Impacts of the Global Gag Rule on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the Global South: A scoping review

The Global Gag Rule is a United States policy that blocks global health funding to foreign non-governmental organisations if they engage in abortion-related activities. It has been implemented by every Republican administration since 1984 and remains in operation at the time of writing in its most stringent and extensive form. It has been criticised for its implications for women’s bodily autonomy, its censorship of non-governmental organisations and health professionals, and for its impact on the health of populations in affected countries. To capture the effects of the policy to date, we conducted a scoping review in April 2020. Forty-eight articles met our eligibility criteria, and were analysed thematically, noting the effects on: the operations of non-governmental organisations; maternal health; sexually transmitted infections; marginalised groups; reproductive rights. We found that the policy increased the abortion rate and had a negative impact on maternal health, STIs, and the health of marginalised groups. We conclude that the policy amounts to the neocolonial co-optation of sexual and reproductive health in the Global South to advance an ideological agenda in the Global North. We urge that the policy be repealed as part of the broader project of protecting and decolonising sexual and reproductive health globally

Medicine is patriarchal, but alternative medicine is not the answer

Women are over-represented within alternative medicine, both as consumers and as service providers. In this paper, I show that the appeal of alternative medicine to women relates to the neglect of women’s health needs within scientific medicine. This is concerning because alternative medicine is severely limited in its therapeutic effects; therefore, those who choose alternative therapies are liable to experience inadequate healthcare. I argue that while many patients seek greater autonomy in alternative medicine, the absence of an evidence base and plausible mechanisms of action leaves patients unable to realize meaningful autonomy. This seems morally troubling, especially given that the neglect of women’s needs within scientific medicine seems to contribute to preferences for alternative medicine. I conclude that the liberatory credentials of alternative medicine should be questioned and make recommendations to render scientific medicine better able to meet the needs of typical alternative medicine consumers

Engendering harm: a critique of sex selection for 'family balancing'

The most benign rationale for sex-selection is deemed to be “family balancing.” On this view, provided the sex-distribution of an existing offspring group is “unbalanced,” one may legitimately use reproductive technologies to select the sex of the next child. I present four novel concerns with granting “family balancing” as a justification for sex-selection: (a) families or family subsets should not be subject to medicalization; (b) sex selection for “family balancing” entrenches heteronormativity, inflicting harm in at least three specific ways; (c) the logic of affirmative action is appropriated; (d) the moral mandate of reproductive autonomy is misused. I conclude that the harms caused by “family balancing” are sufficiently substantive to over-ride any claim arising from a supposed right to sex selection as an instantiation of procreative autonomy

The need for a unified ethical stance on child genital cutting

The American College of Nurse-Midwives, American Society for Pain Management Nursing, American Academy of Pediatrics, and other largely US-based medical organizations have argued that at least some forms of non-therapeutic child genital cutting, including routine penile circumcision, are ethically permissible even when performed on non-consenting minors. In support of this view, these organizations have at times appealed to potential health benefits that may follow from removing sexually sensitive, non-diseased tissue from the genitals of such minors. We argue that these appeals to "health benefits" as a way of justifying medically unnecessary child genital cutting practices may have unintended consequences. For example, it may create a "loophole" through which certain forms of female genital cutting-or female genital "mutilation" as it is defined by the World Health Organization-could potentially be legitimized. Moreover, by comparing current dominant Western attitudes toward female genital "mutilation" and so-called intersex genital "normalization" surgeries (i.e. surgeries on children with certain differences of sex development), we show that the concept of health invoked in each case is inconsistent and culturally biased. It is time for Western healthcare organizations-including the American College of Nurse-Midwives, American Society for Pain Management Nursing, American Academy of Pediatrics, and World Health Organization-to adopt a more consistent concept of health and a unified ethical stance when it comes to child genital cutting practices

A new Tuskegee? unethical human experimentation and Western neocolonialism in the mass circumcision of African men

Campaigns to circumcise millions of boys and men to reduce HIV transmission are being conducted throughout eastern and southern Africa, recommended by the World Health Organization and implemented by the United States government and Western NGOs. In the United States, proposals to mass-circumcise African and African American men are longstanding, and have historically relied on racist beliefs and stereotypes. The present campaigns were started in haste, without adequate contextual research, and the manner in which they have been carried out implies troubling assumptions about culture, health, and sexuality in Africa, as well as a failure to properly consider the economic determinants of HIV prevalence. This critical appraisal examines the history and politics of these circumcision campaigns while highlighting the relevance of race and colonialism. It argues that the "circumcision solution" to African HIV epidemics has more to do with cultural imperialism than with sound health policy, and concludes that African communities need a means of robust representation within the regime

Fiber based optical trapping of aerosols

We present the use of optical fibers to form a counter-propagating optical trap as a means of manipulating both solid and liquid aerosols. We explore the use of single and multimode fibers to achieve trapping of various particles in air, present the trapping properties of the different fiber types and compare the observed trends to those predicted by theory. Using fibers, we are able to hold suspended particles for extended periods of time and to precisely manipulate them over distances of several hundred microns. We discuss the difficulties and advantages of each fiber configuration and conclude with a demonstration that fiber based trapping offers a good candidate for studying optical binding in air. (c) 2008 Optical Society of America.</p