Medical Journal- Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic

Publication date: 2006

Series 1908 Vol 368 November 25, 2006 Sexual and Reproductive Health 4 Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic David A Grimes, Janie Benson, Susheela Singh, Mariana Romero, Bela Ganatra, Friday E Okonofua, Iqbal H Shah Ending the silent pandemic of unsafe abortion is an urgent public-health and human-rights imperative. As with other more visible global-health issues, this scourge threatens women throughout the developing world. Every year, about 19–20 million abortions are done by individuals without the requisite skills, or in environments below minimum medical standards, or both. Nearly all unsafe abortions (97%) are in developing countries. An estimated 68 000 women die as a result, and millions more have complications, many permanent. Important causes of death include haemorrhage, infection, and poisoning. Legalisation of abortion on request is a necessary but insuffi cient step toward improving women’s health; in some countries, such as India, where abortion has been legal for decades, access to competent care remains restricted because of other barriers. Access to safe abortion improves women’s health, and vice versa, as documented in Romania during the regime of President Nicolae Ceausescu. The availability of modern contraception can reduce but never eliminate the need for abortion. Direct costs of treating abortion complications burden impoverished health care systems, and indirect costs also drain struggling economies. The development of manual vacuum aspiration to empty the uterus, and the use of misoprostol, an oxytocic agent, have improved the care of women. Access to safe, legal abortion is a fundamental right of women, irrespective of where they live. The underlying causes of morbidity and mortality from unsafe abortion today are not blood loss and infection but, rather, apathy and disdain toward women. Introduction Unsafe abortion is a persistent, preventable pandemic. WHO defi nes unsafe abortion as a procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy either by individuals without the necessary skills or in an environ- ment that does not conform to minimum medical standards, or both.1 Unsafe abortion mainly endangers women in developing countries where abortion is highly restricted by law and countries where, although legally permitted, safe abortion is not easily accessible. In these settings, women faced with an unintended pregnancy often self-induce abortions or obtain clandestine abortions from medical practitioners,2 para medical workers, or traditional healers.3 By contrast, legal abortion in industrialised nations has emerged as one of the safest procedures in contemporary medical practice, with minimum morbidity and a negligible risk of death.4 As with AIDS, the disparity between the health of women in developed and developing countries is stark. Unsafe abortion remains one of the most neglected sexual and reproductive health problems in the world today. This article will describe the scope of the problem of unsafe abortion, estimate its mortality and morbidity, document the relation between laws and women’s health, estimate costs, and describe prevention strategies. The key messages are presented in panel 1. Worldwide burden Worldwide estimates for 1995 indicated that about 26 million legal and 20 million illegal abortions took place every year.5 Almost all unsafe abortions (97%) are in developing countries, and over half (55%) are in Asia (mostly in south-central Asia; table).6 Reliable data for the prevalence of unsafe abortion are generally scarce, Lancet 2006; 368: 1908–19 Published Online November 1, 2006 DOI:10.1016/S0140- 6736(06)69481-6 This is the fourth in a Series of six articles about sexual and reproductive health Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7570, USA (Prof D Grimes MD); Ipas, Chapel Hill, NC, USA (J Benson DrPH); The Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, USA (S Singh PhD); CONICET/Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad, Buenos Aires, Argentina (M Romero MD); Ipas, Pune, India (B Ganatra MD); College of Medical Sciences, University of Benin and International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Benin City, Nigeria (Prof F Okonofua MD); World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (I Shah PhD) Correspondence to: Dr David Grimes Panel 1: Key messages 1 An estimated 19–20 million unsafe abortions take place every year, 97% of these are in developing countries. 2 Despite its frequency, unsafe abortion remains one of the most neglected global public health challenges. 3 An estimated 68 000 women die every year from unsafe abortion, and millions more are injured, many permanently. 4 Leading causes of death are haemorrhage, infection, and poisoning from substances used to induce abortion. 5 Access to modern contraception can reduce but never eliminate the need for abortion. 6 Legalisation of abortion is a necessary but insuffi cient step toward eliminating unsafe abortion. 7 When abortion is made legal, safe, and easily accessible, women’s health rapidly improves. By contrast, women’s health deteriorates when access to safe abortion is made more diffi cult or illegal. 8 Legal abortion in developed countries is one of the safest procedures in contemporary practice, with case- fatality rates less than one death per 100 000 procedures. 9 Manual vacuum aspiration (a handheld syringe as a suction source) and medical methods of inducing abortion have reduced complications. 10 Treating complications of unsafe abortion overwhelms impoverished health-care services and diverts limited resources from other critical health-care programmes. 11 The underlying causes of this global pandemic are apathy and disdain for women; they suff er and die because they are not valued. Series Vol 368 November 25, 2006 1909 especially in countries where access to abortion is legally restricted. Whether legal or illegal, induced abortion is usually stigmatised and frequently censured by political, religious, or other leaders. Hence, under-reporting is routine even in countries where abortion is legally available.7,8 The use of varying terms, such as induced miscarriage (fausse couche provoqué),9 menstrual regulation, mini-abortion, and regulation of a delayed or suspended menstruation10 further compounds the problem of producing reliable and comparable estimates of the prevalence of unsafe abortion. Community studies around the world indicate a higher magnitude of unsafe abortion than do health statistics.3,11,12 In Zambia, the extent of maternal mortality from unsafe abortion is not generally known from health statistics; one study in which women were interviewed revealed that 69% of the respondents knew one or more women who had died from an unsafe illegal abortion.12 Focus-group discussions and community- based studies in India11 revealed self-reported abortions in 28% of women, which is higher than fi gures derived from national service-delivery data. Estimates show that women in South America, eastern Africa, and western Africa are more likely to have an unsafe abortion than are women in other regions. Unsafe abortion rates per 1000 women aged 15–44 years (fi gure 1) provide a more comparable measure of unsafe abortion by region. In Asia, south-central and southeastern regions have similar unsafe abortion rates (22 and 21 per 1000 women, respectively), whereas the rate is about half (12 per 1000) in western Asia and negligible in eastern Asia (where abortion is legal on request and easily available). Temporal trends in unsafe abortion have been inconsistent internationally (fi gure 2). Between 1995 and 2000, a decline of 5 or more percentage points took place in the unsafe abortion rate in eastern, middle, and western Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America. Other developing areas had no appreciable change in the rate of unsafe abortion.6 Unsafe abortions vary substantially by age across regions: adolescents (15–19 years) account for 25% of all unsafe abortions in Africa, whereas the percentage in Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean is much lower (fi gure 3). By contrast, 42% and 33% of all unsafe abortions in Asia and Latin America, respectively, are in women aged 30–44 years, compared with 23% in Africa.13 For the developing regions as a whole, unsafe abortions peak in women aged 20–29 years. On the basis of WHO estimates, if current rates prevail throughout women’s reproductive lifetimes, women in the developing world will have an average of about one unsafe abortion by age 45 years.13 Reasons for seeking abortion are varied: socioeconomic concerns (including poverty, no support from the partner, and disruption of education or employment); family- building preferences (including the need to postpone childbearing or achieve a healthy spacing between births); relationship problems with