Suchergebnisse

Background: In 2005, Ethiopia changed its abortion law to curb its high maternal mortality. This has led to a considerable reduction in deaths from unsafe abortions. Abortion is now legal if the woman's pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, if her health is endangered, if the fetus has a serious deformity, if she suffers from a physical or mental deficiency, or if she is under 18 years of age. The word of the woman, if in compliance with the law, is sufficient to qualify for an abortion. In this context, where the law makes the door slightly open, health workers become important in deciding who gets access to safe services and who doesn't, thus creating considerable ethical dilemmas. Methods: The objective of this study was to explore abortion service providers' personal experiences and reflections, perceptions of the abortion law, and ethical and dilemmas that arise. Data collection took place from March to May 2016 in Addis Ababa, at different health clinics providing abortion services. Thirty in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 41 abortion service providers at governmental and non-governmental clinics. Content analysis was drawn upon in the interpretation of the findings. Results: When working in a context where the law has slightly opened the door for abortion seeking women, the health workers describe conflicting concerns, burdensome responsibilities, and ambiguity concerning how to interpret and implement the law. They describe efforts to balance their religious faith and values against their professional obligations and concern for women's health and well-being. This negotiation is particularly evident in the care of women who fall outside the law's indications. They usually handle ethical dilemmas and decision-making alone without guidance. Moreover, many health workers face a stigma from fellow colleagues not performing abortions and therefore keep their job a secret from family and friends. Conclusions: Health workers in Ethiopia experience ethical dilemmas trying to maneuver between the abortion law, their personal values, and their genuine concern for the health of women. More research is needed to further explore this. ; publishedVersion

As countries throughout the world move towards universal health coverage, the obligation to realise the right to health for undocumented migrants has often been overlooked. With unprecedented millions on the move – including refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, and returnees – undocumented migrants represent a uniquely vulnerable subgroup, experiencing particular barriers to health related to their background as well as insecure living and working conditions. Their legal status under national law often restricts access to, and affordability of, healthcare services. While striving to ensure health for all, national governments face challenging priority setting dilemmas in deciding: who to include, which services to provide, and how to cover out-of-pocket expenses. Building on comparative experiences in Norway, Thailand and the United States – which reflect varied approaches to achieving universal health coverage – we assess whether these national approaches provide rights-based access to affordable essential healthcare services for undocumented migrants. To meet the shared Sustainable Development Goal on universal health coverage, the right to health must be realised for all persons – including undocumented migrants. To ensure universal health coverage in accordance with the right to health, governments must evaluate laws, regulations, policies and practices to evaluate: whether undocumented migrants are included, to which services they have access, and if these services are affordable. Achieving universal health coverage for everyone will require rights-based support for undocumented migrants.

Migration health is affected by decision making at levels ranging from global to local, both within and beyond the health sector. These decisions impact seeking, entitlements, service delivery, policy making and knowledge production on migration health. It is key that ethical challenges faced by decision makers are recognised and addressed in research and data, clinical practice and policy making on migration health. An ethical approach can provide methods to identify ethical issues, frameworks for systematising information and suggesting ethically acceptable solutions, and guidance on procedural concerns and legitimate decision making processes. By unpacking dilemmas, conflicts of interests and values at stake, an ethical approach is relevant for all who make decisions about migration health policy and practice. Adopting an ethical approach to migration health benefits governments, organisations, policy makers, health workers, data managers, researchers and migrants themselves. First, it highlights the inherent normative questions and trade-offs at stake in migration health. Second, it assists decision makers in deciding what is the ethically justifiable thing to do through an 'all things considered' approach. Third, ethical frameworks and technical guidance set normative and practical standards for decision makers facing ethical questions – from 'bedside rationing' to collection of big data or in policy making – that can ensure that migrants' interests are considered. Fourth, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability in decision making, as well as meaningful participation of migrant groups. An ethical approach connects to public health, economic and human rights arguments and highlights the urgent need to mainstream concerns for migrants in global and national health responses.

Background: The fourth Millennium Development Goal calls for a two-thirds reduction in under-5 mortality between 1990 and 2015. Under-5 mortality rate is declining, but many countries are still far from achieving the goal. Effective child health interventions that could reduce child mortality exist, but national decision-makers lack contextual information for priority setting in their respective resource-constrained settings. We estimate the potential health impact of increasing coverage of 14 selected health interventions on child mortality in Ethiopia (2011–2015). We also explore the impact on life expectancy and inequality in the age of death (Ginihealth). Methods and Findings: We used the Lives Saved Tool to estimate potential impact of scaling-up 14 health interventions in Ethiopia (2011–2015). Interventions are scaled-up to 1) government target levels, 2) 90% coverage and 3) 90% coverage of the five interventions with the highest impact. Under-5 mortality rate, neonatal mortality rate and deaths averted are primary outcome measures. We used modified life tables to estimate impact on life expectancy at birth and inequality in the age of death (Ginihealth). Under-5 mortality rate declines from 101.0 in 2011 to 68.8, 42.1 and 56.7 per 1000 live births under these three scenarios. Prioritizing child health would also increase life expectancy at birth from expected 60.5 years in 2015 to 62.5, 64.2 and 63.4 years and reduce inequality in age of death (Ginihealth) substantially from 0.24 to 0.21, 0.18 and 0.19. Conclusions: The Millennium Development Goal for child health is reachable in Ethiopia. Prioritizing child health would also increase total life expectancy at birth and reduce inequality in age of death substantially (Ginihealth). ; publishedVersion