Abortion: the counseling model
Half-way between liberalization and the authorizations system
Abstract
Introduction: The present contribution suggests breaking the abortion related dichotomy between the term solution system (free decision of the pregnant woman within a term set by the law - which is usually until 12 weeks of gestational age) and the prescribed or authorizations system or model (which provides for causes that allow for the voluntary interruption of pregnancy). Currently, the above mentioned dichotomy fails to justify or support a legal system that legalizes the voluntary interruption of pregnancy and for that reason we need to construct the point half-way between the two opposite ends. This point aims to reconcile the interest of the pregnant woman and the interest of the embryo in developing as a potential human life. Without prejudice of its general approach, the present analysis lies within the context of proposals for the legalization of abortion, currently under consideration of the Uruguayan Congress.
Objective: We aim to demonstrate that legalization of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy is not a matter of pregnant women's human rights or the embryo's right to life. Moreover, the debate regarding the embryo's legal status just results in difficulties to achieve a solution.
Polarization of the abortion debate can only be overcome by a pragmatic based reasoning. Therefore, one cannot refer to the problem of abortion without bearing in mind that the woman is the last person to make a decision on the embryos' fate, and therefore all efforts by the State to protect the embryo are sterile without her involvement. The reason for this is that abortion implies such a single and unified phenomenon between the embryo's interest and the interest of the pregnant woman's life plan that turns any legal prohibition into a mere symbolic entity.
Conclusions: If the approach to the voluntary interruption of pregnancy can only be achieved by appealing to the mother's responsibility as a pragmatic acknowledgement rather that in connection to her human rights, the legalization of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy is only possible within the framework of a counseling model. Furthermore, legal abortion needs to obligatorily observe the provisions of Regulation 369 of the Ministry of Public Health and Law N° 18.426 of Sexual and Reproductive Rights. This is the only way to construct pathways to provide information on alternatives to the voluntary interruption of pregnancy and for pregnant women to make a decision based on information. To that end, the voluntary interruption of pregnancy is not the mere solution to an unwanted situation or even a therapeutic resolution, but rather the process of acknowledging the pregnant woman's decision within the framework of comprehensive counseling.
References
(2) Rodríguez Almada H, Rodríguez F, Berro Rovira G. Aborto por indicación médico-legal: pautas para su práctica institucional en Uruguay (2009). Rev Méd Urug 2009; 25(4): 230-8.
(3) Esser A. En busca del camino intermedio: entre fundamentalismo y arbitrariedad. La justicia uruguaya 2005; 132: 104.
(4) La Máster en Bioética Firmenich expuso sobre despenalización del aborto. Disponible en: http://noticias.fb.uner.edu.ar/ noticias/la-m%C3%A1ster-en-bio% C3%A9tica-firmenich- expuso-sobre-despenalizaci%C3%B3n-del-aborto. Consulta: 6 marzo 2012.
(5) Briozzo L,comp. Aborto en condiciones de riesgo en Uruguay: Iniciativas Sanitarias contra el aborto provocado en condiciones de riesgo (ISCAPCR). La experiencia del modelo de reducción de daños en aborto inseguro. Montevideo: Dedos, 2008.
(6) Adriasola G. Secreto médico, encubrimiento y omisión de denuncia. 2 ed. Montevideo: Carlos Álvarez, 2011: 211-40.
(7) Nacional Abortion Federation. Las mujeres adolescentes, el aborto y la ley. Disponible en: http://www.prochoice.org/es/datos/adolescentes.html. Consulta: 8 abril 2011.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.