the husband or partner; risks to maternal or fetal health; and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.14 More proximate causes include poor access to contraceptives and contraceptive failure.14 Deaths from unsafe abortion Measurement of the worldwide prevalence of abortion- related mortality and morbidity is diffi cult. At a population level, national vital registration systems routinely under- count such deaths.15 Calculation of the proportion of maternal deaths due to abortion complications is even more challenging. Abortion-related mortality often happens after a clandestine or illegal procedure, and powerful disincentives discourage reporting. As a result, linking specifi c programmatic interventions to changes in maternal mortality at a population level is rarely feasible because of the diffi culty in accurate measurement of deaths. Moreover, women might not report their condition or might not relate it to a complication of an earlier unsafe abortion.15 Number of unsafe abortions (thousands) Unsafe abortions per 100 livebirths Unsafe abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years World 19 000 14 14 Developed countries* 500 4 2 Developing countries 18 400 15 16 Africa 4200 14 24 Asia* 10 500 14 13 Europe 500 7 3 Latin America and the Caribbean 3700 32 29 Northern America N/A N/A N/A Oceania* 30 12 17 Source: WHO.6 *Japan, Australia, and New Zealand have been excluded from the regional estimates, but are included in the total for developed countries. N/A=none or negligible incidence. Table: Global and regional estimates of annual incidence of unsafe abortion, 2000 Number of unsafe abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years Eastern Africa Middle Africa Northern Africa Southern Africa Western Africa South central Asia Southeastern Asia Western Asia Caribbean Central America South America Oceania 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Figure 1: Estimated number of unsafe abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years, by subregion Source: WHO.6 Australia and New Zealand are excluded from estimates of Oceania. Series 1910 Vol 368 November 25, 2006 Worldwide, an estimated 68 000 women die as a result of complications from unsafe induced abortions every year—about eight per hour.6 This prevalence translates into an estimated case-fatality rate of 367 deaths per 100 000 unsafe abortions, which is hundreds of times higher than that for safe, legal abortion in developed nations. This ratio is higher in Africa (709), lower in Latin America and Caribbean (100), and close to the worldwide average in Asia (324). These diff erences presumably indicate regional diff erences in the safety of abortion provision, the severity of complications, and access to care thereafter.6 By use of diff erent methods, a recent systematic review of causes of maternal mortality worldwide estimated that abortion accounted for 1–49% of such deaths.16 Irrespective of the research methodologies used, the public health message is clear: unsafe abortion kills large numbers of women. About half of all deaths from unsafe abortion are in Asia, with most of the remainder (44%) in Africa.6 The unsafe abortion mortality ratio (the number of unsafe abortion-related deaths per 100 000 livebirths) varies across regions. For the developing world as a whole, this ratio was estimated to be 60 in the year 2000. However, the ratio is much higher in eastern, middle, and western Africa (90–140), and is lower in northern and southern Africa, western and southeastern Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean (10–40). Unsafe abortion is estimated to account for 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide, but accounts for a higher proportion of maternal deaths in Latin America (17%) and southeastern Asia (19%). Morbidity from unsafe abortion Morbidity is a much more common consequence of unsafe abortion than mortality, but is determined by the same risk factors. Complications include haemorrhage, sepsis, peritonitis, and trauma to the cervix, vagina, uterus, and abdominal organs (fi gure 4). High proportions of women (20–50%) who have unsafe abortions are hospitalised for complications.17 National studies show that the rate of hospitalisation varies from a low of three per 1000 women per year (in Bangladesh, where menstrual regulation is legally permitted) to a high of 15 in Egypt and Uganda.18,19 Morbidity and hospitalisation rates have probably fallen since the early 1990s in response to safer abortion services. In Peru (1989–98) and in the Philippines (1994–2000), the abortion-related hospitalisation rate dropped—by 10% in the Philippines in 6 years and by 33% in Peru in 9 years— though the number of women hospitalised declined much more slowly.20 Increased use of misoprostol (replacing more invasive unsafe methods) probably partly accounts for reduced complications.21 In Brazil, the number of women treated in public hospitals for abortion complications dropped by about 28% over 13 years (from 345 000 in 1992 to 250 000 in 2005).22 However, most of this decline took place between 1992 and 1995, and the number has varied little since then. Whereas increased use of misoprostol might have accounted for some of the early decline in abortion-related morbidity, the stability of the number suggests that most women who have an abortion Figure 4: Loops of gangrenous small intestine protruding from the vagina after attempted abortion, 20-year-old woman Source: Oye-Adeniran.106 Reproduced with permission from Reprod Health Matters 2002; 10: 18–21. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 45 40 0 Un sa fe a bo rt io ns p er 1 00 0 w om en a ge d 15 –4 9 ye ar s 1990 1995 2000 Developing countries Africa Asia Latin America and Caribbean Figure 2: Estimated number of unsafe abortions per 1000 women aged 15–49 years, by region, 1990–2000 Source: Special tabulations using WHO database on unsafe abortion.6 0 20 40 60 80 100 Developing countries Africa Asia Latin America and Caribbean 35+ years 20–24 years 25–34 years 15–19 years Pe rc en ta ge (% ) Figure 3: Percentage distribution of unsafe abortions by age group in the developing world and regions Source: WHO.6 Series Vol 368 November 25, 2006 1911 with misoprostol still seek treatment at public hospitals (Anibal Faundes, personal communication, July 5, 2006). Severity of complications is another important measure of eff ects on health. A standardised measure of the severity of complications was used in South Africa before and after legalisation of abortion on request in 1996.23 The proportion of women classifi ed with severe complications (fever of 38°C or more, organ or system failure, generalised peritonitis, pulse 120 per min or more, shock, evidence of a foreign body, or mechanical injury) in South Africa fell substantially from 16·5% before legalisation to 9·7% after. Applying similar methods, a study in Kenya found that 28% of hospitalised women had severe complications. Gestational age at abortion is a simple predictor of risk: later abortions are associated with increased risks for the woman. Late abortions are common; for example, a third of women treated for abortion complications in public hospitals in Kenya were beyond the fi rst trimester.24 By contrast, spontaneous abortions are uncommon after the fi rst trimester, suggesting that many of these complications stemmed from induced unsafe abortions. Information on long-term health consequences of unsafe abortion is scarce. The WHO estimates that about 20–30% of unsafe abortions result in reproductive tract infections and that about 20–40% of these result in upper- genital-tract infection and infertility. An estimated 2% of women of reproductive age are infertile as a result of unsafe abortion, and 5% have chronic infections.6 Unsafe abortion could also increase the long-term risk of ectopic pregnancy, premature delivery, and spontaneous abortion in subsequent pregnancies. Little is known about women who have complications but who do not seek medical care. Clinicians estimate that the proportion of such women was 14% in Latin America, 19% in south and southeast Asia, and 26% in Nigeria.18 Similar studies in Guatemala and Uganda yielded estimates of about 20%.19,25 Delays in recognising the need for care and in arranging transportation are common. On reaching a health-care facility, women with complications of unsafe abortion are often met with suspicion or hostility. Their treatment is deferred—sometimes indefi nitely.26 This disdain com- pounds the poor staff training, inoperative equipment, out-of-stock drugs, sporadic supplies of water and electricity, and transportation challenges hampering developing-country health-care facilities. Life-threatening sepsis or haemorrhage might mean a hysterectomy. Gas gangrene from Clostridium perfringens Treatments taken by mouth Toxic solutions Turpentine Laundry bleach Detergent solutions Acid Laundry bluing Cottonseed oil Arak (a strong