IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v46y1998i10p1313-1323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Abortion, revised: participants in the U.S. clinical trials evaluate mifepristone

Author

Listed:
  • Simonds, Wendy
  • Ellertson, Charlotte
  • Springer, Kimberly
  • Winikoff, Beverly

Abstract

This paper centers on the questions: How do non-surgical abortion methods affect private experiences of abortion? How might they influence public conceptions of abortion? Drawing on interviews with clients who participated in the 1994-95 U.S. clinical trials of mifepristone at one trial site (conducted during the trials), and focus group interviews conducted with health care workers at all 17 trial sites (after the trials were completed), we examine participants' evaluations of this method of abortion. Surgical abortion functioned as the reference point by which research participants assessed medical abortion. They discussed mifepristone abortion in terms of nature and invasion, privacy and bodily integrity, denial and agency. Clients frequently portrayed mifepristone abortion as a better moral choice than surgical abortion--in some cases even depicting it as not-really-an-abortion but rather as a miscarriage. Clients felt that mifepristone offered them a greater measure of control over their abortion experiences. Health care providers offered critical analysis of their clients' perceptions, yet affirmed the potential of medical abortion to offer women greater variety and latitude in procreative decision-making, and perhaps even to depoliticize the issue of abortion in the U.S. by thwarting the efforts of anti-abortionists to target providers and aborting women.

Suggested Citation

  • Simonds, Wendy & Ellertson, Charlotte & Springer, Kimberly & Winikoff, Beverly, 1998. "Abortion, revised: participants in the U.S. clinical trials evaluate mifepristone," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1313-1323, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:46:y:1998:i:10:p:1313-1323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(97)10063-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Footman, Katy, 2023. "Structural barriers or patient preference? A mixed methods appraisal of medical abortion use in England and Wales," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Altshuler, Anna L. & Ojanen-Goldsmith, Alison & Blumenthal, Paul D. & Freedman, Lori R., 2017. "A good abortion experience: A qualitative exploration of women's needs and preferences in clinical care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 109-116.
    3. Footman, Katy, 2024. "The illusion of treatment choice in abortion care: A qualitative study of comparative care experiences in England and Wales," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 348(C).
    4. Graham, Ruth H. & Robson, Stephen C. & Rankin, Judith M., 2008. "Understanding feticide: An analytic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 289-300, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:46:y:1998:i:10:p:1313-1323. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.