Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care

Journal Information
ISSN / EISSN : 1471-1893 / 2045-2098
Published by: BMJ (10.1136)
Total articles ≅ 2,320
Current Coverage
LOCKSS
MEDICUS
MEDLINE
PUBMED
Archived in
SHERPA/ROMEO
Filter:

Latest articles in this journal

Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, Volume 43, pp 247-248; https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2017-101910

Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, Volume 43, pp 344-344; https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2017-101864

Abstract:
We thank Quispe Calla and colleagues for their insightful comments1 on our article.2 We agree that basic science evidence showing that various progestogens increase HIV susceptibility is compelling. We also agree that randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are informative regarding the relative risks of HIV between contraceptive alternatives, but not the absolute risks …
Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, Volume 43, pp 347-347; https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2017-101870

Abstract:
I would like to share a photograph with journal readers. I removed a nulliparous woman’s Mirena® intrauterine system (IUS) recently which had been in situ for 2.5 years. The woman had been unhappy with her IUS for a year or so, as she blamed it for some intermittent pelvic pains that she …
Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, Volume 43, pp 346.1-346; https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2016-101667

Abstract:
Sex Transm Infect 2017:93:240–246. doi:10. 1136/sextrans-2016-052690
Abi Berger
Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, Volume 43, pp 338-338; https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2016-101666

Lindsay Edouard
Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, Volume 43, pp 339-341; https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2017-101848

Abstract:
Twenty-five years ago, this journal reported on Dr Elphis Christopher’s astonishingly prophetic perspective on family planning (FP) in her Jennifer Hallam Memorial Lecture, delivered at the 19th Current Fertility and Reproductive Health Symposium of the National Association of Family Planning Doctors (NAFPD) and the Family Planning Association.1 Recalling the court case of 1876 against Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh for republishing a pamphlet with its advocacy for contraception, she regretted that despite the favourable environment from subsequent socioeconomic, legal and attitudinal changes, there was still poor utilisation of contraceptive services due to apathy, fatalism and religious convictions.
Georgeina L Jarman
Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, Volume 43, pp 331-334; https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2017-101893

Abstract:
Contraception is essential to allow women control over their bodies and to fulfil their sexual and reproductive health rights. Despite this, in 2014 the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 222 million women and adolescent girls were living without modern contraception, mainly affecting vulnerable groups within society.1 A number of schemes have emerged to address this need for increased contraceptive access in marginalised groups of women. These include incentivising programmes, where a reward is offered in return for use of a contraceptive. Enticing people into any medical intervention invites ethical analysis as the incentive may coerce the individual into a decision that they may not otherwise have made. Coercion threatens informed consent by undermining voluntary decision-making. Thus, using the widely accepted Four Principles of biomedical ethics, beneficence, justice, non-maleficence and autonomy,2 I will assess whether two high-income-setting-based contraceptive incentivising programmes, chosen as examples, could be seen as disregarding the autonomy of the women they are supposedly trying to help. The US-based Project Prevention is a non-profit organisation that has garnered much publicity since its founding by Barbara Harris in 1997, following her adoption of four children born to a mother with crack cocaine addiction. The organisation offers a substantial cash incentive (US$300) to drug-addicted women in return for use of a long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) or a sterilisation procedure.3 Offering cash incentives to women fuelling a drug habit raises difficult ethical questions: some would claim that this could be looked upon as coercion and a threat to human rights. On the other side of the Atlantic lies Pause, a UK-based programme that offers support to women who have had children taken into care, and who are at risk of future custodial losses. One of the conditions of entering the programme is for women to use a LARC. In …
Back to Top Top