liquor) Teas and herbal remedies Strong tea Tea made of livestock manure Boiled and ground avocado or basil leaves Wine boiled with raisins and cinnamon Black beer boiled with soap, oregano, and parsley Boiled apio (celery plant) water with aspirin Tea with apio, avocado bark, ginger, etc “Bitter concoction” Assorted herbal medications Drugs Uterine stimulants, such as misoprostol or oxytocin (used in obstetrics) Quinine and chloroquine (used for treating malaria) Oral contraceptive pills (ineff ective in causing abortion) Treatments placed in the vagina or cervix Potassium permanganate tablets Herbal preparations Misoprostol Intramuscular injections Two cholera immunisations Foreign bodies placed into the uterus through the cervix Stick, sometimes dipped in oil Lump of sugar Hard green bean Root or leaf of plant Wire Knitting needle Rubber catheter Bougie (large rubber catheter) Intrauterine contraceptive device Coat hanger Ballpoint pen Chicken bone Bicycle spoke Air blown in by a syringe or turkey baster Sharp curette Enemas Soap Shih tea (wormwood) Trauma Abdominal or back massage Lifting heavy weights Jumping from top of stairs or roof Panel 2: Part inventory of unsafe abortion methods, by route of administration93 Series 1912 Vol 368 November 25, 2006 is common with insertion of foreign bodies, and tetanus threatens women who have not been immunised. Women with retained tissue and severe infections might receive only oral tetracycline until they are deemed stable enough for curettage in an operating theatre; many die needlessly during the wait. Delays are especially dangerous when bowel injuries cause peritoneal contamination.27 Traditional methods Nearly 5000 years ago, the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung described the use of mercury for inducing abortion.28 Although one publication18 lists over 100 traditional methods used for inducing abortion, unsafe methods today can be divided into several broad classes: oral and injectable medicines, vaginal preparations, intrauterine foreign bodies, and trauma to the abdomen (panel 2). In addition to detergents, solvents, and bleach, women in developing countries still rely on teas and decoctions made from local plant or animal products, including dung. Foreign bodies inserted into the uterus to disrupt the pregnancy often damage the uterus and internal organs, including bowel. In settings as diverse as the South Pacifi c and equatorial Africa, abortion by abdominal massage is still used by traditional practitioners. The vigorous pummelling of the woman’s lower abdomen is designed to disrupt the pregnancy but sometimes bursts the uterus and kills the woman instead.29 The primitive methods used for unsafe abortion show the desperation of the women. Surveys done in New York City before the legalisation of abortion on request documented the techniques in common use.30 Of 899 women interviewed, 74 reported having attempted to abort one or more pregnancies; 338 noted that one of their friends, relatives, or acquaintances had done so. Of those reported abortion attempts, 80% tried to do the abortion themselves. Nearly 40% of women used a combination of approaches. In general, the more invasive the technique, the more dangerous it was to the woman and the more likely it was to disrupt the pregnancy. Invasive methods, such as insertion of tubes or liquids into the uterus, were more successful than were other approaches. Coat hangers, knitting needles, and slippery elm bark were common methods; the bark would expand when moistened, causing the cervix to open. Another widely used method was to place a fl exible rubber catheter into the uterus to stimulate labour. Surveys suggest that miscellaneous methods and oral medications, such as laundry bleach, turpentine, and massive doses of quinine, were most commonly used in New York.30 Injection of toxic solutions into the uterus with douche bags or turkey basters was common. Absorption of soap solutions into the woman’s circulation could cause renal toxicity and death.31 Potassium permanganate tablets placed in the vagina were also common; these did not induce abortion but could cause severe chemical burns to the vagina, sometimes eroding through to the bowel.32 Legal status of abortion Increasing legal access to abortion is associated with improvement in sexual and reproductive health. Conversely, unsafe abortion and related mortality are both highest in countries with narrow grounds for legal abortion.33 More than 61% of the world’s population resides in countries where induced abortion is allowed without restriction or for a wide range of reasons such as protection of the woman’s life, preservation of her physical or mental health, and socioeconomic grounds.34 In 72 countries, most of which are in the developing world, 26% of the world’s population lives where abortion is prohibited altogether or allowed only to save the woman’s life.34 Most of these restrictive laws originated from European colonial laws from previous centuries, although the European nations discarded their restrictive abortion laws decades ago. Between 1995 and 2005, 12 countries increased access to legal abortion, including Albania, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Mali, Nepal, South Africa, and Switzerland.35,36 The strategies used to achieve reform vary by country. Nepal’s reforms in 2002, for example, were part of an overall women’s rights bill and permit legal abortion with no restriction in the fi rst 12 weeks of pregnancy and afterwards on specifi c grounds. The previous law allowed no indications for abortion.35 The post-apartheid movement for expanded equality in South Africa led to the 1996 act that allows legal abortion without restriction during the fi rst 12 weeks of pregnancy and afterwards on numerous grounds. Only narrow indications for legal abortion had been previously allowed.35 In early 2006, Colombia’s consti- tutional court ruled in favour of expanded indications for legal abortion, including when a woman’s life or health is in danger and in cases of rape or fetal malformation.37 Panel 3: Prosecution in El Salvador “After I came out of the coma, they moved me to the maternity hospital. My brother visited and asked me if the police had come to ask me questions. He said the police had come to our house and they had interrogated our relatives and neighbours. They had gone to where I worked. They asked everyone a lot of questions about me and who I was and if they knew whether I was pregnant and whether I’d had an abortion. When I got home, the prosecutor came to see me, and he asked lots of aggressive questions. He talked to me like I was a criminal. I didn’t want to answer because I was scared. He said if I didn’t answer, even though I was in bad physical shape, he would put me in jail. He wanted me to tell him who the father of the child was and the name of the person who had done this to me. I didn’t know her name. Then he made a date for me to come to the prosecutor’s offi ce.” Anonymous woman in El Salvador40 Series Vol 368 November 25, 2006 1913 Advocacy for increased access to safe legal abortion has increased in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Mexico, Mozambique, Nigeria, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, and Uruguay. These eff orts are rooted in public health, human rights, and other arguments. Those involved include health and medical professionals, women’s groups, legal and human rights advocates, young people, government offi cials, and, in some countries, trade unionists.38 Several countries have restricted abortion laws in the past decade. El Salvador amended its penal code in 1998 to ban abortion for any legal indication; previous indications had included saving a woman’s life, pregnancy resulting from rape, and fetal impairment (panel 3).35 In 1997, Poland’s Parliament approved legislation removing social and economic grounds for abortion.35 Anti-abortion voices continue to protest against attempts at legal reform in countries as diverse as Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, and Uruguay. The recent legislation for safer access in Colombia prompted a Roman Catholic cardinal to suggest civil disobedience and to threaten excommunication of judges who voted to support safer laws.39 Eff ect of law on health The prevalence of unsafe abortions remains the highest in the 82 countries with the most restrictive legislations, up to 23 unsafe abortions per 1000 women aged 15–49 years. By contrast, the 52 countries that allow abortion on request have a median unsafe abortion rate as low as two per 1000 women of reproductive age.33 Although the case-fatality rate from unsafe abortions indicates the general level of health care and the availability of post-abortion services, the rate remains the highest in countries where abortion is legally restricted. In such countries, the median ratio for unsafe abortion mortality is 34 deaths per 100 000 livebirths; this ratio