve perceived moral challenges.
Methods: Thirty healthcare professionals involved in abortion provision in Addis Ababa were interviewed. Transcripts were analyzed using systematic text condensation, a qualitative analysis framework.
Results: Most participants considered the 2005 abortion law a clear improvement – yet it does not solve all problems and has led to new dilemmas. As a main finding, the law appears to have opened a large space for professionals’ individual interpretation and discretion concerning whether criteria for abortion are met.
Regarding abortion for fetal abnormalities, participants support the woman’s authority in deciding whether to choose abortion, and although several saw these decisions as moral dilemmas, all thought that abortion was a justified choice when a diagnosis of fetal abnormality had been made.
Conclusion: To make practice more predictable and uniform, more detailed official guidance on the law and how it should be interpreted is warranted.
Keywords
abortion, abortion law, ethical/moral challenges, ethical/moral dilemmas, fetal anomalies
No competing interests reported.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 03 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Review #2 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Review #4 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Review #3 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Review #6 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Review #5 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 02 Mar, 2021
Editor invited
On 02 Mar, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 02 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 15 Feb, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Medical Ethics
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Medical Ethics. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Demelash Bezabih Ewnetu
St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 03 Mar, 2021
No community comments so far
Review #2 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Review #4 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Review #3 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Review #6 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Review #5 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 03 Mar, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Mar, 2021
Editor assigned
On 02 Mar, 2021
Editor invited
On 02 Mar, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 02 Mar, 2021
First submitted
On 15 Feb, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Medical Ethics
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Ethiopia’s 2005 abortion law improved access to legal abortion. In this study we examine the experiences of abortion providers with the revised abortion law, including how they view and resolve perceived moral challenges.
Methods: Thirty healthcare professionals involved in abortion provision in Addis Ababa were interviewed. Transcripts were analyzed using systematic text condensation, a qualitative analysis framework.
Results: Most participants considered the 2005 abortion law a clear improvement – yet it does not solve all problems and has led to new dilemmas. As a main finding, the law appears to have opened a large space for professionals’ individual interpretation and discretion concerning whether criteria for abortion are met.
Regarding abortion for fetal abnormalities, participants support the woman’s authority in deciding whether to choose abortion, and although several saw these decisions as moral dilemmas, all thought that abortion was a justified choice when a diagnosis of fetal abnormality had been made.
Conclusion: To make practice more predictable and uniform, more detailed official guidance on the law and how it should be interpreted is warranted.
Loading...