“I was obligated to accept”: A qualitative exploration of contraceptive coercion

Leigh Senderowicz

Social Science & Medicine, 2019, vol. 239, issue C

Abstract: Despite narratives about empowering women through contraception, global family planning programs are evaluated primarily by their ability to increase contraceptive uptake and reduce fertility in the developing world. Some scholars have raised concerns that this emphasis on fertility reduction and contraceptive uptake may contribute to situations where women are coerced into adopting contraceptive services they do not fully understand or want. Yet surprisingly little data have been collected to investigate whether such coercion exists or how it might manifest. In-depth interviews with 49 women of reproductive age in a sub-Saharan African country begin to fill this knowledge gap. Respondents reported a range of non-autonomous experiences including biased or directive counseling, dramatically limited contraceptive method mix, scare tactics, provision of false medical information, refusal to remove provider-dependent methods, and the non-consented provision of long-acting methods. The results show that, rather than a binary outcome, coercion sits on a spectrum and need not involve overt force or violence, but can also result from more quotidian limits to free, full, and informed choice. The study finds that global family planning policies and discourses do appear to incentivize coercive practices. It also calls into question the central role of intentionality, by demonstrating how coercion can arise from structural causes as well as interpersonal ones. By showing how contraceptive autonomy may be limited even by providers working in good faith, these results argue for an end to the instrumentalization of women's bodies, and for a radical reconceptualization of family planning goals and measurements to focus exclusively on reproductive health, rights and justice.

Keywords: Sub-Saharan Africa; Family planning; Contraception; Reproductive health; Reproductive rights; Coercion; Autonomy; Global health (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953619305258
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:socmed:v:239:y:2019:i:c:s0277953619305258

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
http://www.elsevier. ... _01_ooc_1&version=01

DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112531

Access Statistics for this article

Social Science & Medicine is currently edited by Ichiro (I.) Kawachi and S.V. (S.V.) Subramanian

More articles in Social Science & Medicine from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().