steadily decreases as legal grounds for abortion increase. The ratio falls to one or less per 100 000 livebirths in countries that allow abortion on request.33 Even in countries where improved access to health care and emergency obstetric services has greatly reduced overall maternal mortality, restrictive abortion laws translate into abortion deaths constituting a disproportionately high share of maternal deaths (panel 4).41 Making abortion legal, safe, and accessible does not appreciably increase demand. Instead, the principal eff ect is shifting previously clandestine, unsafe procedures to legal and safe ones. Hence, governments need not worry that the costs of making abortion safe will overburden the health-care infrastructure.18 Countries that liberalised their abortion laws such as Barbados, Canada, South Africa, Tunisia, and Turkey did not have an increase in abortion. By comparison, the Netherlands, which has unrestricted access to free abortion and contraception, has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world.18 In several countries, legal inquiry, prosecution, and even imprisonment of women who have had an unlawful abortion is not uncommon.40 Before the 2002 law change in Nepal, an estimated 20% of the women prisoners nationwide were in jail for charges relating to abortion or infanticide. Many women who had miscarriage, stillbirths, or induced abortions were jailed on charges of infanticide.45 Enabling abortion legislation is necessary but not suffi cient: a new law might not translate into widespread access to safe services. India and Zambia both legalised abortion in the early 1970s, but safe, legal abortion remains largely unavailable.46 In India, access through the public health system is mainly restricted to cities. Despite a mandate to provide abortion services, in most states fewer than 20% of primary health care centres do so. Many centres only sporadically provide service either because of a shortage of trained physicians or functioning equipment.47 Access to safe abortion is also mediated by women’s awareness of the law. Knowledge is often poor, even in countries with longstanding liberal laws. Misperceptions about the specifi cs of the law are not uncommon, thus making women vulnerable to poor care, fi nancial exploitation, and prosecution.45,48,49 Even where legal abortion is widely available on request, misperceptions about the legality of minors having sexual intercourse delay some adolescents from seeking care. In many cultures, perceptions of legality are aff ected by the stigma attached to premarital or extramarital sexual activity. In several south Asian countries, such pregnancies are commonly referred to as illegal or illegitimate, as are the abortions induced in these circumstances.50 Misperceptions about legal requirements, such as the need for spousal authorisation and provider attitudes, could create barriers Panel 4: Romania and South Africa Widespread access to legal abortions on request in Romania from 1957 onwards led to a decline in unsafe abortions with an abortion mortality ratio of 20 per 100 000 livebirths in 1960.6,42 Mortality began to rise steadily as Ceausescu’s pronatalist restrictive policy imposed in 1966 began to take eff ect (fi gure 5). By 1989 mortality ratios had risen seven- fold to peak at 148 deaths per 100 000 livebirths; abortion accounted for 87% of the deaths. When Ceausescu was deposed in 1989, the immediate change of laws reversed this trend. The mortality ratio fell by more than half to 68 within the fi rst year of safer access itself. By 2002, mortality from unsafe abortions was as low as nine per 100 000 livebirths; abortion deaths accounted for less than half of maternal deaths.43 Abortion became legal and available on request in South Africa in 1997.44 The Choice on Termination of Pregnancy act No 92 was promulgated in South Africa on Oct 31, 1996, but went into eff ect on Feb 1, 1997. Since then, the resulting favourable environment has increased women’s access to family planning, abortion, and post-abortion care services in the country. After the law was passed, abortion-related deaths dropped 91% from 1994 to 1998–2001.23 The new law increased women’s access to a broad range of options for the prevention and treatment of unwanted pregnancy. In particular, the law led to the increased promotion of family planning, the increased use of manual vacuum aspiration for abortion and post- abortion care, use of manual vacuum aspiration by nurses and midwives, and the introduction of medical abortion methods. Series 1914 Vol 368 November 25, 2006 that do not exist in law. These, in turn, might drive unmarried women to unsafe providers (compromising medical safety for confi dentiality47,51) or to suicide.52 Costs of unsafe abortion Treatment of abortion complications burdens public health systems in the developing world. Conversely, ensuring women’s access to safe abortion services lowers medical costs for health systems. In some low-income and middle-income countries, up to 50% of hospital budgets for obstetrics and gynaecology are spent treating complications of unsafe abortion.18 A review of medical records in 569 public hospitals in Egypt during 1 month noted that almost 20% of the 22 656 admissions to obstetrics and gynaecology departments were for treatment of an induced or reportedly spontaneous abortion.53 Direct costs include health personnel, medications, blood, supplies and equipment, and overnight stays. The cost per woman to health systems for treatment of abortion complications in Tanzania is more than seven times the overall Ministry of Health budget per head of population.54 Estimates from Uganda comparing costs of treatment of abortion complications with costs of providing safe, elective abortion show the potential resource-savings to health systems. Post-abortion care off ered in tertiary hospitals by physician providers was estimated to cost health systems ten times more than elective abortion services off ered by mid-level practitioners in primary care (Heidi Johnston, 2004; Ipas, Chapel Hill, NC, USA). In sub-Saharan Africa, two studies attempted to estimate costs at the national level. A 1997 South African study estimated that the total yearly cost of treating unsafe abortion morbidity in public hospitals was ZAR 9·74 million (about US$1·4 million).55 A 2002 study in Nigeria estimated that the total national cost of direct medical care for treating abortion complication patients was NGN 1400 million ($11·7 million).56 A second study in Nigeria estimated that the national cost of treating unsafe abortion complications in 2005 was $19 million (Akinrinola Bankole, unpublished data). Use of manual vacuum aspiration for management of fi rst-trimester incomplete abortions reduces costs. Studies in Bolivia, Mexico, and Peru showed that although the cost per patient for inpatient dilatation and curettage services ranged from $66–151, a change to ambulatory manual vacuum aspiration reduced costs to $33–66, a decrease of 56–72%.57 Per-patient costs in Kenya fell by 23% in one hospital and 66% in another when post-abortion care services were changed from dilatation and curettage to manual vacuum aspiration in outpatients.58 Reductions in overall costs per patient were attributable to shortened hospital stays, less staff time, and fewer medications. Indirect costs The indirect costs of unsafe abortion are substantial, yet more diffi cult to quantify. They include the loss of productivity from abortion-related morbidity and mortality on women and household members; the eff ect on children’s health and education if their mother dies; the diversion of scarce medical resources for treatment of abortion complications; and secondary infertility, stigma, and other sociopsychological consequences. For example, an estimated 220 000 children worldwide lose their mothers every year from abortion-related deaths.59 Such children receive less health care and social care than children who have two parents, and are more likely to die.60 Estimates of disability adjusted life-years (DALYs) provide an indicator of one part of the indirect costs, women’s loss of productive life. An estimated 5 million DALYs are lost per year by women of reproductive age as a result of mortality and morbidity from unsafe abortion.61 However, this rate probably underestimates the true burden because of limitations in the methods of estimating DALYs resulting from maternal causes.59 Stigma impairs health, both directly through harm to wellbeing and indirectly by hindering prompt access to medical care. Stigma related to abortion particularly aff ects adolescents and unmarried women because of their inexperience and few economic resources.26 Social sanctions against sexual activity are especially problematic for unmarried women. Levels of prevention Preventive medicine is traditionally viewed in three levels.62 Primary prevention (the domain of public health) protects health by personal and community eff orts, such as lowering serum cholesterol and discouraging smoking. Secondary prevention (the domain of 5 0 Bi rt hs p er 1 00 0 po pu la tio n 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 10 15 20 25 30 Percentage 10 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Crude birth rate Abortion restricted Abortion restrictions ended Percentage of maternal deaths caused by abortion Year Figure 5: Livebirths and proportion of maternal deaths due to abortion, Romania, 1965–90 Source: David.42 Data unavailable for 1979. Series Vol 368 November 25, 2006 1915 preventive medicine) includes early detection and prompt treatment of disease, for example, acute cardiac care for myocardial infarction. Tertiary prevention (rehabilitation) mitigates disability, an example being coronary artery bypass grafting. In general, primary prevention is preferable to secondary and tertiary prevention in terms of both cost and compassion: immunising against poliomyelitis is better than building iron lungs. Primary prevention includes reduction in the need for unsafe abortion through contraception, legalisation of abortion on request, the use of safer techniques, and improvement of provider skills. Access to safe, eff ective contraception can substantially reduce—but never eliminate–the need for abortion to regulate fertility. The eff ect of national contraceptive programmes on reducing the rate of abortion is well documented. In seven countries (Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan), abortion rates fell as use of modern contraception rose.63 In another six countries (Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Singapore, and USA), abortion and contraception increased simultaneously; the uptake of eff ective contraception did not keep pace with couples’ increasing desires for smaller family sizes. In several of the six countries, abortion rates ultimately declined with continued contraceptive use and stabilisation of fertility rates at lower levels. Even with high rates of contraceptive use, however, unintended pregnancies will continue. No contraceptive method is 100% eff ective, and many couples in the developing world still encounter obstacles to contraception.64 Every year, 80 million women worldwide have an unintended pregnancy, and 60% of these are aborted.18 Thus, the need for safe abortion will continue. The developing world has seen a revolution in contra- ceptive use—from a mere 9% of couples using any method in 1960–6565 to 59% in 2003.66 Nevertheless, an estimated 27 million unintended pregnancies happen worldwide every year with the typical use of contra- ceptives. 6 million would happen even with perfect (ie, correct and consistent) use.67 An estimated 123 million women have an unmet need for family planning.68 All abortion patients—whether seeking treatment of a complication or an elective induced abortion—should be off ered contraceptive counselling and a choice of appropriate methods. Results of many studies in Latin America and Africa have shown that after having an abortion patients will accept contraception at high rates.57,69-71 Contraceptive counselling and provision at the time of treatment reduced unintended pregnancies and repeat abortions by 50% over 1 year in Zimbabwe, compared with post-abortion patients who did not receive such services.72 The advent of vacuum aspiration in the 1960s1 revolutionised the primary prevention of complications in developing countries. This technology (fi gure 6) relies on the use of a simple syringe with a plunger to generate negative pressure for uterine evacuation, and plastic cannulas of varying sizes. The amount of negative pressure obtained with manual vacuum aspiration is similar to that generated with large, expensive, electrical pumps, which makes this method especially suited for use in clinics, offi ces, and low-resource settings. Manual vacuum aspiration also has the advantage that the syringe can be cleaned, high-level disinfected, or sterilised and used repeatedly; similarly, cannulas can be discarded or re-used after appropriate disinfection or sterilisation. Vacuum aspiration is safer than sharp curettage, and the WHO recommends vacuum aspiration as the preferred method for uterine evacuation before 12 weeks of pregnancy.67 This method is faster, safer, more comfortable, and associated with shorter hospital stay for induced abortion than sharp curettage.73,74 Additional advantages compared with sharp curettage are its ease of use as an outpatient procedure, the need for less analgesia and anaesthesia,75 and its lower cost per procedure especially if done on an outpatient basis.76 In countries with a small number of physicians, vacuum aspiration can be safely and eff ectively used by mid-level health service providers, such as midwives.77 The combined use of mifepristone and misoprostol has become the standard WHO-recommended medical regimen for early medication abortion,67 and is better than either drug alone.78 Misoprostol is a prostaglandin E1 analogue marketed for the prevention and treatment of gastric ulcers. However, mifepristone can be expensive and is not available in much of the world, whereas misoprostol is cheap and widely available. Regimens with misoprostol alone as an abortifacient have varied widely, with reported success rates ranging between 87% and 97%.79 Increased access to misoprostol has been associated with improved women’s health in developing countries, and studies are being done to refi ne the regimen for misoprostol alone to induce abortion (panel 5). Secondary prevention entails prompt and appropriate treatment of complications. This includes timely evacuation of the uterus after incomplete abortion. WHO Figure 6: Manual vacuum aspiration syringe Ip as Series 1916 Vol 368 November 25, 2006 has issued technical and clinical guidelines for the provision of safe abortion care67 and treatment of abortion complications.1 Misoprostol can be used for the management of incomplete abortion,86 and vacuum aspiration is better than sharp curettage.87,88 Post-abortion care is spreading worldwide. In Guatemala, with support from the Ministry of Health, the Centro de Investigación Epidemiológica en Salud Sexual y Reproductiva began in 1996 a series of training- of-trainers with teams of nurses and doctors around the country. Content included post-abortion assessment and diagnosis, uterine evacuation procedures and techniques, pain management, infection prevention, management of complications, referral to other sexual and reproductive health services, contraceptive counselling and provision, and follow-up care.89 The results of a survey in Addis Ababa showed that almost 30% of maternal deaths in the city resulted from unsafe abortion.90 To address the high maternal mortality rate (estimated to be 850 deaths per 100 000 livebirths), the Ministry of Health, Regional Health Bureaus, and several international non-governmental organisations joined forces to improve post-abortion care in the public- health sector. Interventions include clinical training of physicians and midwives, provision of manual vacuum aspiration and other supplies, reorganisation of services, supervisory visits to facilities, and improved record- keeping. Post-abortion care was implemented in 42 health-care facilities in three regions assessed from 2000 to 2004. Quality of care also improved.91 In 2004, Ethiopia revised its abortion law and in 2006 issued guidelines for safe abortion services. Critics of post-abortion care worldwide complain that the preoccupation with secondary (rather than primary) prevention of unsafe abortion is myopic, tantamount to placing ambulances at the bottom of a cliff instead of erecting a fence at the top. Tertiary prevention mitigates long-term damage. Rapid transfer to a hospital can be lifesaving.92 Prompt repair of uterine injury could preserve fertility. Acute renal failure and tetanus from unsafe abortions remain important causes of death and lengthy disability.93 Repair of fi stulas in bowel and bladder can end the suff ering, stigmatisation, and abandonment that these injuries cause. The public health imperative The public health rationale to address unsafe abortion was fi rst drawn to attention by the World Health Assembly four decades ago.94 In 1994, the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Develop- ment stated, “In circumstances where abortion is not against the law, such abortion should be safe.” The Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, noted “unsafe abortions threaten the lives of a large number of women, representing a grave public health problem as it is primarily the poorest and youngest who take the highest risk”.96 At the Special Session of the UN General Assembly in June, 1999, governments agreed that “in circumstances where abortion is not against the law, health systems should train and equip health-service providers and should take other measures to ensure that such abortion is safe and accessible”.97 By investing in abortion safety and avail ability, governments throughout the world can save the lives of tens of thousands of women every year.6,18,98 Increasingly, private foundations and donor govern- ments, including the UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, have funded activities to advance access to safe abortion. By contrast, the USA has since 1974 precluded use of development assistance for abortion services. In 2001, the US government re-intro duced the even more restrictive Mexico City Policy, known by opponents as the Global Gag Rule. According to this policy, private organisations outside the USA are eligible for family planning assistance only if they agree not to engage in most abortion-related activities, even with their own funds.99 International organisations increasingly regard the denial of safe abortion services as a human-rights violation. In 1999, the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) determined that neglect of health services that only women need is discriminatory and a defi cit that governments must remedy. Furthermore, CEDAW noted that criminalisation of abortion is a barrier that states should remove.100 Panel 5: Misoprostol in South America After introduction into Brazil in 1986, misoprostol became available over the counter. Soon, women recognised its eff ectiveness as an abortifacient and began to use the drug for this purpose. Women would self-administer the drug orally and then seek medical assistance if the uterine bleeding did not stop. By 1990, 70% of women treated in hospital for abortion complications in Brazilian hospitals reported having used misoprostol.80 The report of a rapid increase in uterine evacuation procedures done in some hospitals as a result of abortions initiated by misoprostol81 led the Ministry of Health to restrict its sale in 1991. The State of Ceara banned the drug altogether. However, restricting access to the drug did not prevent its use; rather, the drug remained widely available in the black market at infl ated prices. Consequently, the rate of abortion complications increased after restriction. Indeed, in Campinas, abortion-related deaths tripled after restricted access to misoprostol.80 Women’s use of misoprostol in Brazil decreased the severity of unsafe abortion complications, and to some extent also decreased the number of women admitted to hospital. Previously, women would insert foreign bodies into their cervix, which provoked bleeding and led to completion by curettage in hospital. Misoprostol is less likely to cause infection than are foreign bodies.82 One hospital recorded a rate of uterine infection of 4% in women who reported using misoprostol, compared with 8% in women who reported having a spontaneous abortion.83 Use of medical abortion has also expanded in Peru.84 Although the use of prostaglandins for abortion was infrequent in a 1989 survey, most key informants mentioned it in a similar survey in 1998,85 even in remote regions of the country. The wide use of prostaglandins for abortion has been associated with improved health for women. In three other countries, women have widely accepted medical abortion because of its similarity to spontaneous abortion.21 Series Vol 368 November 25, 2006 1917 In 2005, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled against Peru for its denial of a legal abortion; the woman had an anencephalic fetus and was forced to continue the pregnancy to delivery.101 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled in favour of a 13-year-old Mexican girl’s petition; she had been raped and subsequently denied access to a legally permitted abortion by state health and law enforcement offi cials in Mexico.102 As a result, the Mexican government will issue guidance for access to abortion for rape victims. Moreover, the government agreed to compensate the young woman and her son for health care, education, and professional development. The 2005 Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa is the fi rst international human rights instrument to provide for abortion as a right.103 Discussion Unsafe abortion endangers health in the developing world, and merits the same dispassionate, scientifi c approach to solutions as do other threats to public health. Although the remedies are available and inexpensive, governments in developing nations often do not have the political will to do what is right and necessary. The benefi ciaries of access to safe, legal abortion on request include not only women but also their children, families, and society—for present and future generations. Women have always had abortions and will always continue to do so, irrespective of prevailing laws, religious proscriptions, or social norms.104 Although the ethical debate over abortion will continue, the public- health record is clear and incontrovertible: access to safe, legal abortion on request improves health.73 As noted by Mahmoud Fathalla, “Pregnancy-related deaths…are often the ultimate tragic outcome of the cumulative denial of women’s human rights. Women are not dying because of untreatable diseases. They are dying because societies have yet to make the decision that their lives are worth saving.”105 Simply put, they die because they do not count. Confl ict of interest statement DG, a gynaecologist, has done, taught, and studied abortions for 33 years. He has performed abortions as part of his duties as a medical school faculty member and as a private contractor for freestanding abortion clinics. He has served on the Board of Directors of the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood Federation of America. He is a member of the National Abortion Federation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Public Health Organization and other groups that support safe, legal abortion. He is a past chair of the Task Force on Postovulatory Fertility Control of the WHO, which conducts abortion research. He is an editor of a textbook on abortion and a chapter contributor to a gynecology text, both of which have provided modest royalties (less than $1000 total). He has testifi ed in defence of physicians in medical liability cases concerning abortion. He has testifi ed before Congressional committees twice regarding abortion. He has received honoraria for speaking about abortion at medical meetings. He currently teaches and performs abortions at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine as part of his faculty duties. He receives a fi xed salary from the university, which is not dependent upon the number of abortions he does. JB is an employee of Ipas, a global, non-profi t reproductive health organisation focused on safe abortion and women’s reproductive rights. Ipas manufactures and distributes manual vacuum aspiration instruments worldwide. SS is employed by the Guttmacher Institute, an organisation committed to improving sexual health and rights, including improving access to safe and legal abortion services. FEO, MR, and BG are members of the steering committee of the International Consortium for Medical Abortion, which aims at expanding access to medical abortion in the context of safe abortion worldwide. BG is a full time salaried employee of Ipas and has never been a provider of abortion services. She has received fi nancial support for and been the proncipal investigator on several several social science studies on maternal health and unsafe abortion. FEO is the Executive Project Director of the International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Honorary Adviser to the President of Nigeria on Maternal and Child Health. He is a member of the Abortion Research Consortium in Africa, and a consultant to several international organisations on abortion matters in Africa. Through the NGO which he founded in 1995, the Women’s Health and Action Research Centre, he has received funding specifi cally from the Lucile and David Packard Foundation to build capacity for safe abortion service delivery among private practitioners in northern Nigeria. He has received very modest honoraria for speaking on abortion in Africa at several international fora. He receives a fi xed salary from the university, which is not dependent on his research on abortion. IHS is a social scientist with the Special Programme in Human Reproduction, and coordinator of the Programme’s Team on Preventing Unsafe Abortion. His duties include supporting research on social science and operations research in sexual and reproductive health, including users’ perspectives on family planning and adolescent and reproductive health. He has given lectures with no fi nancial renumeration from any source besides the fi xed salary and associated benefi ts from WHO. All authors have no fi nancial stake in any abortion clinic, and own no individual stocks in any drug company or medical supply house that might profi t from abortion. Acknowledgments We thank Elisabeth Åhman, Patty Skuster, and Barbara Crane. I Shah is a staff member of the World Health Organization. The author is responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policies, or views of the World Health Organization. References 1 World Health Organization. The prevention and management of unsafe abortion. Report of a Technical Working Group. (accessed July 6, 2006). 2 Okonofua FE, Shittu SO, Oronsaye F, Ogunsakin D, Ogbomwan S, Zayyan M. Attitudes and practices of private medical providers towards family planning and abortion services in Nigeria. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005; 84: 270–80. 3 Okonofua FE, Odimegwu C, Ajabor H, Daru PH, Johnson A. Assessing the prevalence and determinants of unwanted pregnancy and induced abortion in Nigeria. Stud Fam Plann 1999; 30: 67–77. 4 Hogberg U, Joelsson I. Maternal deaths related to abortions in Sweden, 1931–1980. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1985; 20: 169–78. 5 Henshaw SK, Singh S, Haas T. The incidence of abortion worldwide. Int Fam Plann Persp 1999; 25: S30–8. 6 World Health Organization. Unsafe abortion: global and regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2000. 4th edition. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2004. 7 Wilcox AJ, Horney LF. Accuracy of spontaneous abortion recall. Am J Epidemiol 1984; 120: 727–33. 8 Fu H, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK, Kolb E. Measuring the extent of abortion underreporting in the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Fam Plann Perspect 1998; 30: 128–33. 9 Ravolamanana Ralisata L, Rabenjamina FR, Razafi ntsalama DL, Rakotonandrianina E, Randrianjafi samindrakotroka NS. [Post- abortum peritonitis pelviperitonitis at the Androva Mahajanga University Hospital: 23 cases]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2001; 30: 282–7. 10 Nations MK, Misago C, Fonseca W, Correia LL, Campbell OM. Women’s hidden transcripts about abortion in Brazil. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 1833–45. Series 1918 Vol 368 November 25, 2006 11 Varkey P, Balakrishna PP, Prasad JH, Abraham S, Joseph A. The reality of unsafe abortion in a rural community in South India. Reprod Health Matters 2000; 8: 83–91. 12 Koster-Oyekan W. Why resort to illegal abortion in Zambia? Findings of a community-based study in Western Province. Soc Sci Med 1998; 46: 1303–12. 13 Shah I, Ahman E. Age patterns of unsafe abortion in developing country regions. Reprod Health Matters 2004; 12: 9–17. 14 Bankole A, Singh S, Haas T. Reasons why women have induced abortions: evidence from 27 countries. Int Fam Plann Perspect 1998; 24: 117–27. 15 Benson J. Evaluating abortion-care programs: old challenges, new directions. Stud Fam Plann 2005; 36: 189–202. 16 Khan KS, Wojdyla D, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM, Van Look PF. WHO analysis of causes of maternal death: a systematic review. Lancet 2006; 367: 1066–74. 17 Liskin L. Complications of abortion in developing countries. Popul Rep F 1980; F105–55. 18 Alan Guttmacher Institute. Sharing responsibilities: women, society and abortion worldwide. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1999. 19 Singh S, Prada E, Mirembe F, Kiggundu C. The incidence of induced abortion in Uganda. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2005; 31: 183–91. 20 Juarez F, Cabigon J, Singh S, Hussain R. The incidence of induced abortion in the Philippines: current level and recent trends. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2005; 31: 140–49. 21 Lafaurie MM, Grossman D, Troncoso E, Billings DL, Chavez S. Women’s perspectives on medical abortion in Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru: a qualitative study. Reprod Health Matters 2005; 13: 75–83. 22 Brazil Ministerio da Saude. Sistema de informacoes hospitalares do SUS (SIH/SUS). (accessed July 5, 2006). 23 Jewkes R, Rees H, Dickson K, Brown H, Levin J. The impact of age on the epidemiology of incomplete abortions in South Africa after legislative change. BJOG 2005; 112: 355–9. 24 Gebreselassie H, Gallo MF, Monyo A, Johnson BR. The magnitude of abortion complications in Kenya. BJOG 2005; 112: 1229–35. 25 Singh S, Prada E, Kestler E. Induced abortion and unintended pregnancy in Guatemala. Int Fam Plann Perspect 2006; 32: 136–45. 26 Berer M. Making abortions safe: a matter of good public health policy and practice. Bull World Health Organ 2000; 78: 580–92. 27 World Health Organization. Complications of abortion. http://www. l=15&codcch=418 (accessed July 11, 2006). 28 Glenc F. Induced abortion—a historical outline. Pol Tyg Lek 1974; 29: 1957–58 (in Polish). 29 Ugboma HA, Akani CI. Abdominal massage: another cause of maternal mortality. Niger J Med 2004; 13: 259–62. 30 Polgar S, Fried ES. The bad old days: clandestine abortions among the poor in New York City before liberalization of the abortion law. Fam Plann Perspect 1976; 8: 125–7. 31 Burnhill MS. Treatment of women who have undergone chemically induced abortions. J Reprod Med 1985; 30: 610–14. 32 O’Donnell RP . Vesicovaginal fi stula produced by potassium permanganate. Obstet Gynecol 1954; 4: 122–23. 33 Berer M. National laws and unsafe abortion: the parameters of change. Reprod Health Matters 2004; 12: 1–8. 34 Center for Reproductive Rights. The world’s abortion laws 2005 poster. (accessed July 5, 2006). 35 Center for Reproductive Rights. Abortion and the law: ten years of reform. (accessed July 5, 2006). 36 Nunes FE, Delph YM. Making abortion law reform work: steps and slips in Guyana. Reprod Health Matters 1997; 9: 66–76. 37 Women’s Link Worldwide. Colombia’s highest court rules in favor of easing one of the world’s most restrictive abortion laws. http:// (accessed July 5, 2006). 38 Hessini L. Global progress in abortion advocacy and policy: an assessment of the decade since ICPD. Reprod Health Matters 2005; 13: 88–100. 39 Catholic Online. Colombian bishops threaten civil disobedience, excommunication in wake of new abortion law. http://www. (accessed July 10, 2006). 40 Hitt J. Pro-life nation. magazine/09abortion.html?ei=5070&en=4eb39005afdd039a&ex=115 2331200&pagewanted=print (accessed July 6, 2006). 41 Briozzo L, Rodriguez F, Leon I, Vidiella G, Ferreiro G, Pons JE. unsafe abortion in Uruguay. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 85: 70–73. 42 David HP. Abortion in Europe, 1920–91: a public health perspective. Stud Fam Plann 1992; 23: 1–22. 43 Johnson BR, Horga M, Fajans P. A strategic assessment of abortion and contraception in Romania. Reprod Health Matters 2004; 12: 184–94. 44 Boonstra H, Gold R, Richard C, Finer L. Abortion in women’s lives. (accessed July 5, 2006). 45 Center for Reproductive Rights. Fourteen Nepalese women freed for abortion-related off enses; others continue to languish in prison. (accessed July 10, 2006). 46 United Nations. Abortion policies: a global review. Vol. III: Oman to Zimbabwe. New York: United Nations, Population Division, 2002. 47 Hirve SS. Abortion law, policy and services in India: a critical review. Reprod Health Matters 2004; 12: 114–21. 48 Garcia SG, Tatum C, Becker D, Swanson KA, Lockwood K, Ellertson C. Policy implications of a national public opinion survey on abortion in Mexico. Reprod Health Matters 2004; 12: 65–74. 49 Ganatra B, Hirve S. Induced abortions among adolescent women in rural Maharashtra, India. Reprod Health Matters 2002; 10: 76–85. 50 Ganatra B. Unsafe abortion in South and South-East Asia: a review of the evidence. In: Warriner IK, Shah IH, eds. Preventing unsafe abortion and its consequences: priorities for research and action. New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006: 151–86. 51 Gallo MF, Gebreselassie H, Victorino MT, Dgedge M, Jamisse L, Bique C. An assessment of abortion services in public health facilities in Mozambique: women’s and providers’ perspectives. Reprod Health Matters 2004; 12: 218–26. 52 Fauveau V, Blanchet T. Deaths from injuries and induced abortion among rural Bangladeshi women. Soc Sci Med 1989; 29: 1121–27. 53 Huntington D, Nawar L, Hassan EO, Youssed H, Abdel-Tawab N. The postabortion caseload in Egyptian hospitals: a descriptive study. Int Fam Plann Perspect 1998; 24: 25–31. 54 Mpangile GS, Leshabari MT, Kihwele DJ. Induced abortion in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: the plight of adolescents. In: Mundigo AI, Indriso C, Eds. Abortion in the developing world. New Delhi: World Health Organization, 1999: 387–403. 55 Kay BJ, Katzenellenbogen J, Fawcus S, Abdool Karim S. An analysis of the cost of incomplete abortion to the public health sector in South Africa—1994. S Afr Med J 1997; 87: 442–47. 56 Adewole IF, Oye-Adeniran BA, Iwere N, Oladokun A, Gbadegesin A. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy-the economic implications in Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 22: 436–37. 57 Billings DL, Benson J. Postabortion care in Latin America: policy and service recommendations from a decade of operations research. Health Policy Plan 2005; 20: 158–66. 58 Johnson BR, Benson J, Bradley J, Rabago Ordonez A. Costs and resource utilization for the treatment of incomplete abortion in Kenya and Mexico. Soc Sci Med 1993; 36: 1443–53. 59 Vlassoff M, Singh S, Darroch JE, Carbone E, Bernstein S. Assessing costs and benefi ts of sexual and reproductive health interventions. Occasional report No. 11. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2004. 60 Safe Motherhood Inter-Agency Group. Maternal health: a vital social and economic investment. and_fi gures/good_maternal_health.htm (accessed July 6, 2006). 61 Singh S, Darroch JE, Vlassoff M, Nadeau J. Adding it up. The benefi ts of investing in sexual and reproductive health care. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2003. 62 Last J, Spasoff RA, Harris SS, Thuriaux MC, eds. A dictionary of epidemiology. Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Series Vol 368 November 25, 2006 1919 63 Marston C, Cleland J. Relationships between contraception and abortion: a review of the evidence. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2003; 29: 6–13. 64 New survey fi ndings. The reproductive revolution continues. Popul Rep M 2003; 17: 1–42. 65 Shah IH. The advance of the contraceptive revolution. World Health Stat Q 1994; 47: 9–15. 66 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Aff airs PD. World contraceptive use 2003. publications/contraceptive2003/wcu2003.htm (accessed July 6, 2006). 67 World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003. 68 Ross JA, Winfrey WL. Unmet need for contraception in the developing world and the former Soviet Union: an updated estimate. Int Fam Plann Perspect 2002; 28: 138–43. 69 Langer A, Garcia-Barros C, Heimburger A, et al. Improving postabortion care with limited resources in a public hospital in Oaxaca, Mexico. In: Huntington D, Piet-Pelon NJ, eds. Post-abortion care: lessons from operations research. New York, NY: Population Council, 1999. 70 Solo J, Billings DL, Aloo-Obunga C, Ominde A, Makumi M. Creating linkages between incomplete abortion treatment and family planning services in Kenya. Stud Fam Plann 1999; 30: 17–27. 71 Billings DL, Fuentes Velasquez J, Perez-Cuevas R. Comparing the quality of three models of postabortion care in public hospitals in Mexico city. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2003; 29: 112–20. 72 Johnson BR, Ndhlovu S, Farr SL, Chipato T. Reducing unplanned pregnancy and abortion in Zimbabwe through postabortion contraception. Stud Fam Plann 2002; 33: 195–202. 73 Cates W Jr. Legal abortion: the public health record. Science 1982; 215: 1586–90. 74 Rogo K. Improving technologies to reduce abortion-related morbidity and mortality. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 85 (Suppl 1): S73–82. 75 Iyengar K, Iyengar SD. Elective abortion as a primary health service in rural India: experience with manual vacuum aspiration. Reprod Health Matters 2002; 10: 54–63. 76 Jowett M. Safe Motherhood interventions in low-income countries: an economic justifi cation and evidence of cost eff ectiveness. Health Policy 2000; 53: 201–28. 77 Sibuye MC. Provision of abortion services by midwives in Limpopo Province of South Africa. Afr J Reprod Health 2004; 8: 75–78. 78 Kulier R, Gulmezoglu AM, Hofmeyr GJ, Cheng LN, Campana A. Medical methods for fi rst trimester abortion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; CD002855. 79 Blanchard K, Winikoff B, Ellertson C. Misoprostol used alone for the termination of early pregnancy. A review of the evidence. Contraception 1999; 59: 209–17. 80 Costa SH. Commercial availability of misoprostol and induced abortion in Brazil. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1998; 63 (Suppl 1): S131–39. 81 Coelho HL, Teixeira AC, Santos AP, et al. Misoprostol and illegal abortion in Fortaleza, Brazil. Lancet 1993; 341: 1261–63. 82 Pollack AE, Pine RN. Opening a door to safe abortion: international perspectives on medical abortifacient use. J Am Med Womens Assoc 2000; 55: 186–88. 83 Faundes A, Santos LC, Carvalho M, Gras C. Post-abortion complications after interruption of pregnancy with misoprostol. Adv Contracept 1996; 12: 1–9. 84 Ferrando D. El aborto clandestino en el Peru: Hechos y cifras. Lima, Peru: Flora Tristan and Pathfi nder International, 2002. 85 Alan Guttmacher Institute. Aborto clandestino: una realidad latinoamericana. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1994. 86 Zhang J, Gilles JM, Barnhart K, Creinin MD, Westhoff C, Frederick MM. A comparison of medical management with misoprostol and surgical management for early pregnancy failure. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 761–69. 87 Verkuyl DA, Crowther CA. Suction v. conventional curettage in incomplete abortion. A randomised controlled trial. S Afr Med J 1993; 83: 13–15. 88 Forna F, Gulmezoglu AM. Surgical procedures to evacuate incomplete abortion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; CD001993. 89 Kestler E, Valencia L, Del Valle V, Silva A. Scaling up post-abortion care in Guatemala: initial successes at national level. Reprod Health Matters 2006; 14: 138–47. 90 Kwast BE, Rochat RW, Kidane-Mariam W. Maternal mortality in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Stud Fam Plann 1986; 17: 288–301. 91 Tesfaye S, Fetters T, Clark KA, McNaughton HL. Expanding our reach: an evaluation of the availability and quality of postabortion care services in three regions in Ethiopia between 2000 and 2004. Chapel Hill, NC: Ipas, 2006. 92 Grimes DA. Unsafe abortion: the silent scourge. Br Med Bull 2003; 67: 99–113. 93 Grimes DA. Reducing the complications of unsafe abortion: the role of medical technology. In: Warriner IK, Shah IH, eds. Preventing unsafe abortion and its consequences. Priorities for research and action. New York: The Guttmacher Institute, 2006: 73–91. 94 WHO. Twentieth world health assembly resolution 20.14: health aspects of population dynamics. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1967. 95 UNFPA. Programme of action of the International Conference on Population and Development, paragraph 8.25. http://www.unfpa. org/icpd/icpd_poa.htm#ch8c (accessed July 5, 2006). 96 UN. Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, 4–15 September, 1995. New York: United Nations, 1995. 97 UNFPA. Key actions for the further programme of action of the International Conference on Population and Development, adopted by the twenty-fi rst special session of the General Assembly, New York, June 30–July 2, 1999. New York: UNFPA, 1999. 98 Okonofua FE, Onwudiegwu U, Odutayo R. Pregnancy outcome after illegal induced abortion in Nigeria: a retrospective controlled historical study. Afr J Med Med Sci 1994; 23: 165–69. 99 Crane BB, Dusenberry J. Power and politics in international funding for reproductive health: the US Global Gag Rule. Reprod Health Matters 2004; 12: 128–37. 100 UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. General recommendation 24: women and health (20th session), paragraph 31(c). cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm#recom24 (accessed July 5, 2006). 101 UN Human Rights Committee. View of the Human Rights Committee under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 85th session, document CCPR/C/85/D/1153/2003, Nov 17, 2005. Geneva: United Nations, 2005. 102 Center for Reproductive Rights. Mexico admits responsibility for denying child rape victim’s rights. http://www.reproductiverights. org/pr_06_0308MexicoPaulina.html (accessed July 5, 2006). 103 Center for Reproductive Rights. The protocol on the rights of women in Africa: an instrument for advancing sexual and reproductive rights. bp_africa.pdf (accessed July 5, 2006). 104 Stephenson P, Wagner M, Badea M, Serbanescu F. Commentary: the public health consequences of restricted induced abortion— lessons from Romania. Am J Public Health 1992; 82: 1328–31. 105 Fathalla MF. Human rights aspects of safe motherhood. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 20: 409–19 106 Oye-Adeniran BA, Umoh AV, Nnatu SN. Complications of unsafe abortion: a case study and the need for abortion law reform in Nigeria. Reprod Health Matters 2002; 10: 18–21. Unsafe abortion: the preventable pandemic Introduction Worldwide burden Deaths from unsafe abortion Morbidity from unsafe abortion Traditional methods Legal status of abortion Effect of law on health Costs of unsafe abortion Indirect costs Levels of prevention The public health imperative Discussion Acknowledgments References

View the publication

Looking for other reproductive health publications?

The Supplies Information Database (SID) is an online reference library with more than 2000 records on the status of reproductive health supplies. The library includes studies, assessments and other publications dating back to 1986, many of which are no longer available even in their country of origin. Explore the database here.

You are currently offline. Some pages or content may fail to load.